evolved and elected

There is a dilemma (one of a few) for those theologians that want to affirm the theory of evolution (or at least want to acknowledge it as the best/most adequate theory currently available). This ‘one’ that is mentioned here focuses on a type of theology called ‘theodicy’ – which is essentially the discipline that attempts to understand and articulate the suffering of the world in light of a ‘loving God’, and vice-versa.

This comes into play for evolution because the theory centers on themes of competition, death, destruction, survival of the fittest, & violence. If you follow the link on ‘violence,’ you’ll get a small glimpse of why I think these themes are troublesome for Christian theology and ethics.

So, I ask, is violence immoral for Christians? If so, (which I will rest on as a premise based on the arguments I have laid out in those former posts – if anyone disagrees, I welcome that critique; nonetheless, for the purpose of this post I will continue with that premise) is not God also accountable to the same degree of morality as we humans are accountable to? (in other words, if it is immoral for humans to be violent, is it not also immoral for God to be violent/create a system of violence?) Is evolution rightfully categorized as a theory resting on ‘violence’ in a moral sense? If there was not moral accountability for those creatures prior to the homosapien creature, then how did humans attain moral/ethical/spiritual capacities?

I know this sounds like twenty questions, but I believe they are all tied into one issue – theodicy.

My theory or attempt to approach this dilemma is built on the concept of election. In this use of the term ‘election’ I’m not permitting subservient concepts of ‘foreknowledge’ and ‘predestination’. Rather, I intend the definition which articulates God interacting within situations to give all or parts of creation the capacity to move beyond the deterministic course of events. One very clear and generally accepted instance of ‘election’ in the Scriptures is when God chose (or elected) Abram (whom he renamed ‘Abraham’ upon election) to be the father of the elected people of God (Israel). There is no explicit reason to believe or presume that God had chosen this man ‘Abram’ since the moment of creation or primordially. Perhaps God was disposed to choose, but that self-determination of God does not necessitate the individual was also predestined.

So, as Abram became the one whom God chose to fulfill the role of the father of God’s people, I contend that the evolved sentient creature dubbed the ‘human’ creature became the species that God elected to fulfill the role of God’s ‘people’.

We can carry some themes across from the situation of the Israelites to the more general situation of elected humanity. One, the nation of Israel was not chosen over/above all other nations as ‘superior’, ‘sovereign’, or generally ‘better’. Rather, they were chosen to be a ‘priestly nation’. One that was to minister to all nations on behalf of God (therefore, rather than superior and sovereign, Israel was to be submissive and servant-like).

Therefore, I contend the same for humanity – we were elected, not over/above all of creation to abuse, dominate, and domineer it, but to serve it as God’s sentient, self-aware, and morally capable ministers for the sake of all creation.

That’s all for this post, though I haven’t responded to all my question – consequently, I intend to work on a follow-up post.