Oneworld Publications, 1998
Chapter 1 - Christianity and the Scientific Worldview
Q: What of those who lived a terrible life, where is their "meaning"? Although faith can give meaning to tragedy - 'making a whole' out of a fragment, it is only whose with the cultural wealth of understanding and education who can do this, others may not have this opportunity.
Chapter 2 - The Trinity and Creation
Chapter 3 - Sacred Cosmology
Chapter 4 - Explaining the Universe
Chapter 5 - Theistic Explanation
Chapter 6 - Breaking out of the Mechanistic Universe
Chapter 7 - God's Action in the Universe
Chapter 8 - Creation, Suffering and the Divine Purpose
The picture Ward presents is of God as a many-headed being, at once an inquisitive scientist performing experiments and research, then as a politician - holding some balance of power between opposing forces: artist and creator. It is as if all the facets and "types" of human nature are actually incarnations of God, showing some aspect of the ground of his personality. Thus God has the same negative traits of each personality also - the "shutting off" of the scientist from the outside world, the absorption of the artist etc.
Ward also makes reference to Jesus as the Christ - as showing what the fully realised potential of humanity is. But this is very strange! Is this tortured, lonely prophet, murdered at 33 really the ideal human life? The sacrificial idea of Jesus at least makes his death and resurrection central to his importance, his life here is just incidental. To make his life central creates a problem. In this case Kazankis in this case is right - Jesus would have lived a better life if he had married and had children, this is more "realised potential". What about a real artist (painter, musician etc)? If evil has to be endured (as Jesus endures it) why does Christ also oppose it? (This is the "to be or not to be" and Jesus doesn't clearly answer it).
Chapter 9 - God and Evolution
Ward addresses various criticisms that evolution disproves God. What of all the wasted species? For example what of the dinosaurs that died out, would God permit all this waste? Ward makes a similar argument to that against death. Something has meaning even if it has an end. A piece of music as intrinsic worth, even if it has an end, a life as worth, even if it finally has to end. So a species may have intrinsic worth, even if the species ends. Randomness questions the role of God as a designer, if everything happens by chance. Ward does not agree with the chance argument - on the contrary, there is surprisingly little real random chance if he argues, if all the possibilities are taken into account. Evolution is far from random, life on earth is highly improbably if pure chance is used, in fact so improbable that it amounts to an impossibility. "Chance" actually points to a designer at work, even the meteor killing the dinosaurs can be seen as "purpose" within the ecosystem as a whole - dinosaurs would have stopped humans developing, so it was preferable that they died out.
So Ward's position on evolution is that you can't prove or disprove God with evolution, however the believer, coming to evolution from an assumption of God, finds good reasons for seeing God's hand in creation through evolution.
Chapter 10 - The Soul
Chapter 11 - The Fall and Salvation of Humanity
Chapter 12 - Breaking out of Literalism
Chapter 13 - Christianity Among the World Religions
Chapter 14 - The Life of Jesus
Chapter 15 - The World to Come
Would early Christians have been martyred if they had believed in a second chance after death? Ward might argue that the love and truth revealed to them made them face death, so even if they knew about a second chance they wouldn't have wanted to have renounced Christ. However it seems likely at least part of what persuaded people to die for Christ was the promise of a better reward.
Another problem with Ward's views is his general acceptance of Christian theology (although at some points it might be argued that he quietly takes a semi-gnostic line). Given that theology is the outcome of a power-struggle throughout history in which the politically and militarily weaker side lost, shouldn't we look at the views destroyed by the machine of the Church, that butchered "heretics" from within its own ranks as well as Jews, Muslims and atheists. We need to acknowledge the full Christian tradition which includes gnostics and heretics - a heresy is a politically weak denomination.
Ward's references to the cosmic Christ, the Logos, and the pleroma of Christ point to a more gnostic view. Surely the experience of Christianity and all religions is the plurality of God - the openness of God. Isn't it likely that God wants freedom and difference? If we look at the Bible it is about language - invoking the spirit, debate, reason, poetry. It is much less about command and obey without question than a library of experiences of God, of people debating and experimenting with God. So we need to think less about difference = error, and more that difference is the image of God, and so good. There is a huge space in God in which variety and difference exist.
