Category Archives: Theology

December 10, 2010

An Open Theism Theodicy

By David D. Flowers

Gregory Boyd on the Problem of Evil

Where is God when a seven-year-old child is kidnapped, viciously raped, and her decapitated body is left in a plastic bag beside a cold riverbed?[1] Gregory Boyd believes that evil “cannot be captured in abstract definitions”[2] but must be known in concrete experiences, like that of seven-year-old Greta, before any serious answers may be given to the problem of evil—lest “abstractions… distract us from that immediate reality [of evil] and reduce evil to a statistic,” as suggested by Jeffery Burton Russell.[3]

Traditionally, classical theism has largely conditioned her adherents to accept that God, who is omnipotent, must allow Greta’s brutal murder for some good purpose and that Christians should accept this as being a part of God’s secret plan—often expressed in the popular cliché: “There is a reason for everything.”

Gregory Boyd, who previously taught theology at Bethel College in St. Paul Minnesota, where he is now a pastor of Woodland Hills Church, has in the last decade, encroached upon many long-held doctrines and traditions that Christians, particularly in America, hold dear.

His book, Myth of a Christian Nation: How the Quest for Political Power is Destroying the Church (Zondervan 2006) is an example of his willingness to confront issues within cultural Christianity.

Boyd is a strong proponent of “open theism,” perhaps the most controversial of his challenges directed at classical theism. It is within Boyd’s open view of God’s sovereignty that he finds satisfactory solutions for the problem of evil and the way by which he constructs his “Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy.”[4]

The purpose of this article is to give reasonable consideration of the theodicy espoused by Gregory Boyd. The theodicy of Gregory Boyd will be appraised as a sensitive engagement of the issues pertaining to the problem of evil as it relates to the Christian life, showing the strengths of contemporary open theism, and thereby arguing for a respected position within evangelicalism.

This article will begin by briefly examining classical theism and will then direct full attention to the open theism of Gregory Boyd. How then does Boyd’s doctrine of God deal with the problem of evil and suffering in the world? What practical implications might his view have on Christians living in the present, as well as their hope for the future?

Finally, in what ways do Boyd’s theodicy enhance our understanding of God and the Gospel of Jesus Christ?[5]

THE CLASSICAL DOCTRINE OF GOD

A Synopsis of Classical Theism

What does “classical theism” mean? Classical theism generally describes the way the Christian theological tradition handles the doctrine of God.[6] In other words, it describes the traditional or “classic” way in which Christians have answered the question, “Who is God?” or “What is God like?” Classical theists focus on certain attributes of God and build a systematic theology from what they have decided about God’s attributes.

For the sake of this article, it is only necessary that a few of those attributes be briefly addressed.[7]

According to classical theism, God is “immutable” and “impassible.” Immutability says that God is unchanging in nature. However, the tradition has gone as far as God being inert and unmoved. Impassibility, an attribute often closely associated with the former, suggests that God does not experience true sorrow, sadness, or pain. Therefore, any emotions attributed to God are purely metaphorical.

Classical theism also upholds the belief that God is “omnipotent” and “omniscient.” These attributes have been historically central to the Christian doctrine of God. Omnipotence says that God is “all powerful” and capable, within the limits of his attributes, of doing whatever he pleases. Omniscience means that God is “all knowing” and that there is nothing beyond his knowledge; this would include God’s foreknowing all things in the future.

It should be noted that these attributes have been largely expounded upon and articulated in Hellenic philosophical terminology, and more popularly defined by the likes of Augustine, Aquinas, and John Calvin.[8]

Rethinking Classical Theism

There are a growing number of evangelical theologians who are finding themselves dissatisfied with classical theism, and they propose an alternative to the traditional doctrine of God.[9] This controversial movement, and contemporary trend in the doctrine of God, has been dubbed “open theism”—a term coined by Richard Rice in his 1980 book, The Openness of God: The Relationship of Divine Foreknowledge and Human Free Will.[10]

Open theism calls into question the way in which the divine attributes have been traditionally defined. Language about God in the Scripture, according to open theists, is not always intended to be anthropological or metaphorical. If God is “immutable” and never changes, then how, for example, is God sorry that he made humankind (Gen. 6:5)? How does God change his mind (Exod. 32:14)? And what about the incarnation (Jn. 1:14)?

