 |
| 
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 4/14/2003 3:01 PM (GMT -6) |   | I think this title is misleading. First of all, open theism replaces the problem of evil with a belief in the reality of evil, so we already solved that problem.... Second, how one perceives the reality of evil is open to debate. In my experience, the warfare spiritual theodicy is too manicheistic and, while I am not denying that there is a spiritual war taking place and that there are principalities/demons in our world, I have come to the belief that the spiritual warfare theodicy gives too much attention to the spiritual world and not enough to the social world that we live in. It also denies the reality of the political(the need to work things out without recourse to an objectively right answer).
If we are allied forces that have landed on Normandy beach, yes there may be some confusion and friendly-fire sometimes, but for the most part we know which direction are the Germans and what the immediate goal is. Military units are not democratic institutions. There is no debate over whether or not a church should reach out more to new people or try and build better theological-understandings/relationships among the existing congregants and yet these sort of practical questions are what most Christians face on a daily basis.
Instead, I prefer to think that the appropriate alternative to the problem of evil would have more continuity with "not-so-open" theologies, which is a focus on the problem of order. The problem of order concerns the role of fallible human judgment in the development of Theology and how Christians should develop their ecclesiological institutions and seek to let their lights shine to the world. It also includes the need to make fallible judgment calls on what the relationship between Church and State should be, a topic that was predominant in the Medieval Ages and which has not been resolved today, satisfactorily by Neo-Evangelicals.
In my opinion, a manicheistic view focused on demon-busting may work for the pastor of a church in helping cope with the spiritual needs of his congregation, but it would not serve a politician who must make choices about how they use their political capital in an endless stream of compromises and grays. Or for a pro-lifer who is appalled at how cheaply social/religious conservatives have given their votes to the Republican party the past couple of decades(Ronald Reagan never spent one whit of his political capital on social-conservative issues), which has permitted for the level of political competition between the two parties to decline considerably.
In my experience, the relative lack of habits of political reflection among neo-evangelicals(as defined in Stanley Grenz's book "Renewing the Center") has been an important stumbling block to the embracement of Christianity by non-Christians and I have had a fair amount of interaction with these people. Even now, people here in Mexico where I live and work, are judging Christians in part because of how they perceive the US president George Bush.
As such, the spiritual theodicy, as I learned it as an undergraduate at Bethel College, will never be the end-all-be-all of theology.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me.
Edited by - DLW on 04/19/2003 6:53:05 PM
Edited by - DLW on 04/19/2003 6:58:56 PM | | Back to Top | | |
 |
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 4/15/2003 6:42 AM (GMT -6) | | Why is the spiritual warfare theodicy not useful(in many respects)? It relies too much on war analogies. Much of the struggle for the souls of others takes place at the level of the mind, how they conceive the universe, God, Christianity and what-not. The coils Satan and his forces have around the world are far more subtle and confronting the reality of evil involves making fallible judgement calls that many other fellow Christians may likely disagree with.
This is what I called the reality of the political or the problem of order. It includes setting up imperfect rules for who can and cannot be part of a congregation. What Jesus meant when he prayed for us(Christians) to be one as I and the father are one is far from obvious, but obviously historically the divisions that took place between Catholics and Protestants have had an incredible impact on Christianity.
Clearly, the spiritual warfare theodicy does emphasize the importance of the life of prayer, but it doesn't emphasize the life of the mind enough, or the need for Christians to develop better habits of political reflection. There are opportunity costs to doing these things, including praying, reading Scripture, witnessing and others... . As such, we need a theological basis for why doing this would matter. Boyd's view on politics is too Calvinistic and he doesn't qualify his statements on the matter too much to reflect their personal, non-professional(meaning he has not studied political science/political philosophy, unlike Theology/Counseling) nature.
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me.
Edited by - DLW on 04/19/2003 6:59:19 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 4/15/2003 6:58 AM (GMT -6) | | Actually I've found the spiritual warfare idea (particularly as written by Doctor Boyd in Satan And The Problem of Evil) to be very enlightening. Much better than most theodicies...
| | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 4/15/2003 7:12 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Actually I've found the spiritual warfare idea (particularly as written by Doctor Boyd in Satan And The Problem of Evil) to be very enlightening. Much better than most theodicies...
I agree it is better than most theodicies, since it accounts for the suffering in this world, but in doing so, it fails to account for the order in this world. It also relies way too much on war-analogies and gives too much attention to the spiritual world.
The problem with focusing attention on demons, principalities, is that it is too subject to manipulation and does not have a clear correspondence to facts regarding the world we live in as they are studied in other disciplines besides Theology.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Qrrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me.
Edited by - DLW on 04/19/2003 6:55:31 PM
Edited by - DLW on 04/19/2003 6:59:46 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 4/15/2003 8:02 AM (GMT -6) | | Hello, dlw, good to hear from you! I'm intrigued by your suggestion that order (as opposed to spiritual warfare) is a more appropriate alternative for a Christian response to evil.
Of course, not just any order will do. Some of the most orderly societies are totalitarian. Evil is often portrayed as the encroachment of chaos upon order, but perhaps a more insidious form of evil is the encroachment of a destructive order upon a creative order.
Casting the Christian response to evil as a matter of order vs. no order presupposes a privitive view of evil. Casting the Christian response to evil as a matter of creative order vs. destructive order (i.e. a "battle" between orders) emphasizes the urgency of our responsibility to "not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good" (Rom. 12:21).
Peace,
Electra
Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 4/15/2003 8:13 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Electra,
quote:
Electra:Of course, not just any order will do. Some of the most orderly societies are totalitarian. Evil is often portrayed as the encroachment of chaos upon order, but perhaps a more insidious form of evil is the encroachment of a destructive order upon a creative order.
I agree and part of the problem of order is the inherent difficulty in reconciling our ideals of freedom/creativity with the facts of how people will abuse their freedoms.
quote:
Electra:Casting the Christian response to evil as a matter of order vs. no order presupposes a primitive view of evil. Casting the Christian response to evil as a matter of creative order vs. destructive order (i.e. a "battle" between orders) emphasizes the urgency of our responsibility to "not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good" (Rom. 12:21).
Yes, but since we all have the capacity for evil and failing, and typically our actions are geared to the future, with much of the future being uncertain, what is the evil that must be battled is not so straight-forward.
For example, I told my students before the war began that whether or not it would be justified depended on its length/casualties and how it will be resolved and that these two things were quite uncertain, but that anti-war protestors were doing nothing to help either one of them. The latter is still uncertain, but I think it depends on the willingness of Christians and others to put their lives at risk to ensure that peace will be established in Iraq.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me.
Edited by - DLW on 04/19/2003 6:58:28 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 4/15/2003 9:15 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Yes, but since we all have the capacity for evil and falling, and typically our actions are geared to the future, with much of the future being uncertain, what is the evil that must be battled is not so straight-forward.
I don't see how order addresses the problem of uncertainty any more adequately than the warfare metaphor, especially if the nature of the order is not specified (e.g. order as an end in itself is no garantee that this end will be good rather than evil).
quote:
For example, I told my students before the war began that whether or not it would be justified depended on its length/casualties and how it will be resolved and that these two things were quite uncertain, but that anti-war protestors were doing nothing to help either one of them. The latter is still uncertain, but I think it depends on the willingness of Christians and others to put their lives at risk to ensure that peace will be established in Iraq.
