LNA oy Ce UE eon Cd ey atom reat Pee cc tad eer CeO en) a cd 15 Decay rT Cuca ees Daa Sea Nu _ themelios Pree) near! rare at id ground or base;themelLios Vol. 16 No. 3 Contributors Reviews All Orders ‘Subscription rates (including postage) ‘Back Numbers ‘An international journal ot theological and religious studies students, expounding and delending the historic Christan ‘ath ts published tivee imes a yearby the Reigious and Theological Sudies Fellowship. a constituent part ofthe Unversives and Colleges Christan Fellowship, and the International Felowship of Evangotcal Studorts it soaks to across ell fo questions being laced by theologieal and raigious studies Students in The sludles and fo Melp readers To think outa clear bibical ath Genera etter ‘Chvstopher Woighy, All Natons Christian Collage, Easneye, Ware, Merts SG12 8LX, England Consuting editor Steven Singleton (RTSF) Associate edltors ‘Jahn Bimeon, Craig Blomberg, Calin Chapman, Martin Davie, John Gladwin, Tony Lane, Donald Macleod, David Wenham Imternationat altars ‘Kwame Bediaka (Ghana), Samuel Escobar (Amorcal, Hane Kvalbein (Norway), David Lm (Phiippines Gerhard Maier (Germany), Masao Usruma (Japan), Vernon Grounds (N, america} Review editors David Deboys, Craig Blomberg Commitee (Chris Wight, Steven Singleton, Davis Deboys. IFES representatives: Wilson Awasu, Vidar Haanes, Gideon Yung, TSF representatives: Andy Willamson, Ruth Speak Cowresponding momber: Fabrice Lengronne \wmie contnbuters express their ov views, is expected that hey are in agreement wih the theological poston af the TSF and IFES, Anieles should be submitted to the ganaral eotor or incase of Norn America) to Dr Jim Stamoolis, Wheaton College, heaton, linois 60187-5553, USA ‘Books for review should be sen! 10 Mr David Deboys, Tyndale House, 36 Selwyn Gardens, Cambridge CB3 9BA or (Nortn “American books #9 Dr Craig Blomberg, Denver Seminary, Bex 10,000, Universty Park Staton, Colorado 80210, USA ‘Themelios, 38 De Monitor Stee, Leicester LET 76P_ ‘North Amarea and Canada ordars may ‘fo IFES Link, 6400 Schroeder Road, be sent PO Box 7895, Madison, WI 53707-7695, USA Briisn Isles £450 ‘Subscnibere i the Republic of le!and plaase nay in stering, (Payments can be made to our National Gio Account Number 15038346, markod far Themelioe) Elsewhere (surtace mail, including bank charges) for orders through the aparapriale address shown above 1 year e450 us $11.50, 2 years #300 Us $2000, 3 years £1350 Us $28.50, UW a mai require, please acd or each years subscription £2.75/85.00) Each issue of Themelios can only comain afew aticles; but there is a wealth of usetu| material in hack Issues. Infomation about the contents and avaabilry of back issues may be abianed trom FRTSF, 38 De Montion Street, Leicester LEY 7GP, Engiang, ‘6mm microti, 35 micraim and 105 microliche copies of Themefos are available throug: University Micraiens Inerationa, 300 Norh Zeeb Rlaad, Ann Aroor, Michigan 46106, USA ISSN 0307-8388 CCo-pubishod by RTSE, 38 De Morton Street. Leicester LE1 7GP. and IFES, 55 Palmersion Road, Wealdstone, Harrow, Middx, HA3 TRA. Photoset and printed by Stanloy L Hunt (Pitas) Lid, Rushden, Nowthamptonshire.Editorial: And who is my neighbour? “Say NO to strangers! Tha isthe message on numerous stickers aod posters issued by the local police fo homes, schools and children in our area, Whatatragc commentary on our society that the homific abuse of children by a very few has made it necessary for us to instil suspicion and fea into ender minds, urging them for their own protection to tea all strangers alike with recon Children can no longer be seen as a blessing to the whole com. munity, bringing pleasure to unrelated adults ray of cheer and Company to the elderly or lonely, They must be confined fo the harrowing circles of the inner family and know neighbouts. The isolationism of our fragmented society bites deeper and deeper Even children become private property tobe jealously guarded by suspicion of every unknowm other person, My own feenage som ‘was the but ofhoctlty and suspicion for playing with the cil of 4 customer in the garden centre where he works. There was atime he might have received gratitude The Bible is, ofcourse, concerned forthe health and safety of children. The Torah protec them in various ways andthe vision oftheageto come explicitly includes cildeenas proof ofenviron- ‘mental safety (lea. 1.6-9; 6520-2, Zech. 84-5), But the Bible leo fhasa concern for strangers. Wha struck me about the posters was the cold reversal of the bibical command fo: Love the stranger as yourself (Lev, 19:34) The strange (alen’in recent translations) drasthe outsider, the person who was not partof the ethnic raclite community, but who resided and worked among the lsrelte Rrouseholds, He was one ofa category of people regulary included among those most vulnerableto explotation and oppression ~ the isndless poor, the widow and orphan, the Levites efe Such groups are frequently commended to the practical social care and support of the community in the Torah, The invisible posters in Israelite Millages imbued with the ethos ofthe Torah, read, Say YES to Srangers Now of course the context andthe crcumetances are very diferent. The point is, however, that Toracltes were encouraged to see the stranger as a fellow human being whose nda ust be atendedo nthe name of the Ga of ang com. Passion. Our society drils us to see the stranger as a dangerous Unknown, to be treated with suspicion and kept at arm’s length. 1 Temember poster saw in an Indian hotel ence, There are no Strangers here; only friends you haven't met yet: We warn our children to see all strangers as enemies they mustn't met at al Rejection ofthe stranger cuts deeper stil than the instinct to protect our children, Biblcally, the stranger is included among those in greatest need insocey: the refugees and captives of war the stateless, the landless the homeless, the debtor the bonded worker and day labourer, These are the same grat svathe of humanity that we habitually say NO to. The urban and rural poor inthe Two Thirds World are strangers to westem Christians. So are the economic migrants that are driven lke driftwood around ihe war-tom parts ofthe world. But then, soto are thehomelessin our own lands tis stil disconcerting (0 say the leash to comeface tofacein London's Underground mth sights one took for granted inBombay ~ homeless pesple ofall ager beayng But begears are strangers too, and you say NO to strangers: dont you? Anything else 1s awkorard, time consuming, embarassing and possibly thought the prest and Levite on the Jericho road) dangerous. ft was the hated stranger himsel, in Jesus’ story, who: proved peighbour fo the one ho wae a sanger fo him Took he is Paid the cost. “The British television News ai Ten recently carried two stories inthe same. programme, One nae he hang and hea Tending suffering f the Kurdish people in northern Iraq, Here isa People already accustomed to generations of oppression