Clark Pinnock, a major proponent of open theism, says, “God is unchanging in nature and essence but not in experience, knowledge and action.”[11] Open theists also call for a redefining of God’s sovereignty and his foreknowledge; if God already knows the future exhaustively, and the future is predetermined, then free will is merely an illusion.

Finally, open theists say that if God is in complete control of the cosmos, as proposed by classical theism, then he must be behind evil. Therefore, God could have done something about seven-year old Greta, but simply chose to “allow” it for his good purposes.

Open theists suggest that maybe it is time for evangelicals to rethink classical theism and realign their views with Scripture.

THE OPEN THEISM OF GREGORY BOYD

Free Will, Foreknowledge, & the Problem of Evil

Gregory Boyd believes that true freedom is incompatible with determinism.[12] The belief that God can foreknow all things, and that man can at the same time operate out of free will, is logically incoherent. This is a major point of contention for open theists. For Boyd, the future is partly open and full of possibilities. Only the past can be known exhaustively—for the past is gone, the present is ongoing, and the future is yet to come.

If the relational Triune God is love, then the very nature of love involves a certain level of risk.[13] Classical theists believe that this undermines God’s sovereignty.[14] Boyd argues, a God “who knows all possibilities, experiences novelty, and is willing to engage in an appropriate level of risk is more exalted than a God who faces an eternally settled future.”[15] And Boyd believes that this is the God presented in the Bible.

According to Boyd, God knows the future as “unsettled possibilities” (e.g. Gen. 23:12; Jer. 3:6-7; 2 Pet. 3:12) and “settled certainties” (e.g. Gen. 15:13-15; Matt. 24:1-32; Eph. 1:3-10) where God invites human beings, made in his image, to join him as agents of new creation.[16] God perfectly anticipates the actions of free creatures and knows all that is knowable about the future. Boyd says, it’s really about the nature of the future.

In this way God is truly immanent and operates within his creation according to its laws and nature. Since God’s knowledge is perfect in knowing possibilities, as if they were all certainties, he will forever be a step ahead of his creatures. However, those creatures are always given an “appropriate degree of freedom” to operate within creation and shape the future.[17]

Boyd believes the cross best speaks to the open view of the future, God’s sovereignty, and how God has judged evil once and for all in the death of Jesus:

The cross refutes the traditional notion that omnipotence means God always gets his way. Rather, the cross reveals God’s omnipotence as a power that empowers others—to the point of giving others the ability, if they so choose, to nail him to the cross. The cross reveals that God’s omnipotence is displayed in self-sacrificial love, not sheer might. God conquers sin and the devil not by a sovereign decree but by a wise and humble submission to crucifixion. In doing this, the cross reveals that God’s omnipotence is not primarily about control but about his compelling love. God conquers evil and wins the heart of people by self-sacrificial love, not by coercive force.[18]

Jesus taught his disciples to pray, “your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven” (Matt. 6:10 NIV). According to Boyd, this presupposes that God’s will is not always done. Therefore, in Boyd’s view, genuine free will affords mankind the choice to align with God’s good intentions for creation and say, “not my will be done, but thine” or otherwise join the forces of evil that fight against God.

Boyd is convinced that there is a real war being waged between human and angelic agents of free will. He rejects what he calls the “blueprint worldview” where God ordains everything that comes to pass—which in the end makes God responsible for evil.[19]

Therefore, he says, “The blueprint worldview intensifies the problem of evil, and it is rooted in fundamental philosophical assumptions that are highly questionable.”[20] Instead, Boyd offers the “warfare worldview” as a way of making sense of the problem of evil within the doctrine of God. He calls it his “Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy.”

A Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy

Gregory Boyd says, “This intellectual problem of evil constitutes the single most difficult challenge to classical-philosophical Christian theism.” He continues, “Indeed, it is not overstating the case to claim that no single theological problem has occupied more intellectual energy, time, and ink than this one.”[21]

As Clark Pinnock has pointed out, modern atheism is largely due to philosophical distortions that have entered into the doctrine of God.[22] Boyd is determined to clear up these distortions with his “philosophical theology” set forth in his book, Satan and the Problem of Evil: Constructing a Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy.[23] Boyd says:

I call it a trinitarian warfare theodicy for two reasons. First, I want clearly to distinguish the warfare worldview I espouse and defend from the warfare worldview that most other cultures in history have in some form espoused. The biblical warfare worldview is unique in that it has at its foundation the belief in a triune Creator God who is all-powerful and all-good. This is why the trinitarian warfare worldview is unique: it must reconcile the reality of spiritual war with the belief in an all-powerful and all-good God.[24]