You seem to be confusing just cause (the reason for going to war) and just prosecution (the way the war is fought). Though some hold that the prosecution of an invasion of an impoverished and disarmed nation by a superpower is inherently unjust, it seems that the American prosecution of this war has been quite just in terms of the successful efforts to minimize casualities. However, the just prosecution of this war is only one factor in determining the just cause of the war. For many who oppose the war, its just prosecution—while cause to celebrate—is not enough to justify its cause.
Just cause for war has traditionally included defence of self or others against clear and present danger. I personally do not find the evidence that Iraqi WMD present a clear and present danger that warranted interrupting internationally supported inspections with military invasion. I think that invasive foreign policies threaten the national security of ourselves and the Arab region more than weapons Sadam Hussein may or may not have and may or may not sell to terrorists who may or may not use them against us. I find it difficult to justify risking the lives of our own troops, Iraqi troops, and Iraqi civilians on the basis of the evidence supporting these possibilities.
I do believe that Sadam Hussein poses clear and present danger to the Iraqi people, and he has for the last three decades. However, I do not believe that military intervention is the most just way to respond to this threat, because in seeking to destroy Sadam Hussein's regime via invasion, we further threaten the very people we are trying to defend. I think that humanitarian aid is a more just way to empower the Iraqi people in their resistance to Sadam's regime, and international law is a more just way to prosecute the regime for its crimes against humanity. Both humanitarian and legal approaches are more likely to create greater international cooperation and security than military invasion that interrupts both humanitarian aid and rule of law.
Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky
Edited by - Electra on 04/15/2003 2:22:21 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 4/15/2003 9:43 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Electra:I don't see how order addresses the problem of uncertainty any more adequately than the warfare metaphor, especially if the nature of the order is not specified (e.g. order as an end in itself is no garantee that this end will be good rather than evil).
DLW:The problem of Order takes into account the potential for both the past and future Iraqi and USA regimes to abuse their power. As such, what should be done about the reality of evil in this world is less clear-cut.
Uncertainty is also present in the Warfare Theodicy. There can be unintended consequences. One can engage in friendly fire...but the uncertainty that I am talking about is more radical I think. You may have someone like Billy Graham, thinking he is doing what is right, and end up blessing the elections of presidents Richard Nixon and George Bush in a manner that violates the separation of Church and State and sets up barriers for non-Christians to take Christianity seriously.
quote:
For example, I told my students before the war began that whether or not it would be justified depended on its length/casualties and how it will be resolved and that these two things were quite uncertain, but that anti-war protestors were doing nothing to help either one of them. The latter is still uncertain, but I think it depends on the willingness of Christians and others to put their lives at risk to ensure that peace will be established in Iraq.
Electra:You seem to be confusing just cause (the reason for going to war) and just prosecution (the way the war is fought). Though some hold that the prosecution of an invasion of an impoverished and disarmed nation by a superpower is inherently unjust, it seems that the American prosecution of this war has been quite just in terms of the successful efforts to minimize casualities. However, the just prosecution of this war is only one factor in determining the just cause of the war. For many who oppose the war, its just prosecution—while cause to celebrate—is not enough to justify its cause.
DLW:Please forgive me for not being very thorough, but there are a number of points I didn't mention(I.e., I didn't go into the goals of the war(not all of which have been made public), the length of the war potentially destabilizing the World's Financial Markets; the war spreading and destabizing the entire Middle-East; the extent of urban-warfare that would have a higher casualty(among both US soldiers and innocents); whether the long-pent-up hostilities among the different groups in Iraq will be containable and reconcilable.
So on and so forth. My point was simply that we didn't know and still don't know whether the war will be justified. Now, many of the problems associated with its end would likely happen when Saddam died anyways, so I guess they are not as serious.
quote:
Just cause for war has traditionally included defence of self or others against clear and present danger. I personally do not find the evidence that Iraqi WMD present a clear and present danger that warranted interrupting internationally supported inspections with military invasion. I think that invasive foreign policies threaten the national security of ourselves and the Arab people more than weapons Sadam Hussein may or may not have and may or may not sell to terrorists who may or may not use them against us.
It depends on how the post-war situation is conducted. Changing the Iraqi regime may cut the funding for Palestinian militants, helping the peace-process progress more fast there. That, in turn, will help to reduce Middle-East tensions/terrorism. Also, noticeably, many Anti-USAmerican Middle Easterners had to confront the fact that the Iraqis were rejoicing over the end of Saddam's regime, since he had been viewed as hero for standing up to the US in the past.
So, I think Arab-US relations did get more tense during the war, but the long-run implications are not clear as of yet...
quote:
Electra:I do believe that Sadam Hussein poses clear and present danger to the Iraqi people, and he has for the last three decades. However, I do not believe that military intervention is the most just way to respond to this threat, because in seeking to destroy Sadam Hussein's regime via invasion, we further threaten the very people we are trying to defend. I think that humanitarian aid is a more just way to empower the Iraqi people in their resistance to Sadam's regime, and international law is a more just way to prosecute the regime for its crimes against humanity. Both humanitarian and legal approaches are more likely to create greater international cooperation and security than military invasion that interrupts both humanitarian aid and rule of law.
DLW:Humanitarian aid and int'l institutions were failing wrt to the Iraqi people(The inaction of the UN can be attributed to unilateralism of the French with their economic ties to the old regime in Iraq). If one compares the civilian casualties in this war wrt to other conflicts they were relatively low, particularly compared to the number of fatalities that regularly occurred among the Iraqis under Saddam's regime.
As such, what was in the best long-run interests of the Iraqi people depended and still depend on the two factors I mentioned before.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me.
Edited by - DLW on 04/19/2003 7:03:42 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 4/15/2003 9:55 AM (GMT -6) | | Lets not debate Iraq here in this link...
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Arrogance that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 4/15/2003 10:28 AM (GMT -6) | | DLW:Humanitarian aid and int'l institutions were failing wrt to the Iraqi people
Electra: I am not as quick to proclaim the failure of humanitarian aid and international institutions. I simply don't know enough about the extent of our own involvement in such efforts. Rather than abandoning them as if their potential to make a difference has been exhausted, I am more inclined to try increasing them—I assume there is plenty of room for these programs to grow. I wonder what would happen to the success of these these efforts if we invested our $80 billion in humanitarianism rather than military invasion? Even if we didn't invest a single dime, lifting the sanctions against Iraq would make a huge humanitarian difference.
DLW: (The inaction of the UN can be attributed to unilateralism of the French with their economic ties to the old regime in Iraq).
Electra: What are you talking about? The UN has been very active in Iraq. For example, maybe you've heard about UN inspections in Iraq, which have greatly contributed to its peaceful disarmament? I don't understand in what sense the French were unilateral? Their unwillingness to abandon peaceful disarmament of Iraq at this time was supported by other nations, such as Russia and China. If France's economic ties to the old regime make you doubt that it could have Iraq's best interest in mind, how do you respond to people who suspect that our interest in regime change is primarily economic? We should not discredit their motives so quickly if we expect others to trust our motives.
DLW: If one compares the civilian casualties in this war wrt to other conflicts they were relatively low, particularly compared to the number of fatalities that regularly occurred among the Iraqis under Saddam's regime.