and Sbandonment in their latestagony trapped between the bombing baring ard iertare ofthe eprermert nd he sews starvation of their mounlains."A people suffering the ve aftermath ofawar they didn'tsiart svar fought by the wealthy for ercaly. whose con smeared ie the skated lines of millions of the world’s poorest and most powerless. All it seems to have achieved isa ghastly reversed Magnificat. Ithas lft the mighty on their thrones and devastated those of low degrees; it has restored the rich to rebuild their wealth, but the hungry ithas sent empty away into even greater hopelessness. For in international politics, it seems that whether you say NO or YES to strangers depends entirely on your own interests, not theirs The other story in the same programme was a report on the evangelical gatherings at Spring Harvest ~ a British event which attracts almost 100,000 people of al ages to four holiday venues round the country over the Easter vacation, for worship and teaching, It appeared, however, that the event was newsworthy Because it coincided withthe installation of Dr George Carey as ‘Archbishop of Canterbury. Already the mediahave mademmuchof Dr Carey's evangelical and charismatic background, with some pundits warning the nation thatthe Church of England will be Feduced tsimplistic happy clappy.asle dancing trviaity A clip Of Spring Harvest worships presumably intended to rforce at caricature Thenews editor explained that evangelicals ‘believeinaliteral Gospel" and goin for informal styles of worship. My heart sank First because it was unfair fo George Carey, whose ath means a lot more than that. He has demonstrated his commitment fo the gro of the local church em parish miner, fo theaogical fraining for practical ministry as the principal of a theological Cellege and (othe wider mosion of trechureh asa member of the counel ofthe missionary society which supported my fay i But secondly, it was depressing to realize that evangelicals are notorious these days in Britain only for their informal and enthusiastic worship. A hundred years ago evangelicals were equallly mocked for their beliefs, but even their detractors acknowledged their indefatigable labours in costly involvement with the poor in the appalling slums of Victorian England. A critic of evangelicals had this to say about them in 1860: “The Evangelical paty is redeemed by its... manifold labours of Christan love... . When the history of the Evangelical party is written, willbe tld of them, that wth narrow mindednessand mistaken traditions, with lite intllectsal acquirements and il- directed zeal against their brothers in the Church, they yet worked manfully in the pestlent and heathen by-ways of our Cites, and preached the gospel to the poor. Thi was not what Neos al Tor noticed about modern evangelicalsm. There are, ofcourse many evangelicals commit {o sovial action among the poor, the homeless and deprived. But they do not seem to have registered on the public image of Cvangelcizn, Nor mate say, doce sch concer sem fave penetrated deeply into the growing ranks of evangelicals at large Fort too was at Spring Harvest and greatly enjoyed the power and joy of the worship, But whereas a stninar on healing packed to 5tanding room only, those onthe homeless oron te poor. or on overseas min ig relly ew Say YES foal at God ae to give you, Say NO to strangers Such discrepancy eannot be blamed’on Spring Harvest itself. Itis merely symptomatic of the virus of self indulgence to which western evangelicalism puts up litle resistance, Our religion isas much infected by the Tent ial snd! ean! itnow idolatry as the world around us. Wejustspitually rephrase it Jesus's the riend who meet al your needs, The Christ ‘who cals for practical obedience for costly discipleship, fora self denying, crose-bearing commitment to mission. has become a Strange. Say NO fo skangers? “Quoted ina fascinating book onthe amazing variety of evangelical urbanimission stateges inthe 1th century Donald M Les Ligh er Darkness: The Eeangeal Mission to Working clase London, 1828-1860 (New York and London: Greenwood Press, 1986), p. 276 Chris Wright. THEMELIOS 3God, GUTs and gurus: the new physics and New Age ideology Ernest C. Lucas Reo. Dr Ernest Lucas is Dred of Christian Impac), which incorporates the London institut of Contemporary Christianity. He contributed an artde on ‘Some scientific issues related to the understanding of Genesis 1~3° in Themelios 12.2 (Jan. 1987). Introduction In 1975 the physicist Fritjof Capra wrote, Although we are sill lacking a complete quantum-relatvishe theary of the sub-atomic world, several partial theories and models have been developed which describe some aspects of this world very successfully. A discussion of hemost important of these models and theories will show that they al involve philosophical conceptions which are in striking agreement with those in Eastern mysticism (Capra 1986, p. 227) He was not the frst physicist to say this kind of thing, this book struck a chord with 2 generation which had lived through the counterculture of the 1960s this turning tothe East for spintual inspiation. Soon. more popular books were being. writen expounding the same theme, one ofthe beter known being The Bancing Wa Li Masters written by 2 non-physicist. Gary Zukav This claimed link between what f called ‘the new physics and casten mystica is appedied to by exponents of New Age ideology as evidencein favour oftheir world-view. One examplets the New Age popularizer Shisley MacLaine, who refersto tin her spiritual autobiographies. Quantum physic was saying that what we perceive to be Phystal realty was actully Cur cognitive consruchon oft Frehce reality masonlywhateach of ws decide twas Maan 1985, 9339 Asthenew physics and theancient mysticsnow seemed to agree shen one observes the world and the beings within t one sees that we are infact only dancing with our own consciousness, Everything we feel, think and. act upon i interrelated with ‘everything everyone else fels, thinks, and acts upon. Weare all Participating in the dance (p. 420. So, whatis the new physics? In what waysisit supposed to support New Age ideology! Hov valid ae the claims thatt doessot What implications does this have for Christian theology? These are questions I will try to deal within this paper in what can be only a brief and introductory way. The new physics ‘The early decades of this century saw a revolution taking place in physics. To a large degree the foundation and inspiration of physics from 1700-1900, what is now called ‘classical physics’, was provided by the work of Isaac Newton. This produced the ‘mechanistic paradigm’ in which the universe was Viewed as one ‘vast mechanical system operating according to exact laws capable ‘of mathematical expression. Two theories which were formulated around 1900 shattered this paradigm — the theory of relativity and quantum theory — and gave rise to the new physics. Relativity Albert Einstein put forward the theory of relativity because of a Strangeabservation madeby physicstwhenmessoringthespeed Of light When driving on a oad where everyone is taveling at 60-70 mph, acarcoming up from behind to overtake us appea's be traveling much more lowly than one whichis approaching us at the same speed, This s because the speeds at which te two cars are travelling rie tous are very diferent. The one overtaking us 4 THEMELIOS. 