Reviews for Creation Made Free

The average rating for Creation Made Free based on 2 reviews is 5 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2014-02-07 00:00:00 Jesse Blue The essays in Creation made free were well written and some of them were a thrill to read. It only took me 11 days to get through the book, when it typically takes me months to finish what I start. This goes to show how interesting I found it all. There was, however, a number of essayist that I disagreed with, sometimes rather strongly, nevertheless, I liked reading their novel ideas and different perspectives. I wrote a brief summery and my reaction to the first 4 essays in the book and also a summery of part of a chapter that was towards the end of the book, that I found really good. "The Earth is Not a Planet" by Karen Winslow Karen Winslow, makes a case that the author of Genesis only meant that "in the beginning God created the GROUND and the SKY". She thinks it's bad hermeneutics to think the author meant heavens (the universe) and the earth (our planet). She continued to imply that everyone in the ancient world thought the earth was flat, so they couldn't have even grasp the idea of "earth" meaning anything other than dirt on the a flat disk resting upon pillars. But I found it irksome that she didn't Isaiah 40:22 "He who sits above the circle of the earth." But I know it could be said circle doesn't necessarily mean spherical. But I recently read Athanagoras who wrote to the Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius saying "For if the world, being made spherical, is confined within the circles of heaven, and the Creator of the world is above the things created" Notice that Athanagoras is calling the spheres in the heavens "circles." Here we have someone writing a couple thousand years ago as if it was common knowledge that the earth was spherical, and he also uses circle and spherical interchangeably. Next, Winslow doesn't think God would confuse these early people with modern science. Why would God fill the text with things that would be nonsense to the readers for 1000s of years? So I suppose Winslow is implying Genesis merely reflects the ancient erroneous concept of reality (the sky being a dome with stars stuck in it), but it also contains some theological truth that God inspired (God is the creator for example). But yeah, I think she may go too far. "An Open Theology Doctrine of Creation and Solution to the Problem of Evil" by T. J Oord Thomas J Oord honestly made me uncomfortable. Many may think I'm way out in left court, and yet Oord toyed with things that caused 'unorthodox me' to squirm. In his essay, he agreed with those who propose the universe to be cyclical; every big bang is followed by a grand crunch, which results in another bang, and everything is repeated every trillion or so years ad infinitum. But each bang produces something slightly different and unique. God, therefore, has always been love, not just because He is a trinity, but because there has always been creatures to love. Oord thinks this needs to be so, because God creating ex nihilo reeks of coercion or something or other. I must say that whatever problem he is trying to address i didn't really get. He then went on to say, how the common view, that in giving man freedom, He self-limited himself, fails to solve the problem of evil. Oord thinks the only way to show God is not culpable for evil, is to agree with the process theologians, who say God truly can't stop genuine evil. But he disagrees with Process theology concerning the "why" behind God's inability. Oord thinks the reason is because God's nature is this self-sacrificial love and the nature of love can't coerce nor intervene (or something else, I had a hard time following him here). So yeah, if I understand right, just as God can't lie, God can't interfere with humans freedom because His nature is love. But yeah, I could have read him wrong. Oord said his view doesn't pose a problem for God acting in our world, doing miracles and raising Jesus. But sadly Oord didn't have space to defend this claim in his essay. But I find a problem with Oord's solution, for it seems to me that God directly snuffs people out in the bible. So it seems for example, that with the hijackers on 9/11 that God could have zapped one dead while boarding the plane. Or hell, open up the ground to swallow one alive, like with the Israelites. Oord says God can work miracles, why not cause an engine failure on one of the planes Hitler ways flying on before WWII? I think it is obvious in scripture that God occasionally does intervene, But it's also clear from biblical history that this is the exception rather than the rule. The problem with Oord's theory, is it leaves no room for the exceptions to the rule. Scripture I fear shows God does occasionally step into history and prevent evil (making everything bloody complicated, mysterious and messy). So yeah, though I do kind of see the problem Oord wants to address, I think his solution fails. I feel forced at the moment to stick with C.S Lewis' freewill argument and analogy of the chess player in his book "Problem of Pain". Anne Case-Winters, in her essay that connected rather well with Oords, argued for Panentheim and that Divine intervention cannot be allowed, for not only does this not concord with science, but it makes God culpable for evil. But she still wants to think that God is somehow with us in our world and she finds process theology to show us how God is present and "active" in the cosmos. God to her is the Ground of all order, and the Ground of all novelty. I get the impression she doesn't think God himself can create or do much of anything (If God merely wiggled a finger it would mess up the cosmic order in her mind), but since He is the ground of novelty, God is why creation creates itself and why people can create. For her the incarnation of Christ, shows us the reality of the situation, God has always