Electra: Of course the United States looks like a saint when compared to Saddam Hussein's regime. What is your point? I don't find appealing to such a low standard in order to justify our invasion very persuasive. Like I said before, I celebrate the fact that the casualties were low. I'm proud of our soldiers and happy for the Iraqi civilians. I hope and pray that God will bring good out of this, and that the Iraqi people will be more free as a result of our destruction of Sadam Hussein's regime. But I do not believe that military invasion was the most just way to help them in their struggle against oppression, or in the broader struggle for security, especially since approaches that uphold rather than undermine humanitarian aid, rule of law, and international cooperation were far from being exhausted.
Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky
Edited by - Electra on 04/15/2003 3:40:00 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 4/15/2003 10:28 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Lets not debate Iraq here in this link...
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Arrogance that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me.
Oops. I didn't see this message until after I posted my response.
Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky | | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 4/15/2003 3:25 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
In my experience, the warfare spiritual theodicy is too manicheistic and, while I am not denying that there is a spiritual war taking place and that there are principalities/demons in our world, I have come to the belief that the spiritual warfare theodicy gives too much attention to the spiritual world and not enough to the social world that we live in. It also denies the reality of the political.
I'm not sure what you mean, DLW, by "too manicheistic". Manicheism teaches that the forces of Good and the forces of Evil in the universe are roughly in parity--neither side ultimately wins. Now warface theodists like Boyd don't say that. I presume you mean to say that they give the forces of Evil too much credit. That may be the case, but it's far from clear to me that that is so. One thing that does seem clear to me is that the warfare theodicy does not, as you say, "deny the reality of the political". The reality of the political would be denied only if the warfare theodist said that ALL evil and suffering is due to the machinations of evil spiritual forces. Some people (like Manicheists) may go that far, but Boyd certainly doesn't. In my view, what Boyd is trying to do is recover an appreciation of the reality of spiritual warfare that is often overlooked or given scant attention in other theodicies. This is not to say that some warfare theodists don't make too much of spiritual warfare. Indeed, some Christians see demons under every bush. I don't think Boyd is of that sort. As I understand him, Boyd emphasizes spiritual warfare to provide a needed corrective to traditional theodicies that underestimate its significance, not to suggest that spiritual warfare is the theodical story.
quote:
Clearly, the spiritual warfare theodicy does emphasize the importance of the life of prayer, but it doesn't emphasize the life of the mind enough, or the need for Christians to develop better habits of political reflection. There are opportunity costs to doing these things, including praying, reading Scripture, witnessing and others... . As such, we need a theological basis for why doing this would matter. Boyd's view on politics is too Calvinistic and he doesn't qualify his statements on the matter too much to reflect their personal, non-professional (meaning he has not studied political science/political philosophy, unlike Theology/Counseling) nature.
I don't see why there should be any inherent tension between spiritual warfare and the life of the mind. In fact, I think most spiritual warfare takes place on the level of ideas. Satan is often described as the "deceiver". And Paul tells the Corinthians to "demolish arguments and every thought that sets itself up against the knowledge of Christ". There is only one way to demolish an argument--refute it. Spiritual warfare is not just a matter of praying, it involves developing good habits of thinking and discernment, as well as practical engagement with political and economical structures in order to bring all things under submission to the Kingdom of God. Thus I don't see any dichtomy or tension between the spiritual warfare theodicy that the life of the mind or developing better habits of political reflection. Maybe Boyd is not clear in developing his warfare theodicy in those directions, but that does not of itself imply any problem with the basic theodical framework.
Lastly, could you clarify what you mean by "Boyd's view of politics is too Calvinistic"? Thanks.
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 4/15/2003 5:33 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
In my experience, the warfare spiritual theodicy is too manicheistic and, while I am not denying that there is a spiritual war taking place and that there are principalities/demons in our world, I have come to the belief that the spiritual warfare theodicy gives too much attention to the spiritual world and not enough to the social world that we live in. It also denies the reality of the political.
I'm not sure what you mean, DLW, by "too manicheistic". Manicheism teaches that the forces of Good and the forces of Evil in the universe are roughly in parity--neither side ultimately wins. Now warface theodists like Boyd don't say that. I presume you mean to say that they give the forces of Evil too much credit. That may be the case, but it's far from clear to me that that is so. One thing that does seem clear to me is that the warfare theodicy does not, as you say, "deny the reality of the political". The reality of the political would be denied only if the warfare theodist said that ALL evil and suffering is due to the machinations of evil spiritual forces. Some people (like Manicheists) may go that far, but Boyd certainly doesn't. In my view, what Boyd is trying to do is recover an appreciation of the reality of spiritual warfare that is often overlooked or given scant attention in other theodicies. This is not to say that some warfare theodists don't make too much of spiritual warfare. Indeed, some Christians see demons under every bush. I don't think Boyd is of that sort. As I understand him, Boyd emphasizes spiritual warfare to provide a needed corrective to traditional theodicies that underestimate its significance, not to suggest that spiritual warfare is the theodical story.
DLW:What I meant by too manicheistic, isn't the Classical Manicheism that Augustine initially had imbibed, but rather one that is too idealistic and does not reflect on how our own ideals/notions of what is Good/Holy may themselves be fallen or incomplete.
As an example of how Boyd denies the reality of the political, when he left Bethel he did an exit interview with the alumni newspaper. In this interview, he described how his point of view had changed from his earlier days to emphasizing the importance of the center for Evangelical Community(as opposed to his earlier days when he was a dynamic voice for change in what it meant to be Christian at Bethel: championing feminism, the gift of tongues, open theism, alternative ways to understand the creation account, etc.).
This may reflect his weariness from resisting the attempts at assimilation by the Committee of Concerned Pastors or what-not, but the notion of the center is not a biblical notion(if anything he borrowed it from Tim Penny's Independence Party Campaign Rhetoric).
If anything it can be attributed to the prayer of Jesus for Christians to be one as I and the father are one. But what that means isn't automatically clear. It gets into the nature of the trinity(something I am not an expert on). However, I would make the point that there may be a center in a triune relationship, but it would only be a non-moving target if God were static, rather than dynamic. Boyd, after having been hounded politically for his views, wanted to cling to a notion that there was an apolitical center for Christian unity.
The rampant difficulties with ecclesiastical governance throughout the history of Christianity, which has layed at the heart of many of the travesties that Boyd decries in "Letters from a Skeptic", cannot simply attributed to the fact that the Christian Church has always been a church of sinners. Our ecclesiastical institutions are what shape the ways in which we pursue our Christianity and share it with the rest of the world. They are themselves subject to determination/ debate/disagreement. They do not flow completely from the teachings of the original disciples as the Roman Catholic Church teaches, and, while the writings of the Apostle Paul provide many useful parallels, there are issues we deal with that he and the early church didn't have to deal with(such as the question of what is a just-war or how we may use our political capital to legally change the definition of when human life begins or other issues.).
So my point is that Boyd, while rejecting the root use of spatial metaphors for time that underlies the Calvinism/Arminianism that has characterized much of Neo-Evangelical Theology among white people in the US, also continues to fail to give critical attention to ecclesiology. It doesn't acknowledge that how after the Protestant-Catholic Schism that, while the Catholic Church incorrectly raised tradition to the level of Scripture, the Protestant Church(es) conflated the two, obfuscating the extent to which they adapted Christianity to their own cultures. This led to very much division among Protestants, since we were all supposedly modelling our churches/theologies on the true early church or scripture/logic, but coming up with quite different ecclesiastical structures/theologies when only one can truly be the correct answer.( a problem that has also plagued the many theologically-diverse groups that have claimed the label evangelical in the US as chronicled by the non-evangelical Gary Dorrien in "The Remaking of Evangelical Theology".)