1s approaching us at only afew mph whereas the other one is approaching us ata elativespeed of over 20mph, Sincethe earth i veling api through space a vevoles round the un physicists expected thatthe speed of light would appeat tov Secording to the direction in which it was measured relative to the direction ofthe earth's motion. However, they consistently flled to detect any such apparent variation: This led Einstein to propose thatthe speed of light is always the same rate fo any and roe frame of rea’ ued forthe measuemen!. He also proposed that nothing can travel faster than light These two seemingly simple propositions have some very profound and surprising implications, We wil consider only two. Theft the understanding space andi, Accondinglo he cory of relativity time can no longer be regarded as an indepen- dent entity separate from the three spatial dimensions of length, depth and height Instead we have to thinkin terme of a united, four-dimensional space-time. According to the dassical view events haypen in three-dimensional space and dvlop with the passage of time, which flows in one direction According to the Theory of relativity, says Zukav, itis preferable, and more useful to thinkin terms ofa sali non moving picture of space-time... Inthisstae picture, the space time continuum, events do not develop, they just are. fwecould ‘view our reality na four-dimensional way, we would see that everything that now seems to unfold before us withthe passing oftime, already exsts in tt, painted, as it were, on the fabric of space-time (1982, p. 172) Therefore, some argue, ultimate reality is a timeless unity, as astern mysbes have aways dammed. " Moreover, ifthe speed of light is the same whether measured when travelling at one-tenth or at half the speed of light the difference must le in the measuring instruments. Put crudely, the ruler must change its length and the clock must run at different rates atthe hwo speeds. This leads to the ‘twin paradox. fone of a pair of twins leaves the earth in a rocket and travels at close to the Speed of light for some months, when he returns to earth his twin will beseveral years older than he is, since time passes more slowly when measured on the faster-moving frame of reference. This variability of the dimensions of space-time with the motion of the frame of teference leads Capa fo conclude that there sno such thing as absolute space and time, rather space and time ‘are nothing but names, forms of thought, words of common use’ so that they ‘are now reduced to the subjective role ofthe elements of the language a particular observer uses forhis or her description of natural phenomena’ (1986, p. 183). Capra considers that there is a striking similarity between this relativistic notion of space-time and realty experienced by eastern mystics when they attain ‘non- ordinary states of consciousness in which they transcend the three- dimensional world of everyday life to experience a higher, ‘multidimensional reality’. In these states they are aware, hesays, of the interpenetration of space and time (1986, P. 189). What are we to make of this claimed coincidence between the relativistic and mystical views of realty? The following points heed careful consideration ae 1 tis, tosay the least, over- simplistic to equate the relativistic space-time continuum with the timeless unity experienced by the mystic. Space-time, as Zukav notes (p, 172), is a mathematical construct. All scientific concepts like this are only ‘models’ of physical reality. One hopes that as one model replaces another. we are progressing towards a better understanding of the reality we are studying Butisthe physical realty which s represented by the model of space-time the same as the spiritual reality experiencedby the mystic? Capra, and others, simply assume tat itis, To do this is to make ajump from physics to metaphysics without giving. any justification for he move orevenexpicly aumiting hat hs is what is being done 2, Capra's view that the theory of relativity requires subjecivst interpretation of space and ime is nox universally accepted. The philosophical implicaionsof he theory are stil very much a matter of debate" Thee are those who argue that absolute tpace-time does existindependently ofany observer. Hivasrertion (F966, p. 205) that space and time ae fully equivalents particu. lanly open to question. The factis that we can move freely n space Battin ine Deton nine does no sem purely subjective or conventional 3, Richard Jones, among others, has criticized the way Capra, appeals to eastern mysticism Jones 1986, pp. 201-204). He draws selectively on those concepts which sult he purpose but ignores others, equally important to a proper understanding of eastern mysticism, which do not fit the scheme he wants to portray. He may also be open tothe criticisms that he too readily finds modern concepts in eastern mysticism. Jones asserts that ‘there is no, Conception in classical India of space and time combined or of either time or space as an especially fundamental reality’ (p. 184). ‘One would never guess this reading Capral * It is over-simplistic to equate the relativistic space-time continuum with the timeless unity experi- enced by the mystic. So, Capra is taking a disputed metaphysical interpretation of the implications of the theory of relativity and equating it with a selective, and therefore questionable, reconstruction of the eastern mystical world-view in modern terms. We shall see that much the same can be said of the other examples we shal look at of claimed coincidence between the new physics and eastern mysticism The second implication ofthe theory of relativity with which we shal deals sutnmed up in what i probably one ofthe best Known scientific equations: E=me E stands for energy, m for mass and cis the speed of light, The tquation states thet mase and energy are inter convertible Ik was the key which unlocked the door Yo the use of nuclear power Experiments in high-energy particle physics have veriied this equation. The physicists wh study sub-atomic parties have got tized to the fact that not only can particles be converted into, or created from, energy butalo onekind of particle can beconverted {nto another withthe absorption or emission of energy Both Zukav and Capra make much of this equivalence of imatler and energy. In the East, however, thereneverhasbeen much philosophical or teligious (only in the West are these two separate) confusion about matter and energy. The world ofmalter relative world, andan llusery one-sllusory notin the sense thatitdoes