Even though he appears to criticise my
stance on this issue in a review of Providence
Made Flesh (see Evangelical Quarterly
82:3 (2010), pp. 286–288), Ian McFarland has since argued that God’s
glorification of the creature entails God ‘returning’ to the creature through
an intensification of the divine presence. He explains, ‘I am no nearer to a
person sitting next to me before than after we are introduced, but the fact of
acquaintance profoundly changes the quality of that nearness. Similarly, there
is (because there can be) no augmentation of God’s proximity to creation in
glory, but there is an increase in intimacy.’ (Ian A. McFarland, From Nothing: A Theology of Creation
(Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2014), p. 178). In his review of
my book, McFarland seems to believe that I was equating intensification of divine presence with an increase in divine presence, which I was not. Regardless, McFarland’s
language of intensification suggests some mileage in the idea. But the task is
to transfer the language of intensification from eschatological glorification to
current events.
Some help comes from Vernon White’s Purpose and Providence, which, let me
say, is the best book on providence I’ve read in quite a few years. White uses
the idea of figural interpretation (‘the possibilities of seeing a patterned
family resemblance between events, even though there is no visible causal
relationship between them’, p. 7) to contend that divine meaning in events can
be detected when it is interpreted in light of the Christ event. Naturally,
such divine meaning cannot be stated absolutely; but, White argues, some events
relate more clearly to the Christ event than others, and this gives us a basis
for locating the place and significance of any given event within the purposes
of God (see Purpose and Providence,
p. 123).
It seems to me that there can be a happy
marriage between my (and McFarland’s) talk of the intensification of divine
presence and White’s use of figural interpretation if we can say that genuine meaning
and purpose are found in those events that approximate not to the Christ event
simpliciter, but to the eschatological rule of the crucified but exalted Christ;
that is, to how far events are present instantiations of the age of come as
brought about by the intensification of divine presence in those events. Is
this plausible?
I've been studying probability today. I wonder how the probability of an event being caused by God would be written mathematically? As much as I'm charmed by the idea, I'm not sure it's as straightforward as that. All things are, at least, allowed by God, but not necessarily caused by Him, I think. But I'm no theologian. Maths is much more my sort of thing.
ReplyDeleteHmm. . . We may share a fondness for soft SF with hard SF leanings, but we part company at the maths thing! There are people who discuss probability in connection with theology - e.g. David Bartholomew's God, Chance and Purpose, which I reviewed years ago somewhere. I probably focussed on the theological implications of the maths!
DeleteVery good writing! Thanks for sharing.
ReplyDelete- The Smiling Pilgrim
https://thesmilingpilgrim.wordpress.com/
Thanks, SP.
Delete