Boyd says he is motivated by his encounter with Scripture, not philosophy.[25] However, because his theodicy is a work in philosophical theology, Boyd says that reason will play a more dominant role than it would in a biblical theology. He states, “Scriptural revelation goes beyond reason, but I do not believe it ever goes against reason.”[26]

Boyd explains his methodology:

The method I employ to arrive at the six theses that constitute the core of the trinitarian warfare worldview is based on Wesley’s methodological quadrangle of Scripture, reason, experience, and tradition as the criteria for theological truth.[27]

These six theses form the core of his position and perspective:

  1. Love must be freely chosen. This entails that creatures possessing the capacity to love, must also have self-determining freedom.
  2. Love involves risk. There is no way God could have created beings with self-determining freedom without suffering some losses.
  3. Love and freedom mean that creatures are to some degree “morally responsible for one another.”
  4. The ability an agent has to do good is roughly proportionate to the ability that creature has to do evil.
  5. Freedom must be, within limits, irrevocable. For Boyd, this explains why God cannot always prevent evil or interfere in human affairs.
  6. The capacity to choose love is not endless. Human beings are finite and their choices only extend so far. This means that self-determined creatures have a limited capacity to accept or reject God’s purposes.[28]

Boyd says that the final theses, “renders intelligible why God must genuinely war against rebellious creatures at the present time, though he is certain to overcome them in the future.”[29] In fact, Boyd believes that the entire narrative of Scripture is the telling of one great spiritual war.

In his book, God At War: The Bible and Spiritual Conflict, Boyd first laid out the framework for his warfare worldview.[30] He examined both the Old and New Testaments in order to prove that behind the scenes of human history there has been an ongoing battle of cosmic forces. Satan and his angels began a war against the God of heaven some time in the primordial past and brought their rebellion to earth.[31]

What began in the Garden of Eden (Gen. 3:1-15), continued through the trials of Job (1:6-12), warred against the prayers of Daniel (10:1-21), and demonized the man along the Sea of Galilee (Mk. 5:1-20), was finally confronted by Jesus with spiritual and physical “acts of war.”

According to Boyd, even “natural evils” (e.g. earthquakes, floods, birth defects, mental illness etc.) are a result of these evil powers and they should be attributed to Satan, “the god of this world” (2 Cor. 4:4; Eph. 2:2) and his fallen angels that have turned against God.[32]

Boyd believes that every evil act or event is a result of free agents choosing to oppose God’s will. Whether that is humans or angels, all evil comes to us because of acts of defiance against God.[33]

Boyd says, “Evil is a mystery, but it is not a mystery concerning Yahweh’s character… the mystery of evil is not located in the heart of God but in the heart of humanity and in the hidden world between humans and God.”[34] God is not to blame for evil in his world.

Boyd contends that the early Christians were well aware of this spiritual war and it constituted “the only ‘problem of evil’ they knew or cared about.” It was a matter of aligning their lives with God’s will in Jesus. Boyd says, “It was a problem solved by spiritual activism, not by intellectual contemplation and pious resignation.”[35] The early believers were urged to join the angelic forces of God, in spiritual battle, with spiritual armor, through prayer (Eph. 6:10-18).

As Paul said, “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms” (Eph. 6:12 NIV).

There was no need for the early Christians to ponder “why bad things happen to good people,” because they were ever mindful of the war that rages on until Christ comes to establish his kingdom forever on the earth (Rev. 20-21). They were at war with evil—fighting with weapons not of this world (2 Cor. 10:4)! They resonated with the words of Paul: “The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet” (Rom. 16:20).

Practical Implications

So what then can be said about seven-year old Greta who was abducted and raped before being brutally murdered? Where was God in this wretched evil?

In this light we must conclude that it is at least as true to say that God could not prevent Greta’s abduction as it is to say that God chose not to prevent it.  God chose not to prevent this abduction in the sense that he alone chose to create the kind of risky world where this kind of evil could happen. Moreover, because God made this choice, he now could not guarantee that this evil would be prevented. Where free agents are involved, God’s omnipotent will can at times be thwarted (Lk. 7:30).[36]

Gregory Boyd’s “Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy” does more than somehow let God off the hook for evil. His theodicy implies that both humans and angels are in a real war with God. Therefore, human and angelic actions really do matter in this world. Free agents can choose to join the Lord in works of the kingdom to resist evil and “speed his coming” (2 Peter 3:8-13) in the world, or capitulate to evil through actions that are antithetical to the new heaven and earth.