notexist butillusory in the sense that we do not see tas it really. The way it really is cannot be communicated verbally, but in the attempt to talk around it easter literature speaks repeatedly of dancing energy and transient, impermanent forms. This ‘s Strikingly similar to the pituze of physical realty emerging rom high-energy particle physics (Zukav 1982, p. 177) Like modem physicists, Buddhists see all objects as processesin ‘universal flux and deny the existence ofany material substance (Capea 198@, p. 226) Here again wo are faced with a simplistic shift from physics to metaphysics. Both writers imply that matler is somehow unreal, tnd indeed at times refer fo matter ag "nothing but or ‘only nergy. However, tis snot implied in Einstin'sequation, which Saysnothing more than that matter can be converted to energy and Dit wrt Iie true that one leading theory in parle physics, tantum field theory. describes sub-atomic particles in erms of Aeinteration of energy fields. This does not mean that material particles are unreal. Rather, the theory showe that bth the ener Feld and particle interpretations of sub-atomic realty are valid, Which s appropriate depends on thekind ofquestion one wantsto ask about that reality Polkinghorne 1985, pp'84, 108) Inany case sy ghould mater seen a for of front! energy bea es real than energy? Als, energy can be seen as ‘nothing but metter ‘which is sana, Which Pmnore real or ‘ore fundamental ce or water? All inal its claiming too much to say that modem Physics necessary lads othe ‘denial ofthe existence of material Substance The claim thateastern mysticism and the new physics support each other because both tall us that we do not see the material sword astral isa tevial one. The pertinent pointto consider ic whether the mystic and the physicist agree about how it really is Jones denies that this isthe case Gones 1986, pp. 183). Among, ‘ther things, he points ou that mysties donot sec energy fields but texperience'a blending of object in the sense that boundaries are fese‘noticed in the light of impermanence and the common experienced being-ness. Moreover, this being ness is somethin thats feta achangein experience, notan abstract concept neural te experience which can Be expressed mathematically Quantum theory Like the theory of relativity, quantum theory arose out of an attempt to explain experimental results which did not accord with the predictions of classical physics. In this case it was the distribu- tion of energy radiated (+g. as heat and light) by hot objects. There was always far less high-energy radiation than predicted. Max Planck found that this could be explained if energy is not emitted in just any quantity but in ‘packets’ (later called quanta) of specific amounts. The amount in a particular quantum depends on the wave length at which the energy is emitted Once again, an apparently simple proposal had far-reaching implications, We wil relict our discussion to two of them. Werner Heisenberg showed thatthe quantization of ene puts limits on what we can know about etoms and sub-atomic articles, For example, we cannot know at one and the same time Both the exact position of a particle and its exact momentum (a measure ofits velocity) Themore accurately we know one. theless accurate is our Knowledge of the other. This is Heisenbers's {Uncertainty Principle. Ava result we an talk about such things as the position or velocity of such particles only in terms of probabilities. Erwin SchrOdinger developed a form of quantum theory called “wave mechanics! which treats al subsatomic Phenomena in terme of the mathematics of waves in this case waves of probability’ Wave mechanics fitted in wth another physical puzle.By the end ofthe nineteenth century ight had come to be thought of asa ttave of energy because this seemed the best way to explain its roperties Quantization of energy into. discrete “packets, Rowever, suggested that it should have patie ike properties. Soon this was shown to be the casein certain situations. The light particles were named ‘photons’ To add fo this puzzeit was found Tiatelecrons,initaly regarded as particle, sometimes behave as if they are waves of energy! Wave mechanics and, even more so, juanfum field theory) provided a mathematical way of deserbing Tie dual wavelparticle behaviour. However, physicists had to accept that some phenomena can be understood adequately only in terms of mutually exclusive but complementary ‘models in this case the models of particles and waves. Because they are ‘mutually exclusive both prtures cannot be applied at one andthe same Hove What determines wheheran dation behaves tea waveora particle? One anewer is thatthe experimental set-up we use 'o Sbeerve it determines this. In other words, haw we Took at tt determines whet we see. A similar question applies tots position, ven the Uncertainty Principle If there are fine probabilities of Being in several diferent positions, what determines the fact that west fgne partiypoon} Again sane ugg ht he ‘ery ac of observing it fixes’ tat that position, Ie i argued from isthe snes hmansnbo decdenhaltoabserveand howto ‘observe it human consciousness plays a part in determining how the marl isAs Capra puts i "The electron does nol he properties independent of my mind’ (Capra 1985, p. 77). Humans kre participators in the creation of realty. This leads Michael {Talbot to claim, For centuries the mystic has asserted that matter and conscious- ness ae different aspects of the same somelhng. Fr allthose who THEMELIOS 5have spenttheilives trying to penetrate the secrets of matter, the new physics hb amessage, not anew one, but one that may well turn out to be the most important rediscovery humankind has tvermade .themestageofthenew physics isthalwe ate parka- palore in a universe of increasing wonder (Talbot 1981, p42). ‘There are various difficulties in the position adopted by Capra and Talbot, One is that itis only one of several possible interpretations of the implications of quantum theory.” In particular, it can be argued that they have confused the act of Sheroation with the consciousness ofthe obsercer and that itis the influence of the measuring apparatus, not the mind of the observer, that affects the result obtained. For example. its argued. isit really credible that a photographic plate exposed and then put away unlinspected does not have 2 definite image on it until someone looks at it? It is possible to explain on quantum mechanical tems how and why the appari should have an effec on themeasurement, without involving theconsciousnessof the observer. Secondly, this position faces all the problems of an idealist hilosophy. In particular it i solipsistic. The only world I can Know about is the one I expertencecreate. Yet one of the characteristics of science is that experimental results are only ‘acceptable if they can be repeated by any experimenter anywhere sho follows the set experimental procedure. For the participator’ iow this would