This is why I claim that the problem of order, as it applies to both politics, regulation of business/private governance, and ecclesiastical institutions is a more appropriate focus than the spiritual warfare theodicy. The focus is not on ahistorical, star-warsy battles between Good and Evil, but on understanding the historical developments of Christianity and the World around us and how things may be different than they currently are, all as part of glorifying God.
When I took theology courses from Boyd as an undergraduate, I did not learn that much about historic Christianity. I know that is not his focus, but I have since then found it far more rich/rewarding to take a more historical/comparative view of Theology. It seems to me that open-view theology implies that some aspects of the future are undetermined(specifically, whether or not individuals will be saved) and will be determined by creaturely volition. However, one can take that in a lot of different directions.
For example, let us say if, after Christianity became the official religion of Rome, Christian's leaders, missing the good old days of purity and stable expectations regarding their martyrdom, had not gone off to the desert to become white martyrs, perhaps the Byzantine Christian Churches ecclesiastical leadership would not have become so "byzantine" and anti-semitism would not have become so thoroughly ensconced within such large portions of the Church. Then, maybe the arab, Mohammed, would not have rejected Christianity and tried to start up a Judaism for Non-Jews(as we can infer from the records of the Jews in Jerusalem when he arrived there, he was not trying to start up a new religion.). Then, maybe he might not have reduced the centers of Christianity from four to one, making Rome far more supreme than otherwise would be the case, so that with absolute power would come absolute corruption and the Protestant-Catholic Schism and the 30 year war and the extreme reduction of autonomy between the Church and the State, which led to the corruption of the Church and derogation of its witness and the growing secularism throughout Europe, inspite of its centuries of Christian influence.
So my point is that there is much which may hang at stake over how we decide to rule ourselves as Christians, but that the absence of a critical role for Ecclesiology within Neo-Evangelicalism writ large and Open Theism writ not-so-large, makes it so this sort of thing is not theologically encouraged. And that is what theologians do at the end of the day, rework our received understandings of our faith with a fresh look at what the scriptures say with new, dynamic implications for how we should live our faiths.
quote:
Clearly, the spiritual warfare theodicy does emphasize the importance of the life of prayer, but it doesn't emphasize the life of the mind enough, or the need for Christians to develop better habits of political reflection. There are opportunity costs to doing these things, including praying, reading Scripture, witnessing and others... . As such, we need a theological basis for why doing this would matter. Boyd's view on politics is too Calvinistic and he doesn't qualify his statements on the matter too much to reflect their personal, non-professional (meaning he has not studied political science/political philosophy, unlike Theology/Counseling) nature.
I don't see why there should be any inherent tension between spiritual warfare and the life of the mind. In fact, I think most spiritual warfare takes place on the level of ideas. Satan is often described as the "deceiver". And Paul tells the Corinthians to "demolish arguments and every thought that sets itself up against the knowledge of Christ". There is only one way to demolish an argument--refute it.
DLW:One can point out its extra-biblical manner, likely conclusions and offer alternatives that comport better with our understandings of What Jesus would do...
Spiritual warfare is not just a matter of praying, it involves developing good habits of thinking and discernment, as well as practical engagement with political and economical structures in order to bring all things under submission to the Kingdom of God. Thus I don't see any dichtomy or tension between the spiritual warfare theodicy that the life of the mind or developing better habits of political reflection. Maybe Boyd is not clear in developing his warfare theodicy in those directions, but that does not of itself imply any problem with the basic theodical framework.
DLW:I would argue that practical engagement with political and economical structures tends to cause dissent among Christians since our judgements on what should be the Kingdom of God have been, are and will be fallible and subject to some legitimate differences. This brings in the reality of the political, or the need for us to work our differences out. But many Christians(I know my home Baptist Church was like this) dislike this dissent and so like to focus on the "center", which typically includes reaching as many people as possible with Gospel with whatever time we have left on this planet. Now, I have no problems with evangelization, though I tend focus more of my energies on reconciliation and discipleship and would similarly oppose the conflation of religion with a particular political agenda as occurred with Liberal Christianity(often with disastrous consequences, sometimes politically/economically but certainly spiritually). My point is that I don't know what is the right combination of activities/directions for Christian Churches, but I believe this is open for debate with the concept of the center, in and of itself, having limited usefulness(for example Stephen Carter has described how its secular analog the public square has been used to divorce/discourage all religious motivations from open participation in the political process.).
Lastly, could you clarify what you mean by "Boyd's view of politics is too Calvinistic"? Thanks.
DLW:What I meant is that Boyd's view of politics(which he has described as Anabaptist, which abstracts from how his social situation differs dramatically from those of the Anabaptists, and fails to acknowledge that his position is just one of Niebuhr's categories for how Christianity and Culture may relate to each other) is that it is totally depraved and that there are no benefits/advantages for Christianity to gain from being actively engaged in it. As such, we should focus on a-political Christian activies like pastoral care of our congregations, reaching others with the Gospel/Open Theism and so on... . My point is that he doesn't fuse this view with a very critical positive understanding of what is going on in the political process and as such doesn't wrestle with the facts that various interests are always competing for control of the government and what it should do. So to decry involvement in the political process is to permit what I like to call the "Democracy of the Dollar" to have more sway on politicians decisions than "Popular Democracy", which requires a quasi-religious willingness of many people to give up their time/energy to follow politics to a much greater extent than they will indivdually benefit from the resultant policies. The employers of the upper-middle-class congregants of his church, as such, will likely benefit economically from the failure of habits of political reflection to be inculcated among believing Christians, who have a greater tendency to vote and devote energy self-lessly to activities they are told by their leaders will be glorifying to God.
So to put it simply, Boyd's view of politics is Calvinistic since it strongly limits the extent to which how our government is open or may be restructured/reformed to determine what sort of Economy do we want to have in our country/world.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Arrogance that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me.
Edited by - DLW on 04/21/2003 2:24:40 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 4/15/2003 7:24 PM (GMT -6) | | Electra
You seem to be confusing just cause (the reason for going to war) and just prosecution (the way the war is fought).
Iconoclast
My view is that these two things are entangled. Justly prosecuting the war strongly influences the justification of entering into the war. The ‘just cause’ of the war cannot be said to be fully ‘just’ until the actual behavior of the prosecution of the war plays out.
David Bohm said that the only way we can truly know our deep intention is to watch our behavior. Our behavior will betray our deep intention – for good or for ill. Just as unjust means cannot justify a ‘just’ end so a ‘just’ cause (similar to an intention) cannot actually BE ‘just’ until the behavior that comes out of it actualizes itself and brings about that justification. These two are interlocked into a self-supporting relationship. Christopher Alexander said:
These two things are true of every living center:
1. Each center gets its life, always, from the fact that it is helping to support and enliven some larger center.
2. The center becomes precious because of it.
"The Nature of Order - The Phenomenon of Life" - Christopher Alexander
A ‘just’ cause is one that promotes ‘order’. I define increase in order as an increase in ‘life’. Alexander provides a formal and objective ‘material’ or abstract theoretical definition of this. Jesus, of course, showed us what this actually looks like in the spiritual reality we live in.
