Comparative Analysis of Divine Action Proposals

The proposals for conceiving divine action in the world from Van Till, Peacocke, and Haught create an interesting set of inconsistencies such that might be deemed as incompatible with contemporary science and Christian religious traditions; however, these three thinkers are able to defend their positions and beliefs on these issues and inconsistencies. Issues such as the formational economy of the universe in its beginnings, the nature of suffering, and the metaphysical role of God in the history of life on Earth play a significant role in these religious thinkers’ theological proposals.

The Monarchical model of God that is argued by Van Till in his theological proposal is one of endless love and generosity. The monarchical model suggests that God is a king and ruler of everything. A king, however, does not actively work to fix problems. He simply commands that they be fixed through delegation. Through this model, Van Till suggests that God has an extremely hands-off approach to the events of the universe, particularly human history. In many ways, Howard Van Till is particularly critical of Young Earth Creationists and Atheistic Naturalists, basing his own beliefs around the core fundamental of a Robust Formational Economy of the Universe through a monarchical God. This is to say that the universe has the grand capability to self-organize and transform in a very productive manner, such as to produce life and evolve it over time. Young Earth Creationists find this concept to be detrimental to Christian doctrine considering the implications that it may have on the role of God in an interventionist viewpoint. Van Till firmly believes that this idea of a Robust Formational Economy can only occur through the actions of a God that does not operate within the gaps of the universe. The Gap Theory, a viewpoint that is held strongly by Young Earth Creationists, is the idea that God operates in the gaps of human knowledge and spirituality, thus filling in those gaps in our knowledge until such other knowledge may arise. Van Till believes this theory to represent God in a manner of secret-keeping cruelty. To this end, the monarchical model proposes that God is an all-loving and all-generous deity that does not withhold a hidden knowledge and was generous enough to create a fruitful Robust Formational Economy. Van Till uses the generous and loving nature of God to prove to other branches of Christianity that there are no inconsistencies with evolution through this model. God gave the universe a Robust Formational Economy out of love and generosity, therefore allowing evolution to occur.

Van Till’s proposal for a monarchical model of God receives a lot of criticism from other theological thinkers, such as Sally McFague, for the inconsistencies in the model. McFague states three main flaws with this model. The first problem with the model is that it suggests that God is too distant from the world. Instead of acting within the gaps of our knowledge, God acts through use of Robust Formational Economy, making him seem even further from humanity. The second flaw that she states is that the monarchical model suggest that God only relates to the human world, a view that seems somewhat selfish of our species. It is egotistical to believe that humans are more valuable than the other beings on this planet, and even more egotistical to believe that Earth is the only planet of billions to hold sentient life. McFague believes that God looks at each species with equal love, thus why he would create a Robust Formational Economy for the universe in the first place. The third statement that McFague offers for the model is that it suggests that God is dominant and benevolent, a view that McFague more attributes to the concern for humanity. She believes that divine dominance leads to human passivity and divine benevolence will lead to human naivety. This is to say that humans would simply cease to care about God or the world through this model since everything is provided to them. Without a God of the Gaps withholding knowledge, there would be no grand questioning of why the world has such beauty, thus making the need for a Robust Formational Economy pointless.

Other issues with Van Till’s claim stem from the lack of repercussions in his model. Van Till’s model states nothing about the issues of suffering and death as they pertain to God’s action. Instead of talking about these issues, Van Till focuses on the loving generosity of God in order to gather support for his proposal’s integration with modern Christianity and science. For this reason, Van Till is often accused of being a deist, meaning that he believes that God has created the universe but remains apart from it and permits his creation to administer itself through natural laws. Deism thus rejects the supernatural aspects of religion, such as belief in revelation in the Bible, and stresses the importance of ethical conduct. This accusation is partially true in that Van Till believes that God created the Robust Formational Economy so that nature could independently develop itself into something more complex, but he also believes that these actions of the Robust Formational Economy are continually sustained by God through divine means. The lack of mention for the issue of suffering in Van Till’s proposal shows a sort of naivety on his part, that he would be so impartial on such a critical issue of discussion in Theology.

Arthur Peacocke proposes a very different and opposing view of God’s action through the model of Whole-Part Influence Panentheism. This model suggests that God acts in and through complex historo-cultural, evolutionary and subtle processes. In this way, Peacocke proposes that God is immanently acting in the world as a sustainer through continuous creation, thereby remedying the issue in Van Till’s proposal that God is too distant from human action. The closeness of God’s interaction with the world comes from three main dimensions of God’s creation activity: original creation, ongoing creation, and fulfillment of creation. According to Peacocke’s proposal, God is actively creating new life on Earth and participating constantly in worldly affairs to fulfill his creations, while simultaneously creating more for himself to to continue creation for.