Boyd says, “If we believe that possibilities are not real, we will be more inclined to accept things that we could, and should, revolt against.”[37] Boyd calls for a proactive stance toward evil.

How then should Christians revolt? Boyd suggests that followers of Christ ought to understand prayer as “morally responsible behavior” in confronting evil in the world.[38] He believes that many Christians do not pray passionately against evil because somewhere deep down they don’t believe it can make any real difference.

People often pray out of obligation without any sense of urgency.[39] Boyd is convinced that if Christians get their minds right about what’s really going on, they will then see God opposed to all evil and join him in that opposition.

Embracing this “open” warfare worldview may not entirely solve the problem of evil, but Boyd believes that “it offers a more plausible way out of the dilemma of assuming God has a purpose for allowing particular evils.”[40] It is then necessary to reject the blueprint worldview.

Jesus taught his followers to align themselves with the Father’s will in prayer in order that he might have his way in them and the world (Matt. 6:10). Prayer joins heaven and earth. It moves people, angels, and all of creation to action against evil in order that God’s forces advance in the universe.

So when evil momentarily gets the upper hand, Boyd reminds Christians that God’s power is so great that he can use evil for the good of those who are concerned with kingdom alignment (Rom. 8:28). God weeps for Greta and others like her that have suffered at the hands of Satan. God is not sitting idly by doing nothing—and neither should his people.

It is plain that Boyd’s theodicy is a serious treatment of spiritual warfare. It implies that Christian living really does matter for kingdom’s sake. Boyd’s theodicy also reminds believers that God is for his people, always. He comes alongside his people and suffers with them (Heb. 4:15-16).

The cross of Christ reminds God’s people that he has himself experienced the full weight of evil. The resurrection says that God has conquered and that he is recreating the world in Jesus. Sin and death are on the way out. Boyd’s warfare worldview assures believers of God’s certain triumph, but in the meantime, there is a real battle being fought in heaven and earth.

Most importantly, Christians are reminded that Jesus reveals the God of Scripture. Jesus shows us that God is not behind evil, but instead, he stands utterly opposed to it. Boyd suggests that this also means that believers should see Jesus’ own actions as God’s way of rebuking evil.[41]

Where there is hate, let there be love. Where there is darkness, let there be light. Where there is unrest, let there be peace. And where there exists the most horrendous evils in the world, let God’s people overcome that evil with the good of Christ—for he has given us the victory.

CONCLUSION—A PLEA FOR OPEN DIALOGUE WITHIN EVANGELICALISM

Clark Pinnock has said, “No doctrine can be more important than the doctrine of God.”[42] Pinnock stands as a great testimony to evangelicals of what semper reformanda truly means. As an evangelical, he knew what it was like to be on a theological journey of discovery.

Pinnock (1937-2010) went from being a fundamentalist to ending his days as a respected open theist. He was familiar with the turmoil that comes from having his views challenged and making adjustments when needed.

Pinnock said:

After the initial anxiety of rethinking, one will find God again in a fresh way around the next bend in the reflective road. Rather than worry about our discomfort, perhaps we should be concerned about God’s reputation. Does it not concern us that God’s name is often dishonored because of poor theologies of God? How can we expect Christians to delight in God or outsiders to seek God if we portray God in biblically flawed, rationally suspect and existentially repugnant ways? We cannot expect it.[43]

As long as men let their guiding light be Christ and the Scriptures, how can another brother or sister stifle the growth and discovery of perceived truths? It goes to the heart of what it means to be an evangelical. There is room for open theists at the table of Christian orthodoxy.[44]

The challenge facing classical theism is not one that undermines biblical Christianity. Open theism is no doubt a perceived threat to classical theists, but this is because there are fundamental philosophical nuances between the two positions.[45]

After having examined the theodicy of Gregory Boyd, it should be clear that the conclusions he has drawn are biblically founded and Christ honoring. Who can deny open theists a place in serious evangelical discussion and debate?

May evangelicalism be enriched by the contributions of open theists.

D.D. Flowers, 2010.

