Clayton returns to challenge the overly physical or overly theistic interpreation of the human experience. In this final chapter, he argues that emergence is an important middle ground both because it honors science as a profound effort to increase human knowledge. However, he seems to imply that there is no adequate emergent language in religious discourse. Describing God as foundation of the world (which is common) is not in conflict with science and physicalism, however, describing God as active in the cosmos encroaches on what we have come to understand scientifically. This gives rise to a dualism that Clayton has rejected throughout the five chapters of the book.
Therefore, he asserts, it is not helpful to the religious person to maintain religious beliefs that discount science or assume its falseness without an effort to improve the premise or finding of science. Specifically, Clayton presents a traditional understanding of miracles as an example of religion’s blantant disregard for science except at the level of quantum possibilities. Even if there is a suspension of these laws and God can do whatever God wants in the world, such anomoly prevents the human being’s beliefs from rising to the level of knowledge. The traditional approach to miracles does not adequately solve the question of divine action (188).
Clayton then distinguishes human action from divine action. He notes that there are no laws that “…determine the decision-making process.” (189) The theory of emergence is again argued for. While it honors the physics and biology of the brain, it does not reduce the explanation of the mind to those functions.
Then Clayton approaches his more challenging question -what is the divine influence on mental process. (Remember mental processes are the inclination to take some action). Reminding the reader that the human being is more than its chemical processes (i.e. hormones do not explain a human beings hunger for meaning in their life), Clayton defines the integrated human being as a combination of body, environment, relationships, and overall mental state which includes social, cultural historical and religious context. As such the “… integrated self or psychosocial agent-in-community, offers the appropriate level on which to introduce the possibility of divine agency. Here and perhaps here alone, a divine agency could be opeartive that could exercise downward causal influence without being reduced to a manipulator of physical particles or psychotropic neurotransmitters. Only an influence that worked at the level of the person as such could influence the kinds of dimensions that are religiously significant without falling to the level of magic:…” (198).
After speculating on significant objections to his theory of emergence, Clayton ends by asking a most important question: With all that science knows and reveals, does it really know all the levels that explain the phenomenon of the universe? (205) he asserts that it cannot. “Some levels of reality are suited for mathmatical deterministic explanations (macro-physics), others for explanations that are mathmatical but NOT deterministic (quantum physics), and others for explanations that focus on structure, function and development (the biological sciences from genetics to neurophysiology). But at other levels laws play a more minimal role and idiosyncratic factors predominate; hence narratives tend to replace measurements and prediction becomes difficult at best. It appears that much of the interior life of humans and whatever social interactions or creative expressions are based on this interiority, fall into this category.” (205).
Clayton is a challenging but powerfully integrative read. He offers emergence as a genuine and intellectual alternative to either an uncritical confidence in science or a defensive rejection of it. Again, I commend the subsequent book to this one, Adventures in the Spirit: God World and Divine Action.
Most congregations would assert that God is working through their shared life. Perhaps even that in them, divine action is being realized. Clayton’s work asks congregations to explain themselves. The question that Clayton might have for such assertions might sound like: Are congregational actions trivial and easy or more substantive and complex? Clayton uses a term from process theology harmony to help folks like me answer the question. Harmony is defined as “…a balance between some divergent factors. …Factors external to the individual will play a curcial role in the account.” (195). So the more congregations entertain the more challenging external factors… the more they engage complex relationships and bring together diverse dimensions of life, the more prepared they are to be conduits of divine action. The integrated person (discussed above) is the person who has engaged the challenges of harmony as defined above. Perhaps we can expand Clayton’s notion of the integrated person to the integrated congregation. The integrated congregation may have increased integrity when they declare God to be working through them. But the call to harmony can wear a congregation out. Perhaps their sustenance can be found in the observant leader who tells the story that emerges. Well told stories have a great popensity to lead to reflection and action.
Can pastors be provocative at one end and spiritual reporters on the other end?
Leslie's Theology 