Peacocke’s representation of the panentheistic model is portrayed through concrete artistry. He relates God to a musical composer. The composer does not have any participation in the performance of the composition in that he does not play any instrument, yet the music is filled up with his emotional characteristics and love. The music is literally composed of his essence and is fully created by him, though he is not directly acting in it. In this way, God is the full cause and continuation of the universe, but the Robust Formational Economy is the method by which he acts. Peacocke also shows the theme of artistry in his proposal by saying that God delights in the aesthetic tapestry in which he created. This is to say that God delights in his creations, thereby creating the issue of Peacocke’s proposal: that God delights in his creations that consistently suffer.

As opposed to Van Till, Peacocke tackles the problem of suffering and death in the action of God. The main issue with these concepts is that while God cares so deeply for his creations, he still somehow allows and even causes them to suffer and die. Critics of Van Till would say that his model shows a purely delighting God, meaning that God takes delight in the suffering of humanity allows it to continue happening. Peacocke’s response to this issue is to represent God as a fellow sufferer. God sent Jesus, a human extension of his divine self, to Earth to teach the people about God and remedy their sins by a noble death. Jesus therefore was a suffering servant messiah that showed Peacocke that God must also suffer for humanity. Peacocke explains that a suffering God acts through the concepts of Theodicy and Kenosis. Theodicy is the belief that God willingly suffers for the sake of humanity, represented by Jesus, and that his suffering is indicative of his divine power of vulnerable love. God’s love is therefore vulnerable for any person to accept through means of God’s Kenosis, or self-emptying. Kenosis is the way in which God empties out his love into the world so that humanity can choose to accept it by their own free-will.

Peacocke agrees with Van Till on the concept of the Robust Formational Economy because it provides a means of evolutionary process that allows growth of the universe over long spans of time, though he believes that God is continually active in creation through this method as opposed to being hands-off in Van Till’s proposal. Peacocke also believes that the closeness of God through his continuing creation is compatible with the theory of evolution because it means that God is the cause of continuing evolution.

One of the main criticisms of Peacocke’s proposal is that God should not be represented as suffering due to a sign of weakness. These critics believe that God does not suffer because suffering indicates emotion and flaws, which God is believed to not have. They also believe that Jesus being sent as a suffering servant is too passive of an image for a messiah. They do not want to valorize suffering as a noble end. In the proposals of both Peacocke and Haught, they propose the idea of Theodicy, that God is a fellow sufferer. This view is often criticized of being too passive of an image for God. A God that uses vulnerable love as his power proves an image of passivity that simply does not take a stance on the issue of evil. Peacocke’s response to this is that a suffering God is a powerful God. God gets his strength from vulnerable love, both from himself and those that choose to make their love vulnerable to him by worship and adornment. This love is proven to be powerful and clear in Jesus’s moment of sacrifice, allowing all sins to be forgiven through God.

Peacocke is also criticized for an inconsistency in his proposal related to evolution. Critics of Peacocke’s proposal would argue that if God is continually creating and has always had influence in the world, as according to Peacocke, why would he evolve life over long spans of time as opposed to instant perfect creation? This inconsistency might suggest a flawed God in that he had to go back and continually fix an ineffective part of his original creation. The universe has flaws, therefore God has flaws in his original creation. Peacocke’s defense for this argument is Kenosis; God is self-emptying and self-limiting to allow the universe the gift of independent creation. This defense leads to arguably the most notable inconsistency in Peacocke’s proposal: if God is self-limiting to allow independent creation, then how can Peacocke claim God being so involved in the world as a fellow sufferer? In other words, God claims to want the hands-off approach to creation that Van Till suggests in his proposal, yet continually participates in creation and suffering. Peacocke simply does not have a defense for this issue as it is a seeming paradox of theology.

The proposal set forth by John Haught is based around models of God as the embodiment of Kenotic love and the metaphysical future. In many ways, Haught is similar to Peacocke in his panentheistic view of God as a fellow sufferer and a shared belief in God’s Kenosis. The main difference between the two thinkers is how they represent God. While Peacocke has an artistic view of God as a musical composer, Haught is much more methodical and abstract. Haught is a process thinker, meaning that he is particularly rational about the ideology that he holds, however, he is not like other process thinkers. While most process thinkers try to be entirely objective in their pursuit of answers and sound argumentation, Haught bases his theology on the subjective choice of God’s love.

