@gbrooks9 , I think you need to see this recent article at the Camel’s Hump…
While I disagree with their terminology (for reasons I have already stated), I think they are pointing the need for a plurality of theologies of nature to be expressed and worked out by theistic evolutionist. They are not asking BioLogos to pick a side or adopt one hegemonic position.
With one qualification (in addition to the terminology change), I can largely agree. They write…
So what is my qualification to this? I think that mystery and agnosticism are acceptable responses too. We saw this in @jpm’s recent article on divine action.
My personal position on divine action in evolution is (1) I think evolution is a good description of life on earth, but it is merely scientific. (2) I 100% believe that God designed and created us. (3) I’m agnostic about exactly how God acts to exert His will over evolution, (4) I wonder if the mystery here is intractable (both scientifically and theologically) by God’s intentional plan, and (5) one reason God might make His action in nature unfathomable is to render uniquely powerful His revelation though the life, death, and ressurection of Jesus.
In my understanding, God ensures that Jesus is the “one sign” (quoting Jesus again) in the world that He exists, is good, and wants to be known. As Bonhoeffer writes, “a god who lets us prove his existence would be an idol.” God might be protecting us from idolatry by intentionally rendering His action in the world, apart from Jesus, unfathomable (any thoughts @deliberateresult?) . In this formulation, ID and creation science (to me) feel like Babel Towers: efforts to reach God independent of revelation.
While I do not specify or deny any particular modes of divine action (and am genuinely open to almost anything), I explain theologically (in a Christ centered manner) why I think God might shroud His action in nature with mystery. This is a central component of my “theology of nature” and how Jesus reshapes how I might otherwise approach science, looking for proof and validation. No, now I enter science with confidence, not need any proof more than Jesus.
This response links to me to a long tradition of Christian contemplation on Divine Hiddenness. It is very Reformed. It is very Lutheran. It is very Barthian. It is distinctly Evangelical and Christian. It is a well considered theological position germane to the orthodox Christian faith.
I hope that Camel’s Hump would consider my mystery-embracing theology as an acceptable response to their exhortation. Comment’s here would be appreciated.