Between scientism and fideism : acceptance of evolution as a theological challenge

Between scientism and fideism: Acceptance of evolution as a theological challenge. In this contribution to the special issue of HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies that is dedicated to Prof. Buitendag, I will explore what Prof. Buitendag’s notion of a ‘revised natural theology’ might mean for the theological reception of the scientific theory of biological evolution. I argue that two extremes must be avoided here. One is the fideistic ignoring of (or refusal to take into account) the data that have been placed on the table regarding the evolutionary development of life on earth, as if these do not concern theology. The other extreme that theology must steer clear of is a scientistic over-interpretation of our knowledge of the evolutionary past, whereby the theory of evolution is magnified to a comprehensive philosophy of life (‘evolutionism’) that is incompatible with Christian faith.http://www.hts.org.zahb201

How to Speak with Intellectual and Theological Decency on the Resurrection of Christ? A Comparison of Swimburne and Wright

In recent scholarship the spiritual reading of the New Testament resurrection stories has come under pressure from new studies of the relevant data. In this article, two of the most conspicuous of these studies are compared and evaluated. First, Richard Swinburne's monograph opens our eyes to the fact that, in interpreting the resurrection stories, much more is at stake than is usually recognised in so-called 'undogmatic' exegesis. However, the rather crude way in which Swinburne deals with these stories, suggesting that they represent Jesus' resurrection as a bare fact not qualitatively different from other historical facts, neglects their peculiarity and displays insufficient hermeneutical sensitivity for their unique theological meaning. Second, Tom Wright's monumental volume is sometimes criticised for a similar single-minded focus on historical questions and a concomitant lack of attention to the eschatological character of Jesus' resurrection. As a result, George Hunsinger has argued, it becomes unclear why the resurrection reports embody life-transforming good news now. Close scrutiny of Wright's book, however, does not vindicate this criticism. Wright neither isolates the question of the resurrection's historicity from its theological meanings nor overlooks the fact that a plausible historical case for the resurrection does not in itself elicit faith. Still, he rightly argues that what people believe about what actually has happened often plays a vital role in their personal transformation. Moreover, the eschatological nature of the resurrection does not rule out the fact that it can be seen and discussed with integrity as a historical issue. © 2008 Scottish Journal of Theology Ltd

Reflexen

Discussion of recent developments in the Dutch theological and ecclesial landscape