The ID debate - moving forward (II)
With the groundwork out of the way in this attempt to move forward in the debate about Intelligent Design, I’ll discuss some of the ways in which we think about God and Creation. These are our mental models – metaphors, pictures, assumptions – that lie behind and shape the direction our thoughts may take. The first thing to say here is thus that I am talking about metaphors – models that help us to understand God and God’s activities. Metaphors are essential because we cannot describe God directly. All of our understanding and language are limited to this world, we have no direct concepts of God. Thus, it’s crucial to have a collection of metaphors that are both accurate and recognised; if we use metaphors without recognising them for what they are, we will make mistakes (seeing them as literal rather than as metaphorical truths, for example). So, first, I want to look at a couple of metaphors that are commonly used when thinking about God’s relationship to Creation and why I believe them to be inadequate. Then, I’ll discuss a couple that I believe to be more useful, while being at least as well grounded in the Bible.
It’s important to bear in mind that the metaphors we use are often unconscious – we are so used to them that we no longer recognise them (if we ever did). More than that, we often operate with several metaphors at the same time, even contradictory ones. And there’s nothing wrong with this. Indeed, using several metaphors can help to address the shortcomings of each. Also, I’m not suggesting that these metaphors are necessarily “behind” any specific theory of Creation. However, I do believe that they are easily seen in certain aspects, and that addressing these weaknesses would be a good thing.
Two common metaphors
Two common ways of thinking about God and Creation include God as Mechanic and God as Lawgiver. They colour our descriptions of events and the ways we think about them. Unfortunately, both are flawed in this context.
First, God as Mechanic. This is the view in which the world is viewed fundamentally as a machine, and God as the entity outside that machine who tends and repairs it. This idea came into being along with science and has roots in the same reductionist approach – that of reducing a thing to its most basic elements in order to try and understand it. Unfortunately, it shares the flaw of reductionist science (and this flaw has an even greater effect in theology than it does in science) – it says that the world is “no more than this”. That is, in reducing the thing studied to its most basic, the student forgets that they have thrown out a lot of detail in order to understand what is going on.
What, then, are the weaknesses of the Mechanic model? It implies that God and Creation are totally separate; a mechanic cannot enter the machine and become part of it, only observe from outside, and the machine does not require the mechanic unless it starts to malfunction. It views Creation as a construct – something that is built and then has its own existence, working or breaking down according to the circumstances it encounters; the mechanic is called in when something breaks or the construct veers off course. It pictures the relationship between Creator and Creation primarily in terms of malfunction and breakdown.
This, then, is the metaphor of the materialist, even the Christian materialist. It is the metaphor behind far too much of the debate about the place of science in Christian thinking; in particular, it’s the metaphor that is behind a lot of thinking about Intelligent Design. That is, most of the justification for “Design” comes framed as “this couldn’t happen naturally so God had to intervene to fix it so that it worked right”. God is the “fixer” who is called in when things aren’t going to plan.
Second, God as Lawgiver. This view is God in authoritarian mould, and is based on parts of the Bible, especially the Old Testament. However, it moves beyond simply suggesting that God uses laws to say that God is bound by the laws that God has made. It places Law as the final and ultimate truth. This means moral laws, as found in the Bible, but also physical laws – the “laws of nature”. It pictures God as operating within a rigid framework of cause and effect, crime and punishment, judge and jury.
What are the weaknesses of this model? Fundamentally, this is about constraining what God is “allowed” to do. It lets us put God into a box and predict what God will do. Sadly, this is not the God pictured in the Bible. The God of the Bible (and, in particular, the descriptions of God in the Old Testament) is changeable, excitable, erratic. God likes laws, likes things to run smoothly and righteously, but never seems to feel bound by them. This is quite different to saying that God isn’t faithful – but God’s faithfulness is to people and nations, not to abstract laws. This is why we say that God is Love, because God is concerned with people.
The flaws with these metaphors are primarily when we read something out of context. For example, the idea of God as Mechanic simply didn’t exist when the Bible was written. The whole basis of this metaphor was unknown. So, it is a profound mistake to read passages of the Bible as though they were written with this metaphor in mind. That is, we must not read the accounts of the creation of the world in Genesis as though they were written with this model in mind. The idea of God as operating on Creation as a mechanic would on a machine is totally foreign to the Genesis accounts. And to treat them as though they work with this metaphor is to invite error.