Listen to Gregory Boyd give an intro lecture on open theism.

[1] Gregory A. Boyd, Satan and the Problem of Evil: Constructing a Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2001), 214-215.

[2] Boyd, God at War: The Bible and Spiritual Conflict (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1997), 34.

[3] Jeffrey Burton Russell, The Prince of Darkness (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1988), 257.

[4] Boyd sets forth his “Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy” in his book, Satan and the Problem of Evil. His open theism theodicy will be discussed in detail later in the third section of this article, The Open Theism of Gregory Boyd.

[5] As an open theist, Gregory Boyd is especially concerned with evil and what God is doing about it. Therefore, this article will focus primarily on his “open” perspective to the problem of evil. He has made a great effort to address his concerns with classical theism and present his theodicy as the “warfare worldview” in the following books: God at War: The Bible and Spiritual Conflict (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1997); Satan and the Problem of Evil: Constructing a Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2001); Is God to Blame? Beyond Pat Answers to the Problem of Suffering (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2003).

[6] Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, The Doctrine of God: A Global Introduction (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004), 53.

[7] For a full discussion, see Stanley Grenz, Theology for the Community of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 78-97; and Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 156-184.

[8] Robert M. Grant, The Early Christian Doctrine of God (Charlottesville, VA: Univ. of Virginia, 1966), 12; also Charles Hartshorne and W. Reese, Philosophers Speak of God, 2nd ed. (Amherst, NY: Humanity Books, 2000).

[9] Richard Rice, God’s Foreknowledge and Man’s Free Will (Minneapolis: Bethany, 1985); John Sanders, The God Who Risks: A Theology of Providence (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998); William Hasker, God, Time, and Knowledge (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1989); David Basinger, The Case for Freewill Theism: A Philosophical Assessment (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1986); and Gregory Boyd, God of the Possible: A Biblical Introduction to the Open View of God (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000); also R. Nash’s, The Concept of God: An Exploration of Contemporary Difficulties with the Attributes of God (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983).

[10] The book was so controversial that publication was halted. Due to the efforts of Clark Pinnock, the book was later republished as, God’s Foreknowledge and Man’s Free Will (Minneapolis: Bethany, 1985).

[11] Clark Pinnock, The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1994), 118.

[12] Boyd, Satan and the Problem of Evil, 419. Boyd says, “compatibilism and the problem of evil are inextricably connected” (p.61).

[13] Sanders, The God Who Risks: A Theology of Providence (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998).

[14] As John Piper argues in his book: Beyond the Bounds: Open Theism and the Undermining of Biblical Christianity (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2003); also in Millard Erickson’s, What Does God Know and When Does He Know It? (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003).

[15] Boyd, God of the Possible, 15.

[16] Ibid., 16. Boyd says, “I see no way to know for certain what is and is not open” (p. 146).

[17] Ibid., 68.

[18] Ibid., 49.

[19] Boyd, Is God to Blame?, 41.

[20] Ibid., 55.

[21] Boyd, God At War, 43.

[22] Pinnock, The Openness of God, 102.

[23] Boyd, Satan and the Problem of Evil, 18.

[24] Ibid.

[25] Boyd, God of the Possible, 12-13.

[26] Boyd, Satan and the Problem of Evil, 21.

[27] Ibid., 20

[28] Ibid., 24.

[29] Ibid.

[30] Boyd, God At War.

[31] Ibid., 93-113. Boyd entertains the “gap theory” or what he calls the “restoration theory.” This theory proposes that there was a cosmic battle between Genesis 1:1-2; see Jon Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Jewish Drama of Divine Omnipotence (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988), 121-122.

[32] Ibid., 206. Boyd says that we can’t possibly know the exact cause of every evil act or event, but it is safe to assume that the activity belongs to Satan and his forces of evil that continue to rebel against their Creator.

[33] Boyd, Satan and the Problem of Evil, 49.

[34] Boyd, God At War, 149.

[35] Ibid., 283.

[36] Boyd, Satan and the Problem of Evil, 215.

[37] Boyd, God of the Possible, 93.

[38] Boyd, Satan and the Problem of Evil, 229.

[39] Boyd, God of the Possible, 95. Boyd believes the blueprint worldview propagates this idea.

[40] Ibid., 99.

[41] Boyd, Is God to Blame?, 72.

[42] Pinnock, The Openness of God, 102.

[43] Ibid., 104.