What I am trying to call out here is that the relationship of just means to just ends is one aspect of the entangled relationship – the other aspect is just cause to just means. When they support each other they bring both into existence. If they are divided – they both fall.
Jesus most succinctly expressed this (in my opinion) by saying that a good tree cannot bear bad fruit (and a bad tree cannot bear bad fruit) as well as saying that we can know a tree by its fruit – if the fruit is good then the tree is good (and if the fruit is bad the tree is bad).
Why is this so? Because to cause good fruit to come about causes one to become “good” and to be “good” causes good fruit to come about.
This is one aspect of the issue. Another aspect of the issue of ‘just cause’ is the nature of chance (free-will ‘chance’ and the resultant probability function) and the fallibility of our knowledge.
To clarify this issue we must first separate intention from the knowledge that one has a ‘just cause’.
To say that George Bush had a demonstrably good intention does not necessarily mean that he had the knowledge required to have a just cause. These are distinctly separate issues. They are however entangled in the sense that if we (and Bush) ultimately see that he had a good intention (based on his behavior) then we would be hard pressed to say that he KNEW that he didn’t have the knowledge for it to be a just cause. Now, at first would want to say that while yes he may have believed that he had the knowledge to decide that it was a just cause it wasn’t necessarily a just cause. Good intentions do not necessarily make something a just cause.
On second thought however we can see how this very formulation leads to the question of how we decide that something we are going to do IS a just cause. This formulation suggests that even if we have good intentions and believe that we have gained the necessary knowledge (facts, logic, third party feedback) to make a determination that some action is justified it is not necessarily justified. Then how do we ever know that it was in fact a ‘just cause’? We only know this by its ‘fruit’. However the very ‘fruit’ – the impact of the action - is greatly determined by the behavior that the action is carried out with. Bonhoeffer would argue here that an act IS truly justified when we have done all this (good intention, facts, logic, thirty party feedback) and prayed about it and THEN committed the action to God.
This is I believe where faith comes in. When we use the best of our abilities to determine a just course of action and carry out that action in accordance with the fullness of the good intent behind the justness of the cause then God blesses our action to bring about the good intent we desire. Thus, through faith, our just action causes the justness of our cause to come about. This is clear to see when our action is not in accordance with the justness of our cause. If our troops wantonly killed civilians and acted like occupiers then we would be hard pressed to say that our cause was just – because clearly is now seen not to be – it was just a pretense.
DLW
If one compares the civilian casualties in this war wrt to other conflicts they were relatively low, particularly compared to the number of fatalities that regularly occurred among the Iraqis under Saddam's regime.
Iconoclast
I am hearing DLW say that a piece of evidence that this war came out of a just cause is that the direct negative consequences of this action (# of civilians killed by our military) were actually less than the direct negative consequences of NOT taking this action (# of civilians that would have been killed by Saddam over the period of time that he PROBABLY would have been in power). Thus, the action in this respect actually increased order which is evidence of it being just.
By the way. I am not going after all this in order to defend the war. My goal is to use this specific issue as a way to get at the underlying issues related to the problem of evil. I tend to agree with you DLW that the very nature of the order of the reality we live in is at the heart of what we think of as the problem of evil. That this world is a complex adaptive system made of free-will agents that we navigate largely based on the inductions we make regarding how people and things will PROBABLY behave. And because of the inherent fallibility we have in the face of our incomplete knowledge based on induction ‘evil’ results happen – we sometimes cause less order than more order even when we intend to bring about more order.
The issue then of determining whether this was a just war comes down to our probability calculations.
What is the probability of Saddam conforming if we continue with alternative means?
What is the probability of our collective desire to make Saddam conform if we don’t go to war now? Could that desire evaporate (as it did on inspections after a number of years) if we don’t act now?
What is the probability of the best result happening if we go to war now rather than continuing to try other alternatives?
In a complex adaptive system one of, if not THE most, powerful determinent of an agent’s behavior is what that agent PREDICTS will happen given that behavior. This is of course mostly ‘induction’ driven. In other words we predict what will happen based on our or other’s experiences. Thus a complex adaptive system is largely INFLUENCE driven. It has been clearly shown that criminals modify their behavior based on their belief of the probability they will get caught and the consequences of getting caught. Thus a responsible agent will use both the carrot and the stick to influence the system to gain the highest order. This can even be seen in such mundane things as directly establishing and enforcing our personal boundaries with others. We say someone is passive aggressive when they have a boundary that they never directly set or enforce – when they seek to establish it through sideways (and therefore unclear) enforcement (punishment) – we all understand this as being less humane. A key aspect of influencing behavior is to build a reputation that you have the iron resolve to use the stick when necessary. The better you do this up-front the less you have to do it and the more humane the system becomes.
Thus, looking through the lens of a complex adaptive system we could make the argument that Bush has both influenced the world that he believed the cause was just and showed the world that he has an iron resolve to take just action on a just cause thereby establishing strong boundaries and clear standards up-front with the concommitant high-probability calculation now installed in all thugs and harbingers of thugs.
He showed that he believe the cause was just by using an open UN process for determining and building consensus that Saddam MUST conform.
He then showed the world that he (and the coalition) had the iron resolve to take action – even when there was not world consensus on taking that action. This actually raised the probability calculation for all thugs around the world because it is now clear to them that when George Bush (America) starts declaring that they are not in compliance and must start conforming then there is a significant probability that they might end up like Saddam Hussein.
He then increased his influence on the world that the cause was actually just by prosecuting the war in a more just rather than less just way (minimizing civilian casualties, no occupation symbols and so on).
He then showed the world that his induction that the Iraqi people would welcome us because they despise Saddam and want freedom was accurate.
He then further showed that he believes his cause is just by influencing Sharon to start backing away from his hard-line stance on giving up occupied territory.
If Bush continues to act in faith – that is, faithfully – to his belief – or is it really a commitment – in it being a just cause by continuing to act in accordance with this commitment then the actual fact of it being a just cause will come in to being and the world will experience greater order – or more abundant life.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 4/16/2003 10:23 AM (GMT -6) | | I am going to start up a new link for the Contingency and Just War discussion.
It would be great if Iconoclast/Electra could remove their messages from this link so it can focus on the problem of order as an alternative to the spiritual warfare theodicy as an alternative to the problem of evil...
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 4/16/2003 10:52 AM (GMT -6) | | Thanks, DLW, for clarifying your position.
quote:
Boyd's view of politics is that it is totally depraved and that there are no benefits/advantages for Christianity to gain from being actively engaged in it. As such, we should focus on a-political Christian activies like pastoral care of our congregations, reaching others with the Gospel/Open Theism and so on...
Hmmm. If that is Boyd's view then I have to respectfully disagree with him. There is of course a danger in the Church becoming too political--to where we think that all problems are systemic and need to be tackled by fixing or changing the prevailing political/economical/sociological/idealogical structures. But becoming apolitical is equally problematic. It naively buys into an untenable dichotomy between the public and the private/religious. As your overview of Church history and its unfortunately often negative impact on the public sphere indicates, it is impossible to divorce the private and the public--everything we do has public ramifications, even the things we think no one sees. Redeeming the culture and the public order is therefore part of the Great Commission. Boyd might say that we redeem culture by redeeming individuals. Others might argue that we redeem individuals by redeeming culture. But once we understand the reciprocal relations that exist between individuals and culture, we see that both positions are correct. The Church needs to be doing both.
