Evolution and Christology (Part I?)

This is in response to a question asked in discussion of an article posted on Spectrum.
http://www.spectrummagazine.org/blog/2009/05/19/unveiling_missing_link_fossil_raises_big_questions


“Why does an evolutionist seek salvation? Moral evolution is warmed over Elile Coue de Chataigneraie (ism) "In every day and in every way I am getting better and better." If man emerged by trial and error from primordial ooze--he grew up not "fell" down! Thus is no need for a salvific "Sabbath" anymore than a creation Sabbath.
The concept of a final generation necessity to vindicate God, is a warmed over "Sanctification" model of Eile Eoue's infamous mantra. Don Matzal calls this the theology of Glory --the consequence of "Once Saved, Always Saved". He contrast this with the Theology of the Cross. He see the difference between the two as: The Theology of the Cross defines repentance as contrition and faith while the Theology of Glory sees contrition and human determination.
Moral evolutionists are of the Theology of Glory taxonomy. Christians are of the Theology of the Cross. Dr. Edward Heppenstall captured this distinction in his seminal article in Signs of the Times of about 1964--"The Centrality of the Cross." Paul was an affirmed apostle of the Theology of the Cross--It was his Alpha and his Omega.
That evolutionists need rest, there is no doubt for they are flesh. Where, how, and why are based on entirely different premises that those of the Seventh-Day Adventist's 28 Fundamental Beliefs. It seems academic that the how and why are as significant as the when? No Creator, No Fall, No Seventh-day Sabbath according to Fundamental Beliefs.
Certainly Saturday and Sunday work out as being the best two days out of the seven in which to "rest" in Western Economy. The merit is in the renewal of mind, body, and spirit, not in any salvific sense. One could rig up a prayer wheel for that.”


My reply isn’t exactly a reply, just some thoughts on the value and meaning of Christ and human divine interaction (among other things) in the context of evolutionary development. Thanks to Tom Zwemer for sparking interesting thoughts.
Surely the beauty of the incarnation of the creator God (however God chose to create) transcends the evolutionary process. Why should it be that God who created the potential for life in the first fractions of a second after the Big Bang is barred from interacting in such an intimate way with the life that resulted?
Furthermore, creatures with freewill are likely to develop traits and habits that are unhealthy and hurtful. Also, anyone familiar with the New Years Tsunami, the Lisbon Earthquake, the Black Death, etc. will surely grant, with Voltaire, that this is not the best of all possible worlds (why would God create a world that is not the best? That is, in my opinion, a theodicy question, and theodicy, like the poor, we have with us always.).

Polkinghorne has an interesting free will argument that I find appealing. He suggests that God grants free will to all of his creation, not only sentient life. This results in some ugliness, but is, perhaps, viewed as being better than a constrained or limited creation. So, Polkinghorne argues that a change is necessary, eventually. There must be a New Creation, one that is the best of all possible worlds (when? Perhaps when this creation has matured? I know this smacks of Andreasen’s Perfect Final Generation theology, but there may be other angles one could take that would remove the legalistic perception).

I contend that no one really knows how salvation occurs, or what the requirements for salvation are. Some say belief in Christ. But it strikes some of us as unfair that people who have never heard of Jesus should be lost. Others add the condition of a “graced” or “repentant” life, where the evidence of a saved life is a reformed and holy life. “If you love me, keep my commandments.” However, there seem to be people who have less control over their actions (psychopaths, etc.). Should people be punished for things they had no control over (I include the notion of punishment of the wicked because I know that jettisoning that would bring heap big outcry too. I admit that I see no purpose in resurrecting the wicked just to lord it over them and then torch them.)? I submit that we do not understand human behavior well enough to have any clear notion of what “qualifies” someone for “heaven”. It seems clear to me as well (and several theologians and religious thinkers whose names I don’t remember) that a radical change would be necessary for every human, maybe even the Buddha and Gandhi, to be able to have stable interactions with each other and the Divine of the quality attributed to the Trinity, what we might imagine the quality of relationships might be in a New Earth.

This is certainly an incomplete answer, but maybe it’s a good start? Or, at least a start. Bad theory better than no theory, right?