[44] Clark Pinnock, “There is room for us: a reply to Bruce Ware.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 45, no. 2 (June 1, 2002): 213-219. * Other notable open theists include: Adrio Konig, Jürgen Moltmann, Thomas Finger, Terence Fretheim, Keith Ward, John Goldingay, Kenneth Archer, Winkie Pratney, and H. Berkhof.

[45] See, Gregory Boyd, “Christian love and academic dialogue: a reply to Bruce Ware.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 45, no. 2 (June 1, 2002): 233-243.

30 Comments   |  tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | posted in Christianity, Church, Ethics, Religion & Spirituality, Theology

October 16, 2010

Halloween & the Gospel

By David D. Flowers

Is it OK for followers of Christ to celebrate Halloween? Should Christians participate in festivities that seem to do nothing more than glorify evil? Most importantly, can the Gospel win out on this day? How should we respond to this time of year? That’s what I want to address.

Halloween is largely based off old superstitions—right down to the carving of pumpkins. As much as all of that fascinates me, I will spare you the history of Halloween and simply address the issue as it comes to us today. My desire is that this would help us creatively navigate our own culture.

The Options

I have noticed that most Christians feel they have two or three options when it comes to how they handle Halloween:

1.  Embrace all of Halloween (jack-o-lanterns, witches, trick-or-treating, haunted houses, decorate with eerie lights and skeletons, satanic rituals, etc.)  It’s all good fun. Just don’t hurt anyone.

2.  Create alternatives to compete with the culture through “fall festivals” (i.e. Christian carnivals) and “Christian” haunted houses (e.g. “Hell House”).

3.  Reject everything and stay home. Pretend you’re not home when little children come to your door for candy. Try to put it all out of your mind and ignore it, or sit in your living room upset about it.

Let’s briefly think about each of these options with serious consideration of what the Gospel of Jesus means to us. The way you view the Gospel and the person of Christ will steer you in one direction or the other.

Think About It

Option #1 – Can believers embrace all of Halloween? Would the Jesus who casted out devils, dress up like one? Would Jesus pretend to be a devil to scare people? Would Jesus sport symbols of witchcraft for fun?  The early church witnessed the conversion of witches and sorcerers (Acts 19:18-20). I don’t want to be a party pooper, but the Scriptures do not allow for a “fun” Harry Potter version of witchcraft and sorcery (Deut. 18:10; Gal. 5:19-21; Rev. 21:8).  It seems to me that believers could not possibly embrace all aspects of Halloween—not if you’re taking serious the life of Jesus and his Gospel.

Option #2 – What is the motivation to create “alternatives” to rival what is evil? Was Jesus proclaiming an “alternative” message? If churches want to design a carnival for children to enjoy, fine. I see nothing wrong with that. But if it’s done out of anger, fear, and the belief that Christians shouldn’t carve pumpkins and trick-or-treat, I think it sends the wrong message. It gets a little silly when we do “alternative” events for the sole purpose of sticking it to the world. “Christian” haunted houses like “Hell House” just goes to show how confused we are about the Gospel of Jesus. Fear isn’t of the Lord.

Option #3 – Did Jesus have the attitude of a spiritual elitist? Did he retreat into the hills with the Essenes and communicate the attitude that he wanted nothing to do with the rest of the world? We learn a great deal by taking notice of the religious traditions Jesus did reject—like those of the Pharisees, Sadducees, Zealots, and Essenes. Jesus was not afraid of being accused of being a “sinner” or being caught hanging out with them. He was not motivated by fear, anger, or self-righteousness. His zeal led him to be light in the darkest of places.  I can’t see Jesus choosing option #3. So where does that leave us?

Is There Another Option?

Is there a way to participate in Halloween while upholding good over evil? I think so. In our American culture, I think there is another option that allows the Gospel to creatively and intentionally engage Halloween.

Truthfully, I think Halloween can be one of the most memorable childhood experiences! I think it can be real healthy fun.

It is a great opportunity to teach children about good and evil.

I don’t think that means we should make our children dress up like Bible characters (nothing wrong with that of course!), but it would be inconsistent to encourage or to allow them to glorify evil with their actions, costumes, behavior, etc. Surely we all know this to be true.

Evil can be appealing. That’s a great lesson children and adults need to learn. The real appeal of evil is only in the costume, of course. It’s worth remembering that the devil masquerades around as an angel of light (2 Cor. 11:14).