have to include the consciousness ofthe original experimenter! Once again there is the question whether the kind of inter. action between consciousness and matter posited on the basis of ‘quantum theory is really the same kind of thing the eastern mystics talk about. Jones concludes that itis not. Hefinds that none of the ideas based on quantum theory of how consciousness affects what is observed can be compared with the mystical concept of creation byawareness. Also he points out that causing 2 world (whichis the mystical view) is different from causing only a limited number of events within a world (which, strictly, is what is proposed in relation to observing quantum events) Jones 1986, pp. 192-194). Pantheistic monism removes any basis for giving special value to humans as against any other forms of life, or indeed non-life. “The second implication of quantum theory with which we hall deal is often called ‘Bell's theorem’, after one of the physicists ‘who has studied it although itwasin fact Einstein and some of his co-workers, Podolsky and Rosen, who firs raised the matter. The tessence of the matter can be understood by considering the bbchaviour of snooker balls. When the cue ball strikes another the two balls move off in different directions. Their motion is not random, but obeys the laws of action and reaction. If the momentum of the cue ball before the collision is known, then ‘measurement of the momentum of either ball after it enables the ‘momentum of the other to be calculated without it needing to be observed. The laws of action and reaction apply to quantum particles. This ought to mean that if, after two particles have interacted, the momentum of particle 1 is measured, thatof particle 2 can be deduced. This measurement will render the position of article L uncertain but, since the momentum of particle 2 has not Been measured directly, its position can be measured accurately. IF this is done at the same time that the momentum of particle 1 is measured, both the position and momentum of particle 2 have been measured accurately, so circumventing the Uncertainty Principle. However, this argument makes hwo assumptions. 1. First, it assumes that a measurement made on a particle in cone place cannot instantaneously affect a particle in another relatively distant place, This is called the lolly principle. Onereason for assuming this is that all normal physical effects are brought about by transfer of energy or information in some form and, according to the theory of relativity, this cannot happen ata speed faster than that of light. Though large, this is finite. 2. Second, it assumes that such things as ‘position’ and ‘momentum’ have an objective existence even when nat observed. This is called the reality principle What Bell did was carry out the mathematical analysis which provided the basis for an experimental test of whether or not these 6 THEMELIOS ‘vo assumptions hold true for sub-atomic particles. The answers thatthey do not The result of the experiment mean that one ofthe sssumptons must be vai Moat phys peer to dnpense ‘th the locality principle at cast with regard to quantumsystems “This means tha encetwo sub-atomic partes have interacted with one another they are ever afterwards part ofa single quantum system. Asaresutiforexample. the momentum ofone ofthem is changed, the momentum of the other wll change also tndonrusiThis wl happenevenifthey seat opposteendsct the galaxy. The shocking thing about ths fs thal t means that something other than normal ‘cause and effect is operating in Guanfum systems, though we cannot (yet) describe or define just hat itis? ‘Zukav concludes that Bell's theorem shows that, ‘hat happens here is intimately and immediately connected to ‘what happens elsewhere in the universe, which in turn, is intimately and immediately connected to what happens else ‘wherein the universe, and so on, simply because the ‘separate parts ofthe universe arenot separate parts (Zukav 1982, p.315) In other words, the universe is one single, interconnected wholeness and the ‘separate parts’ into which we divide it are unreal ~ as the eastern mystics have told us all along, ‘The existence of instantaneous action ata distance is not the only possible interpretation of Bell's theorem,* though it is the ‘most widely accepted. A more fundamental criticism of the claim thatthe theorem, and other aspects of quantum theory, validate the mystical world-view is made by Jones. ‘There i a fundamental difference of scope: mystical wholeness involves all of reality, especially the experiential level, while scientific theories deal only with very limited specified ranges of phenomena on subatomic levels. Expanding the scientific theories into metaphysics by means of analogies (with tsaccom- ppanying problems) would cost at least the mathematical refine- ment of science if not more Jones 1989, pp. 190) The same point is made by Clifton and Regehr when, after pointing out that Capra's appeal to the Bell theorem invoives a jump from what happens in sub-atomic physics to the whole of reality, they comment that, ‘There are a number of problems with this mixing of miero-and macroscopic levels of physical reality portraying them as bear- ing essentially the same features... Clearly on a macroscopic level objects remain separate for physicists and, if anything, this is an argument agains! what mystics laim (Clifton and Regehr 1989, p. 71). Jone refers oth ef analogs by the who cai tat he new physics supports the mysticd view of reality. One analy tahuch soften appealed to in ander with Belts theorem is hatof thehologan, hologram i proded by two beams of ae ight one ating a pRotographie fl directly, the other being beagle thredimensoal obj Wien the developed in is illuminated by the same type of laser light an image of the briginal objectin three dimensions \s produced. Moreover, only Stall part of the fi needs to be illuminated, showing that tris Small part contains the information ofthe whole. This, tisargued, Supports the mystical view thatthe totality of reality isin each part and that everthing is intimately interconnected There area umber of weaknesses inthis analogy. 