Chapter 16 - The End of All Things
It may be we should just think of God as a force in dynamic of forces which inner-dynamics eventually caused it to rupture into the physical universe - the Big Bang. This caused God to be split into fragments, some of which are rebellious and evil, other parts are freedom, others beauty. In a sense the variety and difference of people and the universe reflects this dispersal of God. These million points of light in the universe need to be brought back together - restored to power.
Sometimes it is possible to think of God as a-moral, working through some purpose which involves suffering, violence and slaughter and he has no sense of what is happening. God in this scenario is capable of spiritual ecstasy and rapture, of visions, worship, pleasure, but not of experiencing justice, hope and pride.
Conclusion
The overall impression is that Ward looks too much to the past and is too conservative. He attempts to keep with tradition unless someone is able to prove 500% that it couldn't have been that way. The history of the church and theology is a power struggle between groups of ideas, and there is no reason to assume that the ideas that won were always correct.
One day someone will be able to paint a picture of the world, science and religion without giving the impression that they didn't start with one and fit the other two in afterwards. Ward isn't the person to do this, but he has succeeded in at least keeping all three elements reasonably balanced in his picture.
© John Mann January 2000
ISBN 1-85168-155-8
Meaning can be intrinsic to a whole, for example a piece of music, so we needn't look for something 'beyond' - life can be beautiful and meaningful in itself. Faith and love in God would be a part of that whole, a part of the process.
The "logos" or Word is understood as the expression of God in the universe - the manifestation of God and so the basis of creation - hence all the NT references to Christ and creation. Jesus the man is just an expression of this principle of God in the flesh.
Discussion of the creation stories of Genesis and the 'sacred' truth they contain. It is difficult to know what claims are being made here - simply a set of propositions for how to treat creation? Why is it significant that there is overlap between these stories and science? (That these stories can be understood as a poetic expression of the truths discovered by science)? Where do these stories come from? This comes down to what exactly it is that God has revealed? If he really can reveal truths to us, why do all the religions have such different truths?
The complex, conscious universe we are in is highly improbable as the result of chance, however it is highly probable as the result of God's design, hence God's existence is the more rational explanation. The problem with this is that some middle course probably seems better - not that there is no God, and not that the traditional God of Christianity created the universe. Rather there is some weird intelligence which has some "ground" in personality and consciousness, but is alien enough to not make sense to us, and so we dress it up with our own anthropomorphic details to create "God".
Ward discusses the idea of God as a necessary being - the ground of all possibility, which cannot be thought away without destroying every possibility of being.
Personal God - the view that God is creator of the universe traditionally ignores the "artistic" traits of creation - we need to think of God as a Dali or Derrida, an idiosyncratic, puzzling, creative artist. "Derrida is God" - meaning the sort of variety, freedom and individual space provided in a Derrida text is more like the creative dynamics of God. Keith Ward talks a lot about God as artist in the sense of painting great pictures or composing complex, beautiful symphonies, but the universe doesn't have that sort of composition. Instead it is more of a textual, deconstructive, surreal composition - a "happening". What sort of artist would create space?
Ward presents himself as against determinism, as if this was the only alternative to Christianity. As if we have to choose between fixed determinism or total chaos. Total freedom or organisation. Like some benevolent power which allows a decentralisation to local powers, God gives freedom to those below him. God holds freedom within this "indeterminacy" - God can himself act to answer prayer, perform miracles, but not too much, there has to be some order. This interventionist idea doesn't sound convincing at all - why interfere but not too much? Why interfere at some points and not others? If God is rationed for interfering wouldn't he make sure all his miracles were for the best causes?
Ward's defence of suffering as caused but not intended by God is fairly traditional. The radical ideas of the earlier chapters (Logos as Order, Spirit as feminine) are not carried through here. However he does raise the possibility of a gnostic reading of the universe. He suggests that God could create another creator (sub-creator, below God) to choose what God does not intend. The immediate target is of course man, but it could be a demiurge, the Lord of this World. This raises the possibility that only a sub-creator created the physical universe or earth, and so God is not responsible for any of our earthly suffering.