There are many lessons we can teach our children and be soberly reminded of ourselves. Primarily, there is a cosmic battle of good and evil going on every day we live in this present age. That which is unseen is made visible on Halloween. It’s a perfect time to be reminded that we battle not against flesh and blood (Eph. 6:12).

I’ve been married for almost 16 years. My wife and I have two boys: a 5 year old and a one year old. We have settled it in our hearts that we want to use the culture to teach our children biblical truths, instead of sheltering them from it entirely when and where good can and should triumph. Sooner or later our children must live in the world on their own. Teach them to confront evil, not run from it.

Working with students as long as we have, we are convinced of this much: Engagement with the culture is inevitable, and frankly, we’ve been called to do it. Halloween shouldn’t be any different than the rest of the year. Every day belongs to God. I seriously question the effectiveness of “alternative” festivities and the creation of “Christian” options in any area of living. And retreating from the world is unthinkable. The Gospel engages the darkness.

Some parents worry that they are going along with the glorification of evil if they let their kids participate. I personally don’t agree with this thinking. I believe we should be more concerned that we are not teaching our children that there is one night of the year (or any night of the year) when evil gets the upper hand. What kind of Gospel is that? It’s not the hopeful message of Christ.

It seems to me that fear is not what you want to teach children, but I do acknowledge that parents may choose to do whatever based off their convictions. I assume each Christian home will do what they think is best for their children. You have this right and responsibility. I would never base a person’s commitment to Christ on this issue.

After working with students for 15 years and observing their parents, I’d say that the only “bad” parents are the ones who are not intentional in leading their children to know and love Christ. Those who are intentional about serving Christ and leading their children in the way of Jesus are good parents in my book. And I think there are many acceptable ways of doing that.

Conclusion—The Gospel of Jesus

If a person has reduced the Gospel to having their sins forgiven and sees us escaping earth for a spiritual existence on the other side of the cosmos, I submit that this will greatly influence that person’s response to this and many other issues. I have actually noticed that this view propagates an attitude of fear, anger, and self-righteousness. Escapism is their gospel.

However, if the Gospel is about heaven coming to earth, that Jesus has defeated evil and plans to transform this world—starting with us in the here and now—then this most certainly comes into play when responding to Halloween.

Understanding the greatness of the Gospel message (i.e. heaven coming to this earth) will free us up to see ourselves as agents of new creation. God is transforming this world now and the fullness of his coming is just around the corner. This worldview changes everything!

We have been called to declare that Christ is Lord of the day and night. We are called to live in this world where “the darkness is passing and the true light is already shining” (1 Jn 2:8).

So, how do you understand the Gospel? How you answer this question will shape your living. I believe that it will make a difference in your response to the culture where it glorifies evil and refuses to acknowledge Christ as Lord.

“You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.” Jesus, Matt. 5:14-16

D.D. Flowers, 2010.

[Updated & Revised – October 2017]

24 Comments   |  tags: , , , , , , , , , , | posted in Christianity, Culture, Theology

September 25, 2010

What Saint Paul Really Said

By David D. Flowers

What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity? (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1997) by N.T. Wright

A Critical Book Review

N.T. Wright is one of the leading voices within New Testament scholarship today. Wright taught New Testament studies for twenty years at Cambridge, McGill, and Oxford Universities. He has recently been appointed a Chair in New Testament and Early Christianity at St. Andrews, Scotland.

Wright, a prolific author, has written over thirty books, including both scholarly and popular works. His major academic series Christian Origins and the Question of God is making no small contribution to New Testament studies.  There are six proposed volumes in this series. The fourth volume is anticipated as being Wright’s magnum opus on Paul.

Along the way in constructing his magisterial work on Paul, Wright has written several books that reflect his long admiration and journey into the mind of the Apostle, and he does so with a commitment and concern for interpreting Paul within his first-century context.

In his book, What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity?, the preeminent British scholar gives a devastating but humble critique of the view that Paul is the force at work behind Christianity.[1]

Wright sets out to prove that there is certainly not a parallelism with Jesus and Paul, but there is an “appropriate continuity” between the two (181).

Wright begins his presentation with a brief review of Pauline scholarship in the twentieth century. Although Wright doesn’t agree with all of his views, he especially finds Albert Schweitzer’s four questions concerning Pauline studies a “benchmark for subsequent study” (14). The book is arranged according to the questions that deal with history, theology, exegesis, and application.