1. As a hologram is cut into smaller and smaller fragments, there is a loss of clarity of the image. Eventually no image can be roduced at all According to the mystic the whole of reality i lly ‘encoded’ in each fragment, however small 2, What corresponds to reality inthe analogy is not really the photographic plate but the plate plus the necessary apparatus to Feproduce the image, which has no parallel in the mystical view. 3. Thehologram doesnot contain information about itself but sbout a separate obese rei Fr ast analogy to held the fealty experienced by the myshe ag in’ each fragment of reality ould have to be the copy of another real universe Some theological reflections ‘The concept of God held by advocates of the New Age and which, it is claimed, the new physics supports is a pantheistic monism.Ultimate reality is taken to be a unified, undifferentiated con- sciousness. This, of course, stands in total contrast to the Christian trinitarian monotheism. The Christian doctrine was formulated in a religious miliew which included pantheism, eg. in Stoicism. Insistence on the doctrine of aeato ex nihilo was one way of ruling oul panthegm, since asserts that God exis separately from the world, which is his creation and exists only because he wills it to, and fenot dependent on it fori existence, Although wemust be as firm in opposing New Age pantheism as the early church was, ie must be earful not lo ovetreact There has frequently Been a deistic tendency in orthodox Christianity which has led to a seater stress on God's transcendence than his immanence. This is otbiblical, and wenced to have effective ways of holding together and expressing the two truths of God's separateness from his creation and his intimate and continuing involvernent with it. “The main concern of the New Age thinkers, however, seems not tobe theology but anthropology. What attracts them fo pan. theistic monism i that they find iy it a bass for asserting the dignity and value of human beings because since everyone isan expression ofthe ultimate reality, each individual divine, Asone of Shirley MacLaine’ gurus putt the truth which she needed to rasp Was that of ‘each soul's reeponsibility for its ov behaviour th the realization ofits ovm divinity’ (MacLaine 1983, p. 203) ‘There are some inconsistencies inthis postion whichis advocates seem to ignore. One is that, taken tots logical conclusion, pan. theistic monism removes any basis for giving special value fo humans as against any other forms of hfe or indeed non life, All ae either expressions of the one ultimate realty, or else unveal 408). “1. Port, Srng Gren Basil Blackwell. 1988) p. 5, Post alo its 14 points which ke ses as the minimum crtera for Being green “Tritof Capra and Charlene Spretnak, Gren Plies (Hutchinson, 1968), p.30.C} Programme of the German Gree Party (Heretic, 1983), p17 Programme, p.7 Suing Gree, p19. “Capra and Spretnak, Green Poli p35. “ohn Button, A Ditionary of Gren Ides Routledge, 1988), p. 190. “Quoted in Gren Pats, 48 *“Drgranne,p.9. “*Dicionary of Geen Ideas, p. 190. “For a fll discussion of the nature of word-views see James H. Olthuis, "On Worldviews, Chien Stalars Renan Vol. XIV 0) 0983) p. 453-164, Cl ako Tronsforing Viton, che, 1 and 2 “olthus, p. 158 Cf the questions listed in Trensfrming Vision p. 35; se alto Lesie Stevenson, Seven Thesis of Human Nate (OUP, 1974), who uses similar {questions to analyse seven theories of human nature. "The shallow and deep, long-range ecology movement. A ‘summary’ Inguiy Vol 16 1973), pp. 95-100; this isa summary of lechure given at the Third World Future Research Conference, Buchatest 3-10 September 1972, "The bases of deep ecology’, Resurgence No. 126 lan-Feb 1988), 7, “pill Devaland George Sessions, Deep Ealozy (Peregrine Smith 1985) "Based on fig, 5-1 im Deep Eeoey,p. 6. "For a Christan critique of these idols see the work of Bob Goudewaard, eg. Isle of our Time (IVP, 1984), "See, eg, Man and Natur, p. 67; Linzey, Christianity and the Right of Animals (SCM, 1987), p17 Attfield, The Ethis of Encronmertal Concer, p. 26 “Fora fll discussion om how this relates to animals ee Linzey ch, “"P.70; se also Naess’ Schumacher lecture, Resurgen, op cl and a similar list of principles in Peter Bunyard and Fen Morgan-Grenville (eds), The Gren Aliematve (Methuen, 1987), pp. 281-283. “Deep Eau, p. 70. ©M. Boakechim, ‘Social ecology versus ‘Deep ecology’ ', Te Raven Anarchist Quarterly Vol. INo. 3 (1989), p. 222 “Guardian, 13 July 1988, Raven, p. 221 ©C. Spretnak, The Spiritual Dimension of Green Polis Bear and Co, 1986), pat "7. Seed, Greet Line No. 73 une 1989), p. 12 “I. Port, Tao Latures (The David Thompson Trust, 1988), p. 26. C. Cumbey, The Hidden Denges of the Rainkows (Huntingdon House, 1968), pp. 247. "for a useful critique of Cumbey and other American conspiracy hunters see James Alan Patterson, ‘Changing, images of the beast: ‘apocalyptic conspiracy theories in American history, JETS Vol 31 (1988), pp 3-482. "Cumbey, o. cit, p.6 “Loren Wilkinson, 'New age, new consciousness, and the new creation’ Tending the Garden, p26. Tam indebted to Dr Brian Walsh for this ilustration, OLD TESTAMENT COMMENTARY SURVEY 1991, RTSF BOOKLETS Old Testament Commentary Survey — 1991 Edition This is a completely revised version of this excellent survey (bringing the 1988 version up to date) As J. Goldingay notes in his preface, “The main aim. .. is to survey and comment on the resources available in English for understanding the significance of the OT today... . I have concentrated on ones which are likely to be most useful to students training for the ministry and ministers and preachers themselves. Copies, price 95p (including postage within UK and Rol), are available from the RTSF office. (See inside front cover for address.) 14 THEMELIOS.Purpose in pain? — Teleology and the problem of evil Melvin Tinker Rev, Meloin Tinker, formerly chaplain at Keele University is now vicar of {All Hallows, Cheadle, England. He has contributed artces to Themelios on Jesus in Christian ethics (13.1) ard on truth, myth and incarnation (14.2), In his A Preface fo Christin Theology, John Mackay illustrates bro distinc though not entirely unrelated, kinds of approach to Christian matters by picturing a group of people sitting on the high balcony ofa Spanish house watching travellers pass by onthe road below, Those onthe balcony can overhear the travellers talk and offen chat with them. They comment criteally upon the way the travellers walk, discuss questions bout the road how ican crustand whereitmightlead By way of contrast the travelers face problems which ae esentaly ofa practical nature. although they foo have a theoretical aspect to them. Thus while both the bservers’and the travellers might express interest over areas of common concern, the immediate nature of ther problem difers Gnthe question of evilforinsance,onecanenvisagethe observers wrestling with the theoretical probiem of how to reconcile abelef inan omnipotent God who hasloving purposes vith the existence of evil the Philosopher’; while the travellers grapple with the txstential problem of trying to overcome evl by bringing good cul of (he Pilgrim’). Now clearly the Scriptures were smite primary for theater a book for bavellers composed by fellow Envellers under the inspiration of the floly Spirt® But while the tanner of approach and the overall intention ofthe biblical vriers thay be destrbed as practical they ae nevertheless set within a Framework of belief grounded in God srevelation, As traditionally txpressed this means that practice is wedded to doctrine ~ works roceed from faith. In short. the ‘conceptual’ and the existential Belong together, ‘each needing the other fo prevent undue abstraction on the one and, and an unhealthy subjectvism on the