Thanks,
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 4/16/2003 11:49 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Thanks, DLW, for clarifying your position.
quote:
Boyd's view of politics is that it is totally depraved and that there are no benefits/advantages for Christianity to gain from being actively engaged in it. As such, we should focus on a-political Christian activies like pastoral care of our congregations, reaching others with the Gospel/Open Theism and so on...
Hmmm. If that is Boyd's view then I have to respectfully disagree with him. There is of course a danger in the Church becoming too political--to where we think that all problems are systemic and need to be tackled by fixing or changing the prevailing political/economical/sociological/idealogical structures. But becoming apolitical is equally problematic. It naively buys into an untenable dichotomy between the public and the private/religious. As your overview of Church history and its unfortunately often negative impact on the public sphere indicates, it is impossible to divorce the private and the public--everything we do has public ramifications, even the things we think no one sees. Redeeming the culture and the public order is therefore part of the Great Commission. Boyd might say that we redeem culture by redeeming individuals. Others might argue that we redeem individuals by redeeming culture. But once we understand the reciprocal relations that exist between individuals and culture, we see that both positions are correct. The Church needs to be doing both.
Thanks,
Alan
Thankyou.
When I was in grad school in Economics, during my last two years I worked a lot of hours as a volunteer organizer for a group that was trying to establish a union for graduate employees. I did not benefit from this one whit and my last year, I probably lost my office privileges and (for awhile) my computer privileges within the department because they were angry at me for helping this group cut into their budget.
I don't want to sound like I'm tooting my horn, but this was a very risky move on my behalf since graduate school is very competitive and time spent on anything else(which doesn't help you out by keeping you sane) may hurt your chances. But God provided for me, perhaps better than would be the case if I hadn't taken so much time to be an organizer. Now I am teaching and mentoring to the future leaders of Mexico here at my university. But, at any rate, because I was willing to sacrifice on the behalf of others(and in a more reliable way than most others), I was able to share about my faith with others who otherwise would have no real contact with devout Christians.
As such, choosing to suffer and risk being wrong by becoming involved in the world of politics is a viable way for advancing the Kingdom of God.
Our failure to do so and to be self-critical regarding the problems of order in our institutions, commonly underly many of the macro-down-ward trends in Christianity in the USA.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 4/16/2003 12:08 PM (GMT -6) | | I just had the following letter published in Prism the bi-weekly electronic newsletter of Evangelicals for Social Action.
It illustrates the application of an open theological position based on a deliberation on the reality of the political.
Dear E-pistle,
In my view, the religious right suffers from the
absence of a strong tradition of political
reflection, including what it means to be a devout
Christian and to participate in the political
process. Yet changing the dynamics of our politics
in this country will probably require that this
voting group develop habits of political reflection
which will lead to the further development of
political independence, though in a distinct manner
and with different priorities.
The lack of a tradition of political reflection
stems, in part, from the historical fall-out from
the fundamentalist-modernist schism. As has been
chronicled by Mark Noll, the reactionary stance
taken by fundamentalists in the face of the attacks
of modernists discouraged the life of the mind among
fundamentalists and neo-evangelicals. This then led
to the absence of a tradition of political
reflection and collective action among these same
groups of Christians. As such, we have seen figures
like Billy Graham wield far more political sway (in
a fallible manner) than any minister should have, or
Ronald Reagan getting much support for his supposed
pro-life position or conversion experience, even
though he never spent a dime of his political
capital on social conservative issues. All of these
fallible acts illustrate how conservative Christians
have searched for an apolitical, infallible basis
for political activism, which would provide them an
alternative to the secular left.
In my view, a Christian basis for political activism
is the following: active involvement by Christians
in politics can be glorifying to God if done in an
ethical manner that respects the separation of
Church and State by not being dogmatic in its
political goals while seeking to widen the range of
interests that potentially can be served by the
government. The Christian notion of sin and the
fallenness of the world provides the view that
political parties are pragmatic institutions that
seek to sustain their own viability and which, while
necessary, can choke the access to the control of
Government. As such, there is no infallible,
apolitical basis for knowing whether supporting one
party or another is most glorifying to God, or
pursuing one issue and not another will be most
glorifying to God.
However, to choose not to be political is to allow
others to act unchecked politically primarily in
serving their own interests. Power tends to
corrupt, but absolute power corrupts absolutely, and
since there has been and always will be the need for
power or decision-making about how we will rule
ourselves, to seek complete purity/personal holiness
by avoiding politics ends up ensuring more
concentration of power and the ability to abuse this
power than otherwise would be the case.
So my problem with much of "evangelical"
Christianity is that by focusing on the end-times or
stressing personal holiness with the concept of
holiness being apolitical (or without "sin", which
is ubiquitous in politics), this tends to discourage
the allocation of time to following politics. What
this does is make it easier for us to be manipulated
by our leaders into perceiving certain political
goals, such as repealing Roe-V-Wade, as apolitical,
when due to the opportunity costs of such activism,
they are very political. I think it safe to say that
the right-ward drift of politics in the U.S., both
among Republicans and Democrats, is in part due to
the cheapness with which social/religious
conservatives have given their votes to the
Republican Party, whose policy priorities clearly
lie with economic conservative goals.
As such, it is important that Christians incorporate
into their theologies/worldviews the reality of the
political and deliberate more on how we can better
use the political sway we have, which would be
considerable given the 50-50 split in U.S. politics
today and the increased likelihood of religious
persons to vote.
In my view, one goal worth considering would be to
reach out to the Muslim communities in the U.S. to
work together on common goals(reducing pornography,
prostitution, perhaps banning much of the
advertisement of alcohol, as well as the reduction
of poverty and improvement of education) as well as
giving them more sway over how the U.S. government
handles the post-war management of Iraq and seeks to
ensure a lasting peace between the Israelis and the
Palestinians.
- David L. Wetzell
One can suscribe to this letter by sending emails to the following address... PrismEpistle-subscribe@onelist.com
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 4/16/2003 1:41 PM (GMT -6) | | Welcome to the board DLW. Thanks for the interaction. Here's an initial response to your posts.
The purpose of a theodicy is to reconcile the pervasive experience of evil in the world with a belief in an all-good and all-powerful God. The most distinctive claim of the warfare theodicy is its claim that evil cannot be fully accounted for without reference to the spiritual warfare that, according to Scripture, engulfs the world. This theodicy has to be assessed by weighing its explanatory power over and against the relative plausibility of other factors (e.g. the reality of spiritual powers) and alternative theodicies.
Now, there are of course ethical, spiritual, ecclesiastical and political implications to this (and every other) perspective. You seem to be saying that an approach to theodicy that focuses on order rather than spiritual warfare is more adventageous in a political sphere of discourse. That may be true -- or not. But either way, in talking about this we are not really talking about theodicies any longer.
