Christ in the Cretaceous

[robrecht]

That sounds way more controversial, but seems to be the only explanation that makes sense given the impossibility of perfection.

I googled the phrase, and the only exact match I got was the fifth one down, which seems kind of short and suspect (being an EWTN link).

http://www.ewtn.com/v/experts/showme...=&Pgnu=&recnu=

I think this might be the original lay article referred to in your EWTN Q&A link:

http://www.americancatholic.org/mess...1/feature1.asp

It's not really controversial among theologians, just one option among others. Over the course of the 20th century, I think it probably became the predominant view among Catholic academic theologians. It had already become popular among some liberal Protestant theologians because of its ability to be integrated with the theory of evolution. It is an older view than the Augustinian/Thomistic view that came to dominate in the West, especially among Protestants who emphasize penal substitution atonement soteriology. It was always a popular view among Franciscan theologians (eg, Duns Scotus) and had earlier defenders in addition to Irenaeus, (eg,Theophilus of Antioch, Clement of Alexandria, Basil, the Gregories of Nyssa and Nazianzus, Maximus the Confessor).

[whag]

I think this might be the original lay article referred to in your EWTN Q&A link:

http://www.americancatholic.org/mess...1/feature1.asp

It's not really controversial among theologians, just one option among others. Over the course of the 20th century, I think it probably became the predominant view among Catholic academic theologians. It had already become popular among some liberal Protestant theologians because of its ability to be integrated with the theory of evolution. It is an older view than the Augustinian/Thomistic view that came to dominate in the West, especially among Protestants who emphasize penal substitution atonement soteriology. It was always a popular view among Franciscan theologians (eg, Duns Scotus) and had earlier defenders in addition to Irenaeus, (eg,Theophilus of Antioch, Clement of Alexandria, Basil, the Gregories of Nyssa and Nazianzus, Maximus the Confessor).

Thanks. This is very interesting. Reading it now.

I should have specified this would be very controversial view among moderate-to-conservative Christians (lay believers and pastors, not degreed theologians). To some of the early church fathers (who had more freedom to express wild ideas during Christianity's infancy) and, of course, today's more liberal theologians, I agree, this wasn't/isn't controversial at all. It makes more sense than more traditional views about the incarnation.

[Qoheleth]

Forgive me for saying so, but it appears that your concept of God and creation is way too small.

Maybe could you elaborate? For me, I feel the exact opposite is true. My problem right now is that my concept of Creation & God is too large for what Yahweh & the Biblical narrative focuses on. That's not to say I have some super enlightened state that transcends 4,000 years of scripture...far far from it. I just simply don't see the Calvary Cross in the Orion Nebula, or in any of the lifeforms possibly inhabiting the oceans under Europa, or in the Devonian period, or in black holes, in dark matter, in Higgs-Bosons or what have you....It's an amazingly, impossibly vast & complex world out there...and to think that it all revolves around one event of infinitely small importance (from a secular standpoint) is kind of a tough pill to swallow.

But I could be terribly horribly wrong and in reality every single Higgs-Boson was constructed through Jesus just like John 1 says. Aside from special revelation, how do I make my concept of Christ larger?

[whag]

Aside from special revelation, how do I make my concept of Christ larger?

Maybe explore the idea that the incarnation wasn't a response to sin but the ultimate goal of the universe from the outset. Robrecht pointed me to this idea, and it makes a lot more sense. You're not alone in seeing the smallness of the more traditional view that the incarnated Jesus was a reaction to a mythical fall. If that idea is bugging you as a believer (because it seems small and doesn't make much sense to you), you're not alone.

[whag]

Forgive me for saying so, but it appears that your concept of God and creation is way too small.

I see his point, though. Assigning Jesus to the role of fixer of a specific problem in a specific corner of the galaxy seems to me rather puny.

[Scrawly]

A few weeks back, our pastor gave a sermon on the Power & Glory of God. In it he used the passage in Psalms 19 saying that the heavens are declaring the Glory of God. He supplemented it by showing a vast array of Hubble Space Telescope images, from nebulae to the Deep Field to the new awesome ultra Hi-Res photo of the Andromeda Galaxy. It is awe-inspiring to say the least, and does conjure up a sense of the Divine.