other. Accordingly an attempt vill be made to give due considera fion to both aspects throughout this discussion, ‘The paper's main locus of concern is with the question of how we areto begin to understand the place of sufferinggin God's world with a view to formulating a Christian response. One deliberately says a Christian response since no single response will be sufficient and any so-called Christian theodicy must of necessity be com posite in nature if its going to be even remotely comprehensive {and coherent. D.M. Ahern is therefore probably not all that wide (of the mark when he concludes that because our knowledge of particular evils and their various connections isso limited, i wil never be possible to devise a theodicy which accounts for every type of evil situation. Although each theodicy proposed might contain anumber of valuable insights, simply in and of themselves they are unable to perform the function they are intended to perform, i. to provide a wholly convincing reasoned defence of the goodness of God in the face of evil, Thus even when anumber of approaches have been adduced which might be said o comple ment each other, the irreducible mystery of the problem of evil remains, and like Job we are forced to place our hands over our mouths, This, however, does not preclude legitimate and fruitful enquiry, but it does sound a note of caution against claiming too much as well as underscoring the humble spirit in which the ‘enquiry should be pursued. With this proviso in place, the aim of this paper is to consider shy suffering constitutes a problem for Christian belief to survey a numberof simple’ solutions’ to the problem, and then fo propose a way of approaching the question of suffering which, it is ipelieved, best accords with the NT revelation as it centres upon the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is to developing this approach that the greater part of our discussion will be devoted The problem stated Weoften speak ofthe protien ofevil or thepalemof suffering: why describe evi and suffering as problemst” It is generally Scknowledged that ei and sfering which s perceived as evi s iTproblem for the Christian because of mhat he or she bese McClosky waiter: Eyl isa problem for the thestin tht a con tradiction is involved inthe fact of evil onthe one hand, and the baitnthcoprioteneof Cd onthcather“Aloggh on py wish to qualify what he says by speaking ofa confct which "parent rather than rea as McClosky implies, the force of what Baie eying allo tad fe by eves and non beer alike. Whats more, the problem, seems to gain greater poignan ‘when its formulated at a sharp dilemma pet Hick: lf God 1s perfectly loving and good he mustwish o abolish evil if God is all ponte at ble tabolsh en ut el eet, eeore God cannot be both perfectly good and almighty’ Certainly ast God cannot he both perfectly good and almighty’ Certainly 2 those af how ones iconv fhe nobis oper foving and “all-powerful. But even when auch terms. are carcully Galifed cz Roly love as distinc from bland self indulgence, and Stnnipotence which doesnot involve the ability todo that which is sellcontradictory as dstne rom antinomies), one may ail grant that prime face there isa lemma which needs fo be addressed ‘Therefore, while appearing to adopt thestance of a‘balconcer’ fora moment, how might one proceed to deal with this particular dilemma? Ibis proposed thatthe frst step isto identify two of the ‘main presuppositions which underlie the formulation of the dilemma and upon which the force of the dilemma is largel dependent, biz. God is prfeelly good and all-powerful this wil ‘of necessity be reflected in the removal of all evil now (or atleast it raises the questions as to why it was not removed at an earlier moment in time or why it was allowed to come into being in the first place). In other words, there is both a lemporal and a means condition built into the very formulation of the dilemma — the removal of evil at a particular time (present or past) in an immediate and total way (presumably by divine fal) The second step in our handling ofthe dilemma follows on quite naturally from the Sst, for what ff could be demonstrated Rowerer tentatively, tat Cod wil ot only emovealleviatsome pointinthefuture but will actually redeem evil insuch away hat Bitranstigured ing that which good? What ifthe goodness and omnipotence of God were to be worked out in s way that Together diferent fom that which normally envisage? Then ‘nud, although by no meansal ofthe force would betaken outof Re paral difmma. The tension would be reed ut nat tntvely removed. Itt fo ths posabality, based upon the onion hate decisive event nwhichthe Power and poodness of Cod is demonstrated in edeeming evil has already taken place, that the greater part of ths paper wil be devoted Simple solutions ‘There are of course a number of simple solutions to the dilemma posed above which essentially involve the removal of one or more of the three elements which make up the triad so that it ceases to be dilemma at all. Thus one could deny that evil or suffering exists, Viewing them instead as some form of ‘illusion’. Christian Science and Therevada Buddhism might qualify as amongst those beliefs which take this particular route. Alternatively, one might deny the ‘omnipotence of God as does the process theologian David Griffin, who states quite unequivocally tat his solution fo the problem of evils ‘by denying the doctrine ofomnipotence fundamental to it.” However, te theological price paid is rather high in that we are in effec left witha’ God who istrying to dohis best in bringing good THEMELIOS 15,out ofevl, and with litle luck he might (but only might succeed ittheend Thectherway oul tacapparentimnpetsetsto deny the codnes of God as expressed in Baudelaire scelebrated statement that: there isa God he is the very devil. The writer Archibald MacLeish conveys the same sentiment in is play’]B., which isa reworking of thestoryafJob, with therefran: fhe is God heis not wo, if he is good he is not God", Nevertheless, the taditionel Givistan clans that God i good, thathe is almighty and that evil and suffering are realities to be reckoned with. The ‘problem ihrfre fs on hv fo elle ee ro ares ath he Sodness and omnipotence of God) tothe fact of suffering whic FP deemed evil, without compromising either of these fenets of faith or trivilizing human suffering The immorality of suffering In turning to consider the question: ‘What makes suffering morally unacceptable? a prior duestion needstabeaddressed. rs Tall sufi only Hn cern format” Now, le chologically most, if not al pain may be considered to be SBlestorae inc necessary the ee al morally 9 especially ifthe pain endured ts part of a means toa recognize good. Thus froma purely biological point of view, pain can serve part of thebody's defence mechaniem preventing further injury Bylmeans, say, ofa reflex action eg, femoving ahand from alot plate), Certainly it could be objected that this