been incarnate in the universe (and was incarnate in the infinite amount of universes that went before the present one). The Cosmos is God's body and just as our brain though distinct from the body, can't really do much without a body, so it is for God. She thinks God cannot coerce or directly cause anything, all he can do is "lure" creation in a certain direction, and subtly influence it somewhat. She thinks this solves the problem of evil, but I'd say only at the cost of multiplies other problems. For one, she agrees with scientist that the universe is a causally closed system, which is the bed-rock of determinism (is she a "freewill theist or not?). Next, she doesn't even spend a moment on what she does with the bible, she may have "solved" the problem of evil, but what does one do with the scriptural portrayal of God? I fear the God of Whitehead doesn't fit well with the active God of the Hebrew bible, I don't see how she leaves room at all for any sort of miracle or special divine activity, for if God can actually do anything, this makes him culpable for everything he doesn't do. If God is merely some presence and lure towards the good, what is the point of prayer? He already is in all things luring it towards the good, so why pray? I don't necessarily have a problem with her Panentheism or her thoughts on how God interacts in the world, it may indeed be one of the ways that God interacts with the world. I just don't think God can be reduced to this. I think she goes way to far in making God into some abstract positive force and she (to me) completely removes the personal characteristics of God. I imagine if she read this, she say I am misunderstanding what she is saying. Maybe I am and i am also reacting to strongly. But yeah, this is how it all struck me. I think Gregory Boyd's reflections in "Satan and the Problem of Evil" are much more sound. Boyd proposes Chaos and complexity theory as a way to move the mystery from God's character and what God allows, to the mysteries of the unfathomable complexities of the world we live in. "The (Brief) Openness Debate in Islamic Theology" by Michael Lodahl Lodahl's essay was quite fascinating. Back in the 10h century there were some Muslims called "Mu'tazilites" that placed emphasis on the parts of the Qur'an that spoke of threats of punishment and promises of reward and other passages that implied human responsibility and free-agency. They then interpreted the more fatalistic passages of the Qur'an through this lens of human free-will and responsibility. Ones like Al-Jabbar went so far to say God knew perfectly the past and the present and His knowledge was sufficient for the future, but the future merely was contingencies. They taught that the Qur'an was a creation, not co-eternal with God and that it had to be interpreted, they also held to the idea that God created a rational world governed by reliable natural laws. Sadly, (partly due to the Mu'tazilites bad politics) the traditional fatalist won in the end, The Islamic theologians that proposed that man had no freedom, that Allah caused every thought and action and that whatever Allah does is automatically "good" merely because he did it, became the dominate view. They taught that fire doesn't burn because that is it's nature to do so, but because God willed it. They embraced a view of meticulous sovereignty that elapsed human freedom and responsibility and did away with any rational grounding for science and reason. This is likely one of the reasons the Islamic world didn't produce much at all in the scientific arena thereafter. And my word, it really is kind of eerie how much the Calvinistic concept of God's sovereignty, coincides with the traditional Islamic theology. I did like how Lodehl reflected towards the end of his essay how much the orthodox view of the Incarnation fits so well within open theism. What does this have to do with the essay on openness in Islamic theology, read it and you'll see. "Beyond the Chess Master Analogy: Game Theory and Divine Providence" by Alan Rhoda. Rhoda first showed the inherent weakness of the Chess Master analogy when used to describe God's Providences and then shows how "Game theory" works much better. And I must agree with him. It was a thrilling essay. Rhoda pointed out this verse: "At one moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to uproot, to pull down, or to destroy it; if that nation against which I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent concerning the calamity I planned to bring on it. Or at another moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to build up or to plant it; if it does evil in My sight by not obeying My voice, then I will think better of the good with which I had promised to bless it." -Jeremiah 18:7-10 (NASB) and then went on to mention how throughout the Old Testament, we see this dynamic interaction at work. The people rebel, God punishes them, they repent, God blesses them, they rebel, etc... We can reflect on this in light of what game theory calls the "theory of moves" The players: God and Israel The possible moves: obey(Israel)/bless(God), disobey(Israel)/bless(God), disobey(Israel)/punish(God) and obey(Israel)/punish(God). Lets say Israel wants to disobey, but they also want to be blessed. So they rebel, in hopes that the disobey/bless move will work. But God who is just, will not have it, so he responds with chastising them. So they then move to obey/punish and God responds by switching to obey/bless. But still they want to disobey, so taking his blessings for granted, they move to disobedience, hoping God will continue blessing them, but again, God changes course and reverts back to chastisement and thus the cycle continues. But it doesn't need to be a zero sum game. If Israel changes their opinion from wanting to disobey, to wanting to obey, then this will result in a win-win. God gets what he wants and they get what they want. Now if Israel doesn't resort