Haught’s metaphysical claim that God is the embodiment of the future is exceedingly more abstract than those made by Van Till or Peacocke. Haught proposes the idea that the future is full of grand possibilities. As a concept, the future itself has always been perpetually supercedent of the present and the past. In this way, the universe has always had a vast range of possibilities leading into the future, but because the future is an uncatchable abstract concept it continues to provide a vast range of possibilities in an endless line of potentiality. This promotes the theory of evolution as one of the possible scenarios that was made possible by the future, eventually leading to human sentience. God is represented by Haught as dwelling in the future at all times due to his Kenotic love for the world. While Peacocke explains Kenosis to be God’s self-emptying love, Haught believes that God to be self-emptying from present reality altogether. As a transcendent being of divine nature, it is not unreasonable to believe that God resides in a transcendent abstract concept of the future. Therefore, God constantly offers humanity a vast range of possibilities that can be chosen through free-will that will lead to another moment of possibilities and so on and so forth. A reasonable image to describe this future-based God is a mother and infant. The mother stands a few feet in front of the child and ushers it to take its first steps forward, already intelligently guessing that the child will walk to her without harm, while simultaneously preparing for the child to fall. Haught states on page 322 that “the self-emptying God refrains from overwhelming the universe with an annihilating divine presence but in the mode of futurity nonetheless nourishes the world constantly by offering to it a range of relevant new possibilities - such as those depicted by evolutionary science.” This is to say that God’s power of futurity is not a means of deprivation from his generous love, but rather a facet of his love that allows the cosmos to randomly create its own future. With God living perpetually in the future, it is also made clear that within each moment in history, the cosmos holds a preserved and everlasting imprint of God’s love. Haught’s proposal, in a certain sense, is cosmocentric as opposed to anthropocentric, as is Van Till’s model, meaning that the actions of God are keenly focused on the grand workings of the cosmos as opposed to the workings of humanity.

One of the key criticisms that Haught receives for his proposal is that he is overly optimistic of the role of God in universal action. These critics would argue the idea of cosmic pessimism, meaning that life in the universe was pure luck and that the natural universe is inherently hostile towards life. Haught’s response to this critique focuses largely on the theme of the “promise” of God in opposition to cosmic pessimism. Throughout his work, Haught makes numerous references to God’s promise to the world. This could mean a variety of different things. For one, it could mean the promise of a God that lives in the abstract future; that one day humanity will meet God in the future described in the Book of Revelations. It could also mean the promises that God made through Jesus to continually forgive the sins of the world and to love them despite their sins. Haught describes God’s promise to be the inevitable emergence of life as one of the outcomes that the future made possible. He believes that cosmic pessimism is simply not substantial due to the promise that God made for the emergence of life, exemplified in the overwhelming retrospective inevitability of life in the universe, made possible by the residual energy from the Big Bang event and the loving possibilities that the future God generously provided.

Haught is also largely criticized for his use of abstract concepts to describe God’s divine action. While it is fair to assume that theologians and intellectuals will understand the metaphysical claim that God is the embodiment of the Kenotic future, an uninformed reader would be utterly confused by the idea. As an abstract concept, Haugh’s proposal is not an easy thing to grasp for the uninformed public. While this is somewhat positive for Haught in that it limits the amount of general criticism that he receives, it also means that the criticisms that he does receive come from highly informed theologians and educated persons, making them much more difficult to defend against.

Haught’s proposal of a metaphysical God of the future is extremely effective as a model of divine action. It not only suggests that God is actively invested in human decision-making by laying out the groundwork of the present, but also that God’s love is so self-emptying that he must remain in an abstract future to keep his promises of revelation and retrospective existence of life. In comparison to Van Till, Haught has a somewhat similar idea of God’s participation in the universe. Van Till suggests in his proposal that God is very hands-off in his worldly participation, stating that God is responsible for original creation but not continuous creation. While Haught is closer to Peacocke’s belief that God is responsible for continuous creation, he is similar to Van Till in his ideology of a hands-off type of divine action. According to Haught, God does not participate in the present, but rather lays out the foreground for events to randomly occur as they will. Through this commonality, Haught keeps the appeal to Christian theology from Van Till, stating that there is no reason that a generous and loving God should conflict with the theory of evolution, while also keeping the appeal to science from Peacocke’s proposal. In this way, Haught proposes a mutual ground between Van Till and Peacocke in the belief that, though he is not directly involved in the human actions made, he actively sets the groundwork for such actions to take place.

The theological proposals of divine action laid out by Van Till, Peacocke and Haught are vastly different from one another in nature. Van Till proposes a somewhat optimistic God of generosity and love that does not act directly in the world, but rather watches from afar after original creation. Peacocke and Haught believe that God is continually creating and participating in the world as a sustainer through self-emptying love and fellow suffering, but imagine him doing so in different ways. While Peacocke believes God to be an artistic image of a musical composer who is fully responsible for, but not participatory in the universe, Haught believes God to be an abstract concept of futurity that promises life and continuing creation in the perpetual future, inevitably leading to the promise of revelation. It is beyond any single person to say whether any of these proposals are true or false, but it is the duty of an intellectual in the field of religious studies to assess the validity of each argument and critique them with skepticism and rationality. It is up to the theologian to defend against such criticisms with retort and rational argumentation. Van Till fails to defend against the critique of optimism, in that his argument does nothing to explain the nature of suffering and death in God’s divine action. Peacocke defends much more rationally against criticisms of a suffering God being too passive. Haught’s proposal is by far the most rational and his defense against criticism of cosmic optimism is superior to any other defense by Van Till or Peacocke.