As to the political implications of the warfare theodicy, the only definitive thing I can see follows is that one who embraces the warfare perspective would
a) not put ultimate trust in a political solution to humanities problems, and
b) would retain a prophetical critical perspective on all political programs, and
c) would see prayer as a form of political activism (as Walter Wink has brilliantly argued in the third volume of his Trilogy on "The Powers." )
Now, onto more particular responses:
DWL: This is why I claim that the problem of order, as it applies to both politics, regulation of business/private governance, and ecclesiastical institutions is a more appropriate focus than the spiritual warfare theodicy. The focus is not on ahistorical, star-warsy battles between Good and Evil, but on understanding the historical developments of Christianity and the World around us and how things may be different than they currently are, all as part of glorifying God.
Doc: With Alan, I don't see this as an either/or. One can focus on politics, the regulation of business/private governance and ecclesiasticcal institutions with a warfare perspective. (I have considered a fourth volume to the hithertofor trilogy I'm working on that would work out the implications of a warfare theodicy for individual and public life... something like "Living in the Warzone." But I have to finish the third volume first, and this is years away.)
DLW: Clearly, the spiritual warfare theodicy does emphasize the importance of the life of prayer, but it doesn't emphasize the life of the mind enough, or the need for Christians to develop better habits of political reflection.
Doc: You're asking a lot of a theodicy. I'm happy if it just (JUST) renders the pain filled world intelligible, given faith in an all-power and all-good God. But, FYI, I agree that the primary locus of warfare is IN THE MIND.
DLW:to put it simply, Boyd's view of politics is Calvinistic since it strongly limits the extent to which how our government is open or may be restructured/reformed to determine what sort of Economy do we want to have in our country/world.
Doc: You're depiction of your understanding of my views as Calvinistic is puzzling to me. The Reformed stance is usually depicted as wanting to transform culture. I think my views are more in line with the anabaptist view where the distinctness of the kingdoms of the world and the Kingdom of God is emphasized. I am not saying that Christians should not reflect get involved in politics. My concern is that the message of the Church be kept distinct enough from all political agendas so that it never loose its prophetic / critical stance of all political agendas.
But again, I don't see that my own anabaptist stance is a NECESSARY consequence of the warfare theodicy, though I do think it is the most consistent.
Blessings
Doc
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Arrogance that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me.
"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10. | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 4/16/2003 1:45 PM (GMT -6) | | ps. To DLW, just FYI, not that it matters, but your anecdotal stuff about my views on comparative theology and the governance of Woodlandhills Church is inaccurate.
"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 4/16/2003 3:46 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
The purpose of a theodicy is to reconcile the pervasive experience of evil in the world with a belief in an all-good and all-powerful God. The most distinctive claim of the warfare theodicy is its claim that evil cannot be fully accounted for without reference to the spiritual warfare that, according to Scripture, engulfs the world. This theodicy has to be assessed by weighing its explanatory power over and against the relative plausibility of other factors (e.g. the reality of spiritual powers) and alternative theodicies.
Now, there are of course ethical, spiritual, ecclesiastical and political implications to this (and every other) perspective. You seem to be saying that an approach to theodicy that focuses on order rather than spiritual warfare is more adventageous in a political sphere of discourse. That may be true -- or not. But either way, in talking about this we are not really talking about theodicies any longer.
DLW: I think that this definition of theodicy makes sense only when the question of why bad things happen must be explained. As such, it presumes the conception of God that could be considered as outside of time, by virtue of how spatial-metaphors are applied to time. By denying the capital T-Truth status of this root metaphor, there is no need for a spiritual theodicy. If anything, my recollection from your class was that the answer was "they all did it(Demons, Archons, Satan, Humans, politicians...), except God who is Holy."
My position is that, while spiritual powers and conflict/warfare are certainly Biblical, this ontological way of portraying the world has not proven terribly useful in Church practice. It emphasizes their spiritual nature, which automatically raises too many people's defense shields. Instead, people are more accustomed to dealing with metaphysical concepts/ontologies, even though they often accept these as "natural" when they are not.
Also, an emphasis on warfare and the spiritual doesn't focus attention on how we come up with rules/procedures for working out the conflicts that inevitably occur between us, irregardless of our religious beliefs. As such, facts, theories, models and how they have served to replace superstition with a belief in the possibility to understand and change the ways things make a better model for doing the functional equivalent of what you call spiritual warfare, seeking answers to the problems of order that govern how we relate to each other, our environment and God(as observed by Durkheim, institutions encapsulate meaningful religious experience and so their renewal is of paramount to maintaining the vitality of the Christian faith). This is especially the case since the above depend critically on a commitment to selflessness, a willingness to be self-less, suppression of the desire to have one's theories elevated as the best. Instead, there must be a willingness to accept the weight of the governance/decisions of others as to what is true or useful or not.
quote:
As to the political implications of the warfare theodicy, the only definitive thing I can see follows is that one who embraces the warfare perspective would
a) not put ultimate trust in a political solution to humanities problems, and
b) would retain a prophetical critical perspective on all political programs, and
c) would see prayer as a form of political activism (as Walter Wink has brilliantly argued in the third volume of his Trilogy on "The Powers." )
Language embodies ontologies. As such, the word ultimate, political solution characterize a view of the world that is teleologically focused on the end-times. The problem of order does not seek "the" political solution, or the ultimate answer. It provides the pastoral function writ large by setting out as best and clearly as it can, the alternatives and then leaves it to the priesthood of believers to determine what course they should take. This focuses attention on concrete problems that affect specific ecclesiastical institutions, which may be serving as blocks to the accomplishment of the will of God or spread of the Gospel.
As you well know, prophetical perspectives look at what is and say what will come of it if things do not change. As such, for the warfare theodicy to do this, it needs to grope with the details of how politics actually works in society. An anabaptist theology chooses to have as little to do with these details as possible as I understand it. As such, it is not in a position to perform the prophetic message as well as it can be done. The anabaptistic perspective also was developed by a religiously persecuted people in an undemocratic country. The only alternative they faced was the "Lutheran" one of blessing all of the actions of the state since their autonomy from the Roman Catholic Church depended on the protection of the state.
Yes, but we must take a double-barrelled approach, as one of my college professors once said. In my view, the more you understand how much the ontologies that underly political or economic theory, the more appropriate the need for prayer becomes(i.e., our faith in Alan Greenspan is also a leap of faith.).
quote:
Now, onto more particular responses:
DWL: This is why I claim that the problem of order, as it applies to both politics, regulation of business/private governance, and ecclesiastical institutions is a more appropriate focus than the spiritual warfare theodicy. The focus is not on ahistorical, star-warsy battles between Good and Evil, but on understanding the historical developments of Christianity and the World around us and how things may be different than they currently are, all as part of glorifying God.
Doc: With Alan, I don't see this as an either/or. One can focus on politics, the regulation of business/private governance and ecclesiasticcal institutions with a warfare perspective. (I have considered a fourth volume to the hithertofor trilogy I'm working on that would work out the implications of a warfare theodicy for individual and public life... something like "Living in the Warzone." But I have to finish the third volume first, and this is years away.)
As Alan also pointed out, the public and private distinction is not that meaningful when you get down to it. So the idea that you would need to address it in a fourth volume, and have not been dealing with it already is misleading.
Also, warfare is not the right metaphor for dealing with the public life. Politics is. Yes, there are good historical examples of people who gained power and used it for much evil, but generally speaking all power tends to corrupt, only absolute power corrupts absolutely. I think politics generally reflects the reality that, since the state has a monopoly on violence(supposedly), there is conflict over whose interests it should serve. In being the arena where we choose how we compromise between the competing interests, the control of the state decides for whom will we produce, what will be produced(including what sorts of people we produce, which is heavily influenced by what sort of work one does), and how it will be produced.