Similarly, to apply the idea of God as Lawgiver outside a certain narrow sphere is a mistake. God’s relationship with Law is not one of servant and master. Rather, God uses Law in various ways in various contexts. Law may be Covenant – a promise with conditions and rewards. Law may be boundary-setting – so that all may know their error. Law may be establishing the norm – establishing foundational principles. But Law always exists only to carry out God’s wishes, whether that is in religion, in society or in nature. We must not elevate Law too high.
Two different metaphors
If these metaphors are insufficient, which pictures of God would I prefer? I propose using two different models, each with its own strengths, each building on models found in the Bible, each differing in significant ways from the two above. Most importantly, neither deals with binary either/or choices. They aren’t concerned with right and wrong, with in and out. Rather, they are more organic, more ambiguous and yet more powerful.
First, to replace the idea of God as Mechanic, I suggest that we would be better off thinking of God as Healer. Where the mechanic deals with the breakdown of specific components, the healer deals with the whole. Where the mechanic is concerned with the proper functioning of a machine, the healer is concerned with the wellbeing of a person.
Whereas the mechanic can control every aspect of a machine without trouble (even turning it off completely), the healer cannot. To control a patient utterly, one would have to kill the patient – to stop all change. For the healer, the main occupation is waiting. Most of the time, the doctor simple observes the patient, confident in their own ability to intervene correctly when appropriate. When intervention is required, it is usually subtle and indirect (there is no obvious connection between swallowing plant extract and the disappearance of head pain). Only very occasionally is surgery required.
So, this idea takes us away from the reductionist approach of the Mechanic. Instead, we have a Healer who is no less in control but who instead deals subtly with the whole patient. Instead of focusing on malfunction, the healer focuses on health. Instead of seeing Creation as a machine that exists independently, with God intervening only when things go wrong, it sees God as continually overseeing Creation, continually concerned for its health.
The second idea I’d like to suggest is that of journey. We are familiar with the idea of our life being a “journey” with God – perhaps the most famous example is Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress. But this idea can be usefully applied far beyond just our personal journey. What, though, do we mean by “journey”? The idea involves ideas of origin and destination, of many roads, of choices, of wandering, running or climbing.
The idea here is that we walk through life, sometimes able to see ahead, sometimes not. Sometimes we are on wide, easy roads; other times, we struggle up steep slopes or through difficult terrain. Throughout this, though, God walks alongside us. God, who can see the whole landscape and guide us. God, who created that landscape and cannot be deceived. God, who alone knows the destination towards which we are headed.
In this model, there is no idea of malfunction. We can take the wrong road, but God can always guide us back. We keep walking, that’s the important thing. God walks with us, guides us to take the correct turnings. Sometimes, we have to take a hard road – because that is the one that leads to the destination; the easy road leads us away. That is, crucially, this metaphor fastens on three concepts – origin, journey and destination. These three together define our life. And, most particularly, destination is important because this is what gives our journey purpose.
Next time
With these models in mind (and the idea of journey in particular), we’re ready for the final part of this mini-series, in which I’ll discuss a model that I believe offers a better way to understand Creation, Design, evolution, choice and freedom – a model I think of as the “landscape” model.
pax et bonum
Follow comments using Co.mments.com
Add to your del.icio.us bookmarks
I have no issues with your preferred models. In fact, I “approve” them with reservation – the only reservation being you failed to provide Biblical justification as you promised.
Bunyan rocks. One of his dialogues in Pilgrim’s Progress will be a post of mine in the future.
Hammertime () (URL)
4:52pm on 11 May 2006
However, I think it’s very clear that seeing God as Healer has an excellent biblical pedigree. Jesus spent much of His ministry as a healer, and it was one of the prime ways in which He showed what He was about (reaching out to the outcast, including the excluded, cleansing the unclean). Similarly, in the OT, God is often about the business of healing – and healing often appears in the Prophets, too, as a metaphor for dealing with the failures of Israel as well as literally.
As for journey, there’s lots of talk about “the way of the wicked”, “the narrow path”, “walking with wisdom” and similar language, as well as the idea that God walks alongside us. The idea that we travel along a road and that it matters which road we choose
Good enough?
pax et bonum
[John] () (URL)
08:12am on 12 May 2006
Hammertime () (URL)
6:49pm on 12 May 2006