He then tied it up into John 1, saying that all things were created through Christ. While most went away firmly refreshed in faith and wonder in God, I was nonplussed. After much reflection I found out why...Christianity is much too small a worldview to contain the vastness of the natural world. The sense of immense awe & wonder instantly vanishes when I insert a theology that restricts itself to a tiny fraction of a moment in a tiny fraction of a land in an incalculably tiny portion of the Universe. Or in other words, I simply fail to find Christ in the Cretaceous.

We scoffed at Copernicus when he dared to suggest that the Earth was not the center of the Universe, but 500 years later we still really haven't gotten away from that philosophy. Yes we realize that technically the Earth revolves around Sol, but theologically we still hold that everything in the quintillions of suns & planets revolves around something that happened in a few hundred square miles. Given what we know about how the natural world works, there is almost certainly other life out there, potentially with their own moral dilemmas. How do you reconcile this paradox? I mean this as an open-ended question to get answers, not to scoff at believers.

1) Have you inserted Psalm 8 into your theology - specifically verse 3-4: "When I consider your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place, what is mankind that you are mindful of them, human beings that you care for them?"

2) I don't hold to a theological position that states: "everything in the quintillions of suns & planets revolves around something that happened in a few hundred square miles." Do I believe that the cosmos is significant to God? Yes. Do I know why or how? No. I don't think this highlights that the Christian worldview is too small, rather, it highlights that the Christian worldview contains mystery - wondrous and awe-inspiring mystery as the Psalmist declares indeed.

3) There may well in fact be other life forms out there, I'm OK with that and think it's highly likely. However, are there other beings out there made in the image of God? I think that may be unique to humans on planet earth, and perhaps that's a key to answering the Psalmist's question.

[shunyadragon]

I think this might be the original lay article referred to in your EWTN Q&A link:

http://www.americancatholic.org/mess...1/feature1.asp

It's not really controversial among theologians, just one option among others. Over the course of the 20th century, I think it probably became the predominant view among Catholic academic theologians. It had already become popular among some liberal Protestant theologians because of its ability to be integrated with the theory of evolution. It is an older view than the Augustinian/Thomistic view that came to dominate in the West, especially among Protestants who emphasize penal substitution atonement soteriology. It was always a popular view among Franciscan theologians (eg, Duns Scotus) and had earlier defenders in addition to Irenaeus, (eg,Theophilus of Antioch, Clement of Alexandria, Basil, the Gregories of Nyssa and Nazianzus, Maximus the Confessor).

I believe your overstating the broad acceptance of the belief in the 'alternate proposals' for the concept of 'a literal Adam, Original Sin and the Fall' today or at the time of the church fathers, Yes, alternate beliefs did and do exist today, but not as prevalent as you state. Some church fathers and theologians proposed parallel interpretations and analogous interpretations, but not alternate interpretations.

Up front I question your reference to Irenaeus as believing in a definitive alternate view to the Fall and Original Sin. It is possible I missed something he wrote, but I believe he proposed a traditional belief in Adam, the Fall and Original Sin. I believe Irenaeus compared the Original Sin as like a rebellious act of a child against God's authority, but still believed in a literal Adam and Eve, the Fall and Original Sin.

[robrecht]

I believe your overstating the broad acceptance of the belief in the 'alternate proposals' for the concept of 'a literal Adam, Original Sin and the Fall' today or at the time of the church fathers, Yes, alternate beliefs did and do exist today, but not as prevalent as you state. Some church fathers and theologians proposed parallel interpretations and analogous interpretations, but not alternate interpretations.

Up front I question your reference to Irenaeus as believing in a definitive alternate view to the Fall and Original Sin. It is possible I missed something he wrote, but I believe he proposed a traditional belief in Adam, the Fall and Original Sin. I believe Irenaeus compared the Original Sin as like a rebellious act of a child against God's authority, but still believed in a literal Adam and Eve, the Fall and Original Sin.

Seems like you misunderstood something I said.

[Cerebrum123]

YOU at least should know.
Hey, lighten up, I'm just making it look like I could give the ultimate answer to the "meaning" (interesting pun in this regard) except that mossrose is too "mean" to let me.

