In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

8 Theology of Nature: Remythologizing Christian Doctrine The introduction to chapter 5 above introduces the organic model that is at the core of The Body of God as well as most of her subsequent books. In her earlier work, most notably Models of God, McFague discusses the need for remythologizing our understandings of God. Here she extends that work of remythologizing to our understandings of nature by stressing the necessity of taking seriously the common creation story emerging from the sciences—that is, the organic interrelatedness of all creation. She also draws on the renowned theologian-scientist Teilhard de Chardin, whose own project in many ways anticipates McFague’s work. Key to this selection is her hearty defense of experience “that sets a priority on physical and cultural embodiment.” In so doing, she reiterates her commitment to a theology that makes a difference in the world. Source: 1993:78–91 While the attempt to see continuity between the Christian story of redemption and the cosmic story of the evolution of the universe is one that all Christians must support, it may be that a retrospective perspective—which is very ancient—is still the best one. That is, faith seeking understanding sees traces of divine purpose, love, and care in our cosmic story, as Christians have in other ages found them in pictures of reality current in their time. We, they, also find more than traces of evil, perversion, and seeming malevolence (the present version speaks of them in terms of the brutalities of natural selection), so that the end result is not evidence of purpose leading to belief but corroboration of faith arrived at in spite of evidence to the contrary. Lest this distinction sound like a retreat into fideism, I suggest we look at a similar stance by the biologist Stephen Jay Gould.1 Gould’s position, as I understand it, is that evolution displays no direction or purpose, no overriding 95 push or pull toward some goal. It is not the “conventional tale of steadily increasing excellence, complexity, and diversity” that could be imaged by a ladder or a cone.2 Rather, the appropriate model is a bush with many branches, most of which met with extinction in a way that was “utterly unpredictable and quite unrepeatable.”3 What brings about the incredible diversity (and what we consider levels) in evolution is not purpose but small and unpredictable changes operating in a contingent fashion. Adaptations are always developed for local environments; hence, cause is always local and specific, and, if a feature proves useful for later developments, that is just a happy accident for that species, as was the development of a sturdy fin in our ancestor fishes, which proved useful as a backbone later on land.4 Gould claims that a sense of larger purpose or direction has no support. What happens happens in the details, at the local level through the interaction of innumerable factors, and hence anything that does happen might very well not have happened or happened otherwise. He uses the inspired example of the Jimmy Stewart movie, It’s a Wonderful Life, to illustrate the point: small and unpredictable changes lead to vastly different results both in human development and in evolutionary history. Many religious people find this conclusion unnerving since it appears to eliminate purpose (God) from the evolutionary process. But there is another possibility. . . : it is indeed a wonderful life. What has evolved (regardless of why or how it occurred) is complex, diverse, intricate beyond our wildest imaginations. From Where We Stand: Christian Doctrine in Light of the Organic Model We ourselves are a marvel beyond belief, not only because we did evolve but because of what and who we are—indeed, just a little lower than the angels (or perhaps just a little higher, given the present state of angelology). I am suggesting that from the point of view of both contemporary science and Christian reformulation, one valid and important place for the believer to stand is before the present picture of evolutionary history. We could focus on the what rather than the why or how: on what (who) we have become, both in our relations with other life-forms (our place in the cosmos) and our special responsibilities, rather than on how we got the way we are. The latter epistemological question has always fascinated the West, but a more practical kind of question perhaps ought to be: Who are we in the scheme of things, and what is...

Share