God and evolution: this is what Ward is arguing for. Suppose I throw a six with a dice, then another six, and so on fifty times. Mathematically it is as likely that this will occur as any other combination of throws, but can we explain such a phenomena by chance alone? Similarly we need to explain why all the chances that resulted in life, an conscious, intelligent life, happened. Ward argues that in creation, God "pulls" evolution forward, pulls the chances towards the final outcome, as in a "teleological" explanation. He is also sympathetic to Plato's "forms" giving reality to the world: as if the form causes or more exactly "pulls" an object into its conception. Ward argues that evolution and life, particularly human life, forming in the universe do indeed have chance as the cause - the million dice rolling at once, but it is God who somehow through some sort of teleological explanation makes all the dice land on a six - makes human life happen. The problem perhaps is how Ward is able to conceive of God's influence if it isn't a cause - he is opening up our conceptions of "cause" again to ask if science's restricted view of cause can't be informed by the philosophical varieties of cause found in Plato and Aristotle.
Ward suggests consciousness may take us beyond the physical. He believes dogs may not be conscious in the reflective sense that humans are. He suggests the brain may be a "data bank" of information the soul needs to process as a "reader" of the data. He does not see the soul as a disembodied consciousness, but salvation of the soul occurs through the redemption of the body - through love, truth and beauty, and realignment with God.
Ward is obscure on how Jesus redeems - he says Christianity would be arrogant to say it was the only truth about God (so much for "no one comes to the Father but by me") but also says the truth of Jesus about God is very important. He says Jesus somehow shows God participating in suffering and forgiveness, but doesn't really explain how it all fits together.
The religious imagery of creation, fall, atonement, heaven and hell, the return of Christ and the Last Judgement requires a non-literal interpretation. This is both because science has shown such literalism to be incorrect, but also because a non-literal interpretation reveals a deeper spiritual meaning to this 'sacred cosmology' of the Christian faith. It is also important for Christians not to be so arrogant to suggest God's purpose is only fulfilled through their religion and no other. Christianity is distinctive and important, but God is more than any religion can describe.
Ward discusses the eastern and western religious traditions, and the varieties of religion within the western tradition. Ward insists it is not possible to find some "common" set of religious truths, we must live with disagreement, however we should also seek to understand other traditions and identify areas of agreement. Ward lists seven principles of "global pluralism" based on respect, understanding and cooperation between religions.
Ward presents a surprisingly literal view of the life of Jesus. While he insists the virgin birth and other miracles are not necessary to belief in Jesus as the Christ, he argues there is no reason why they should not have happened, if Jesus was who he claimed to be.
Ward argues that God will eventually bring everyone back to him so that none eventually might be lost - there will be another chance after death. He defends this view primarily on the basis of the character of God who is loving and forgiving and so wouldn't want anyone to perish, and addition with reference to Christ preaching to the souls in hell. The problem with Ward's very open view is that the NT seems to be clear that God is bringing in a new order, the spiritual reality has happened, and at the end all sinners will be punished and suffer, but those who have held to God will survive. Ward doesn't hold to this view. Ward could - I think - hold to a view of karma, after all why couldn't someone "work out" their salvation in future re-births. Also his theology seems to be faulty when saying even those with faith in Christ are guilty of sin - surely once we are "in Christ" we are accepted, our sin is gone. Ward seems back to a "earning our salvation" theme of non-Christian religions.
The end of all things. Instead of seeing God as having a purpose which is worked out in the universe, we should question the continuity of the story. With God we always face contradictions at certain levels which we seek to resolve at other levels - we need to be explicit about resolving these contradictions. Examples - God of love in world of pain and suffering, God as having a plan compared with lengthy development of the universe and fact that much is empty or just gas, rocks etc. God as moral in world of pain and immorality.
Ward presents a coherent worldview for modern Christians, cleverly balancing between conservative (his openness to miracles and God's intervention in the world) and liberal (calling the Holy Spirit "she", seeing Jesus as a "cosmic logos" and commitment to a "global pluralism"). He is also able to provide a coherent defence of Christianity against an atheistic reading of modern science, providing arguments for how God fits into cosmology and evolution.