to this, and insist in wanting to live in disobedience. Then as in the game of "Chicken" God may hold out longer, hoping for repentance before he has to bring judgment on a nation. Or as in the game of "Boxing" he may seek to win the match by outlasting his opponent. God has his reasons for his invention or his holding back. Now in light of game theory. Lets consider some of the possible reasons God chose to create the kind of world he did.We can do this by considering several assumptions that can be made in light of what makes a game intrinsically worth playing. These are strategic complexity, artistic elegance, significant and diverse outcomes, and uncertain outcomes. I understand that it is distasteful to think of God's creation, to be a "game", but for the sake of the analogy, consider the following. STRATEGIC COMPLEXITY We can appreciate the strategic complexity of chess, in comparison to a game like tic-tac-toe. It makes sense that God would want to create a "game" that is sufficiently complex, and yet still He'd want to place limits upon the complexity, so finite players (humans) can have a significant part. He chose a complex game of a cosmic scale over an enormous span of time, involving a vast amount of free and rational players. God chose a "game" that could engage and maintain people's interest and one in which He could communicate his grander, intelligence, wisdom and love. ARTISTIC ELEGANCE "The best games (for us) are not merely strategically complex, but they also have an elegant, aesthetically pleasing sort of complexity. Chess, for example, is an elegant game. It is structured in a coherent and balanced manner that allows for a high degree of strategic and tactical creativity. When well-played, it is an art form. In games involving teams, such as soccer or basketball or an orchestral production, there can be artistry not only in the individual performances of a Pelé, a Michael Jordan, or a Yo-Yo Ma, but also in the coordination of the team or group as a whole. As the one who has created us and given us our basic aesthetic sensibilities, it is reasonable to expect that God would prefer to play a Creation Game that has a fundamental elegance to it. Again, this corresponds well to the world as we know it from the natural sciences. The fine-tuning of the cosmos, the elegant simplicity of the fundamental physical equations, and the natural beauty of the Earth all testify to the idea that God values artistic elegance" -Alan Rhoda SIGNIFICANT AND DIVERSE OUTCOMES If the choices and actions of the players don't matter, why would one want to play the game? Games that offer a significant outcome are the ones worth playing. The stakes of this game are huge: For humans its either everlasting life in relationship with God, or death. For God, it's either getting what He wants "A love relationship with free-creatures" or his being deeply grieved their rebellion and the great harm they cause during their life-spans. God created a world in which free actions could result in significant good, or prevent genuine evil, or cause horrific destruction. He was even willing to enter in, humble himself and die on the cross. It seems He chose to play a very significant game indeed. UNCERTAIN OUTCOMES Games that are certain tend to be boring. But games that are partially uncertain (containing some chance), are indeed somewhat risky, but also ones in which skill makes a difference. It seems God created this kind of world, with genuinely free creatures. Though He is infinitely wise and creative and will ultimately bring forth His purposes, He made a world where people could resist His preferences, and make things mighty complicated. The game is exciting and engaging for God. If one rejects these reasons for why God chose to create the kind of world he did and instead embrace more a classical view, then "God's rationale for playing any sort of Creation Game remains somewhat opaque. According to theological determinists like John Calvin and Jonathan Edwards, God has chosen a risk-free strategy that involves his ordaining what all of the created players will do. But if that is so, created players are not genuine players in the game-theoretical sense. Instead, they are like the pawns on the chessboard, and it is as though God were playing chess with himself. Alternatively, the type of Creation Game envisaged by theological determinists is analogous to God's playing a game of solitaire with a stacked deck. For us, playing that sort of game might be a way to "kill time," but it would hardly be very interesting or challenging. Thus, it is unclear at best why God would choose to play such a game. The standard Calvinist answer, which appeals to God's glory, is not convincing. Did not God already have all the glory? And what's so glorious about winning at a game when you minutely control all the variables?" -Alan Rhoda I thought Game Theory does give us a good analogy for Divine providence and also provides some speculation on why God created the kind of world that we find ourselves in. *** The reason I bought this book was to get Greg Boyd's essay, I skipped ahead and read it first, and I fortunately found it to be worth the price of the book. He showed many verses that expressed to what a great extend that Jesus, the New Testament authors and early church fathers, saw that natural evil was brought about by demonic forces. Boyd proposes that the "Red in tooth and claw' part of the created order, is the result of spiritual agents fighting against God. John Sander's essay was "edge of my seat" good. Richard Rices chapter summarizing the science on forgiveness was excellent. I thought Alan Padgett had some great reflections on God's foreknowledge. The essays by Brent Montgomery, Clark Pinnock, Craig Boyd and Dean Blevins were the only ones that that were not memorable to me.

Review # 2 was written on 2011-09-19 00:00:00 Heskett Dave All of postcolonial theory is really a footnote to Scotus.