Thanks for confirming that you are just whining.

[Qoheleth]

Have you ever read C.S. Lewis Space Trilogy? The first book "Out of the Silent Planet" explores the difference between a "fallen world" (Earth) and one that did not (Mars) in purely fictional form of course. Not to spoil it in case you or others reading want to read it...Earth is the "Silent Planet" ...and for a reason. In fact, I need to dig my old copies out and reread them...

I actually just purchased it a few weeks back, so now I'm quite anxious to start in!

[Qoheleth]

1) Have you inserted Psalm 8 into your theology - specifically verse 3-4: "When I consider your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place, what is mankind that you are mindful of them, human beings that you care for them?"

2) I don't hold to a theological position that states: "everything in the quintillions of suns & planets revolves around something that happened in a few hundred square miles." Do I believe that the cosmos is significant to God? Yes. Do I know why or how? No. I don't think this highlights that the Christian worldview is too small, rather, it highlights that the Christian worldview contains mystery - wondrous and awe-inspiring mystery as the Psalmist declares indeed.

3) There may well in fact be other life forms out there, I'm OK with that and think it's highly likely. However, are there other beings out there made in the image of God? I think that may be unique to humans on planet earth, and perhaps that's a key to answering the Psalmist's question.

Yes that is a good passage I had not considered. Also similar I suppose is Job 38-40 where God questions Job on his knowledge of Creation. Like Job I surely am "darkening counsel with words without knowledge", and certainly I would fall silent and repent in sackcloth and ashes were I to receive a revelation such as Job did.

[Qoheleth]

Maybe explore the idea that the incarnation wasn't a response to sin but the ultimate goal of the universe from the outset. Robrecht pointed me to this idea, and it makes a lot more sense. You're not alone in seeing the smallness of the more traditional view that the incarnated Jesus was a reaction to a mythical fall. If that idea is bugging you as a believer (because it seems small and doesn't make much sense to you), you're not alone.

I can appreciate that we can extend Christ's redemption to the cosmos, but honestly it just feels hedged in. I don't see anywhere in scripture anyway where this seems to be proclaimed. The entirety of the NT point to Christ's sacrifice as a propitiation for sins, to restore our relationship with God. Creation still suffers (Romans 8:22) and in fact will be completely and utterly destroyed in the judgment. I don't see redemption in that.

[firstfloor]

[whag]

I can appreciate that we can extend Christ's redemption to the cosmos, but honestly it just feels hedged in. I don't see anywhere in scripture anyway where this seems to be proclaimed. The entirety of the NT point to Christ's sacrifice as a propitiation for sins, to restore our relationship with God. Creation still suffers (Romans 8:22) and in fact will be completely and utterly destroyed in the judgment. I don't see redemption in that.

But if that was written at a time when the author had no idea of the vastness and fecundity of the universe, why believe it to mean that God reboots physical reality on account of the infinitesimally small activities on earth?

[robrecht]

I can appreciate that we can extend Christ's redemption to the cosmos, but honestly it just feels hedged in. I don't see anywhere in scripture anyway where this seems to be proclaimed. The entirety of the NT point to Christ's sacrifice as a propitiation for sins, to restore our relationship with God. Creation still suffers (Romans 8:22) and in fact will be completely and utterly destroyed in the judgment. I don't see redemption in that.

'Christ's sacrifice as a propitiation for sin' is actually a rather small part of Scripture, which was an early attempt to make sense of Jesus' death in a Jewish context of passover and temple animal and other sacrifices. In medieval times, this developed into a more elaborate theology of atonement, which made sense in that culture, but other theological theories are also available, some more rational than others. The fundamental idea of redemption is essentially liberation, which has as many different faces as there are peoples and communities, families and socities in need of liberation. It is ultimately up to us to decide what liberation means in this world and how much we strive to make it a beginning or reflection of the world to come. Jesus revitalized the Jewish faith and theology of his day in some ways that we still have not yet incorporated into our communal lives very well. We've barely made a start at trying to understand and put into practice what he taught. Until we've done that, it seems a bit premature to consider it obsolete, and once we start doing that, we will continue to imagine new ways to develop his vision in new contexts.