An open view of God treats the notion of the Kingdom of God, as set out by Augustine, as an onto-theological crutch that supported much wishful thinking that we could have an objective basis for judging the rightness of the choices we make in politics as well as cynicism making Christians avoid politics since it involves compromises. Instead, there is choice and conflict at the fundamental level of politics. What should keep us from a war of all against all, instead of the use of non-true onto-theologies like the existence of a center(reifying the status-quo or its general historical direction of change) is the radical commitment of all of us to love our enemies(since, although striving to capture the state does require that we form teams or parties, but there are still conflicts within the teams/parties, so it makes all of us at a fundamental level enemies or in conflict with each other), but we don't love our enemies or we don't as much as we should, and as such we must deal with the problem of order.
quote:
DLW: Clearly, the spiritual warfare theodicy does emphasize the importance of the life of prayer, but it doesn't emphasize the life of the mind enough, or the need for Christians to develop better habits of political reflection.
Doc: You're asking a lot of a theodicy. I'm happy if it just (JUST) renders the pain filled world intelligible, given faith in an all-power and all-good God. But, FYI, I agree that the primary locus of warfare is IN THE MIND.
It may explain the existence of pain well enough, though not with terrible specificity, but not the presence of order as well and it denies the presence of an all-powerful God and doesn't, in and of itself, present guidelines for how God's goodness should order our lives so we can be like Christ. We should ask that the ideas that we live our lives by explain both the presence of order and suffering at the same time. Otherwise, they are not general enough.
quote:
DLW:to put it simply, Boyd's view of politics is Calvinistic since it strongly limits the extent to which how our government is open or may be restructured/reformed to determine what sort of Economy do we want to have in our country/world.
Doc: You're depiction of your understanding of my views as Calvinistic is puzzling to me. The Reformed stance is usually depicted as wanting to transform culture. I think my views are more in line with the anabaptist view where the distinctness of the kingdoms of the world and the Kingdom of God is emphasized. I am not saying that Christians should not reflect get involved in politics. My concern is that the message of the Church be kept distinct enough from all political agendas so that it never loose its prophetic / critical stance of all political agendas.
But again, I don't see that my own anabaptist stance is a NECESSARY consequence of the warfare theodicy, though I do think it is the most consistent.
I didn't mean to use the term Calvinist within the context of the Reformed Church and its historical beliefs that Christian Churches should work to transform the political/economic/cultural institutions they find prevalent in the world. The belief that Christians have a calling to serve God through acts that would have little impact by themselves or for the Christians themselves, but would serve to collectively glorify God is independent of the view of Calvinism I had in mind. Here one portrays that one should take a good portion of the "sinful" nature of politics as given and not try to provide the ultimate answer, by capturing the state. Capturing the state(or, more modestly acquiring some political capital) does lead to one being capture by having influence, since then one has to try that influence, which requires compromise and, a wilingness to compromise with the interests that one sought out to fight/reduce.
The Church, generally speaking, should be distinct from political parties, but that does not mean that bodies of believers will not have to interact with political parties in order to participate with politics. As you know, in the US, we have historically had very strong religious divisions between parties. This has led for groups of voters to be tightly welded to a particular party and not very autonomous. It also has contributed to the manicheistic language of parties as they manipulate voters during campaigns.
I think Churches are responsible for encouraging its members to take the time to study politics and inculcate habits of political reflection into its members. The autonomy of Church and State does not imply their segregation. It just means that we must not claim that we have access to "the City of God" providing us with "the" solution, but rather follow the principle I set out earlier that, "active involvement by Christians in politics can be glorifying to God if done in an ethical manner that respects the separation of Church and State by not being dogmatic in its political goals while seeking to widen the range of interests that potentially can be served by the government."
Blessings
DLW
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me.
Edited by - DLW on 05/10/2003 7:14:36 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 4/16/2003 3:52 PM (GMT -6) | | Another thought, I think that the focus on the prophetic role is good, but it neglects the fact that as a theologian/pastor one also plays the prophetic role of pointing to that which is Good, Holy and worthy of the time and energies of believers.
The anabaptist view of yours neglects this role considerably. Also, the use of warfare analogies tend to play into the manicheistic language commonly used by the two predominant parties in our country to prevent voter groups from considering trying to play the two parties off of each other to better acheive their goals or seeking to form a multi-party system that would diffuse control of the government to a greater degree.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 4/17/2003 7:27 AM (GMT -6) | | Please clarify:
I understand the spiritual warfare metaphor to describe the fundamental opposition between two kinds of order. Thus:
good order (creative) vs. evil order (destructive)
It seems like you are proposing a metaphor that would cast the opposition in terms of:
order vs. non-order
or
more order vs. less order
1. Casting the conflict in terms of order vs. nonorder presupposes a privitive view of evil, and therefore undermines the urgency of our struggle against evil, which the Bible portrays in active terms as a will that possesses and preys upon people.
2. I don’t understand how the metaphor of order accounts for the possibility of systemic distortion.
I’m sorry if you have already addressed this and I missed it.
Electra
Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 4/17/2003 7:45 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Please clarify:
I understand the spiritual warfare metaphor to describe the fundamental opposition between two kinds of order. Thus:
good order (creative) vs. evil order (destructive)
It seems like you are proposing a metaphor that would cast the opposition in terms of:
order vs. non-order
or
more order vs. less order
[/order]
If you read Schumpeter(Economist-Dude), to view our society from an evolutionary perspective is to focus on Creative Destruction. I.e., new ways of doing things destroy older ways of doing things. As such, the manicheistic opposition from the spiritual warfare viewpoint is not use-ful. My point is that there is an order at all points in times but that these orders are fallible and need to be adapted to take into account new situations that were not prevalent before. That is the problem of order, the need to reconcile continuity with change, our fallible ideals with the reality of how pervasively our world is fallen so that the ways we operationalize our ideals are themselves fallen.
[quote]
1. Casting the conflict in terms of order vs. nonorder presupposes a privitive view of evil, and therefore undermines the urgency of our struggle against evil, which the Bible portrays in active terms as a will that possesses and preys upon people.
2. I don’t understand how the metaphor of order accounts for the possibility of systemic distortion.
I’m sorry if you have already addressed this and I missed it.
Electra
In my view, Satan is broken and his kingdom was broken with Jesus death and resurrection. However, the problem of order focuses its attention not on how they still seek to cause damage to Humanity and the Church, but rather the habits/institutions we develop and must develop to deal with these attacks and the conflicts that inevitably take place between humans in the course of living our lives.
The point is that setting out dichotomies like order vs. non-order is misleading, the choice is between many different forms of order, which, in the ecclesiastical sense, will determine how we try to establish the kingdom of God.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 4/17/2003 8:17 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
The point is that setting out dichotomies like order vs. non-order is misleading, the choice is between many different forms of order, which, in the ecclesiastical sense, will determine how we try to establish the kingdom of God.
OK. I assume you would agree that some of the many different forms of order are less systemically distorted than others, and therefore we must choose orders that are more creative than destructive and resist orders that are more destructive than creative. I don’t see how this is incompatible with spiritual warfare.
Electra
Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky | | Back to Top | | |
| 32 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:36 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|