simply pushes the Problem’ one stage futher back, for one could ask, wy the ‘more serious injury? Could God not havecreated a world inwhich there twould be no need of sucha defence mechanism for there would be nothing which needed defending aguinst? But even if one were to grant that such objections have force (and I believe they do), the point being maintained here would remain, namely that pain, in Und of tele is not necessarily evi. Indeed in some contexts it Could be considered morally neutral (ais the healthy’ pain ster fong exercise) or morally good (as in the case of corrective punishment. Surely, what makes suffering so morally objectionable is when tis encountered ina form which wholly negative tending towards destruction and devord of any postive significance lst not ths that ies atthe root of so many tormented human cies! — "Wy shld my thee yeaa cd de othe oad ~ hy the intolerable pain ofthe cancer victim? What is more, the evl of ‘fering ven an ational groteque ie hen cant be laced within any meaningful coherent context understood tleo. fogically: that isa Raving creative purpose This dystlalogia aspect, which can beso olen attendant upon suffering, adds (ots distorting, disorientating effect In other words, it is. when Sulferng's manifest in hecran experience as that which on the ‘whole negative, anti-purposive and. dystleologial, tha it Is appropriacly recognized ao evil and #0 calls for active moral resistance and opposition. Perhaps no one has engaged ina more penetrating analysis of evil in term ofthat which p negative and ultimately meaningless than Karl Barth: Following through Augustine scontention of evil as ‘privatio boni” (the deprivation of the good which has no independent existence itseld, Barth conceves of evil as 'das Nichtige’ = ‘nothingness, and. “impossible. posobility, an ontological impossibility’ that which God saw RE to pass over Such categories of description ae used in order to convey the cesential negative nature of evi, and of course immediately introduce usto the inevitable paradox and imitations inthe use of language to describe that which ithe metaphysical equivalent anti-matter’ without atthe same time giving te falseimpression that evi isan illusion. In spite of catme fo the contrary this analysis maintains that evil ia reality albelta negative realty, the ‘gurd., that which has no creative purpose and therefore ¢ften appears meaningless. And so when suffering acnuies these ant ‘uals its rightly deemed ev. To summarize: it is being suggested that suffering ‘becomes’ ‘morally unacceptable when within a limited temporal context it ‘exhibits those features commonly recognized as standing in direct ‘opposition to that which is good {ie evil = disintegration, destruction, dysteleology. Good = wholeness, creativity purpose) The ‘why’ of suffering In asking the question 'Why is there suffering?’, one could be straining towards one of two directions. One could be looking for some sort of cause ~ ‘What is the cause of suffering?’ This may involve a consideration of an ultimate cause — the origin of evil, or 16 THEMELIOS amore proximal cause — the cause ofthis particular suffering, with ‘ue Being understood mectapysxaly rater thn bog Ofcourse thisline of approaches amost distinguished ped wrth advocates such as Augustine; C5. Lewis" and more recently Stephen T. Davis" Here explanations are sought in terme of free will defence, the fall the acivity of falien angels, and so on. One may also wish fo include within this category of explanation the ied of 'Vergetung’~ the operation of some form of moral ‘cause and effect Bult into the fabric of the world, a view as championed for instance by CH. Dodd Certainly such approaches have strong biblical warrants in support” and play an essential role in any composite Christian theacicy, but for the traveller they will ito consitut the primary category of understanding, For that he Mil Took in another direction. Beneath the heartfelt cry ‘Why this suffering” often lies the longing fora purpose. What i the point in ll his? fa cry in which the fension is heightened when, as we have seen, meaning tnd reve purpose eum foe abn fo th siation and we ate. apparerly lef with’ meaningless suffering’ ot senseless a reer Te ore mcmineles gufering oy screcless terms of causation, here one looks forward for an explanation in tee of purpoe(leslogy) Th eof approach foo i nt wethout ts prestigious proponents, for ‘example. Irenaeus," Schleiermacher’ and John Hick = Now although ‘cause’ and ‘purpose’ have here been distin- guished as-essentally providing two distinet approaches to the roblem of pai, they are not mutually exclusive and have been Erought together both philosophically and theologically. Phio- sophically hey are drawn into unity by Arstotieand his idea ofa ‘al caute’“Theendomardsnhichaomehingsmons opal “telos’Theologically, both cause and purpose are embraced by the overarching dockine of providence, of which the problem of sulflering is but one aspect This is most dearly seen in Calvin's treatment of the subject” But even within Augustine s work onthe spatter, purpose plays a major role as encapaulated in he now Famous doctrine of'© felix culpa, such that God judged itbetter tering good out of vl than fo sues no ea all” The redemption of sinners for Augustine is a far greater good than there being no sin atall breaer In John 9 Jesus alters the per- spective from the cause of suffer- ing by focusing upon the divine purpose behind the situation, link- ing it to the creative-redeeming activity of God. van dough upon dose aai any par and fit ditto tween explanalions sought in terms of cause and purpose may be difficult to maintain, i all provides us with a useful working distinction. in approaching, the problem of suffering, Such & Siren aproach bought ou moa vil inthe gor study ofthe healing ofthe man born blind (In 9).As Jesus and his disciples came acrovs the man, it was the disciples who raised the {question Who sinned, this man or his parents? they werelooking for an answer to this particular tragic state of affais primarily in terms of causation ~ "Who sinned?” lecus, however, replied, “Nether, tthe happened ha the purpaive ase Ma the work of God may be displayed in is life” Jesus alters the Perspective by focusing upon the divine purpose behind the Ekuaton, lining it to the creative-redeeming activity of God ‘Although both the cause of suffering, in terms of sin, and the urpose of suffering. in ferme of God's glory and man's well in con also be expres linked, as another story of healing in the gospels shows, "it would appear that tis upon God's purpose thaliheNTs theological centre of gravity rests and itis to this that wwe now turn. Teleology and suffering ‘The overriding concern of the NT writers is the pastoral one of enabling God's people to see that the suffering and persecution which they may be undergoing or are likely to face, when con- sidered against the backeloth of God's etemal purpose, have a