Rooting the historical ‘Saul of Tarsus’ within the radical wing of Shammaite Pharisaism, Wright sets the stage for some sort of dramatic encounter that converts Saul the persecutor into Paul the preacher. Wright is concerned to show that Paul never leaves his “home base of Jewish monotheism” (63).

This may be an appropriate summation of how Wright’s so-called “new perspective” is sustained throughout this book and his life’s work on Paul. It is what Wright has in mind as he interprets Paul’s use of “righteousness” and “justification” within his letters, particularly the epistle to the Romans.

There will no doubt be some scholars, pastors, and teachers that will find it most offensive that Wright admonishes his readers to “repent of the ways we have mishandled” Paul down through the years. He declares that it is time to “study Paul in his own terms” (23).

Wright definitely does not mince with words. His passion for his subject and his conviction born out of his in-depth study of Paul is commendable. For the most part, Wright’s exegetical honesty and his refreshing humility come through in his writing and potentially make allowances for his bold rhetoric.

However, it could be said that he rushes to conclude that he is the only scholar concerned with interpreting Paul within Second-Temple Judaism. Wright accuses Wayne Meeks and Hans-Dieter Betz as being secretive about an agenda that has Paul deriving his central concepts from the pagan world (77).

The reader could hear Wright say that any sort of interaction with first-century paganism in Paul’s thinking is headed for trouble.  Yet, a few pages later, Wright allows for Paul to adopt pagan concepts to express gospel truth (81). A little clarity might resolve what appears to be a touch of contradiction.

The real firestorm of current debate seems to be between those who resonate with Wright’s interpretations and those who have committed themselves to the sixteenth century reformed view of Paul and his theology. The center of the controversy, and what many reformed scholars take issue with, is articulated in chapters 6 and 7 in this book.

Wright says the Reformers were reading their personal problems with the medieval church into Paul—instead of reading Paul through the lens of Second-Temple Judaism. This has those committed to reformed theology gagging at Wright’s Pauline-pudding.

Wright redefines Paul’s use of “righteousness” and “justification.” Wright has been most outspoken that “righteousness” in Paul has little to nothing to do with “moral quality” and everything to do with God’s covenant faithfulness and the “status” of those who stand before the Maker of that covenant in the heavenly law court.

Wright says it has always been about faithfulness to the covenant, not about imputing moral goodness. Faithfulness to the law and covenant was never about achieving salvation through ethical living—it was about identifying with God’s divine program. The cosmic judge does not give his goodness to the accused, he pronounces the status of “righteous” (i.e. covenant faithfulness) to those whom he has set free.

Wright doesn’t deny some sort of imputation of moral goodness, just that Paul isn’t thinking of it with his employment of the biblical law court metaphor.

Paul’s use of “justification” follows in this covenantal reading to mark off those who are already included in the covenant of God. Wright says that “justification” is not how someone becomes a Christian, it is a declaration that they have already become a Christian (125). He says that there is so much to be said on what Paul meant by justification that it could easily occupy another book.[2]

It is rather difficult to criticize Wright’s re-interpretations of Paul when it appears to be consistent with recent scholarship on Paul within Second-Temple Judaism.

For Wright, a covenantal reading of Paul accentuates his entire message as it brings all elements of his thought together. Wright convincingly presents Paul as the zealous Pharisee who met Jesus on the road to Damascus, interpreted Jesus within Second-Temple Judaism, and still has a message for the world today.

In the last two chapters of the book, Wright attempts to make application to the church today. It is at this point where his conclusions are less than satisfying. He draws clear lines of distinctions between the factions within pagan life and the agape community that is to be found within the church (147).

Wright even points out the problems between Christian denominations and the task that lay ahead as believers bridge denominational divides (158), but he doesn’t seem willing to remove those glaring divisions called ‘denominations’ within the Body of Christ.

It begs the question: “Is there a respected scholar that is willing to consider that celebrating our differences by congregating with those like us does not allow for true ecumenism?”

Finally, Wright rightfully states that it is a “matter of urgency” (157) for the gospel to confront the realm of worldly politics.  Wright says part of the mission of the church is to proclaim Christ’s rule over Caesar. Tom, what does that look like in the age of presidents and prime ministers that have yet to deify themselves?

There is a diametric difference in proclaiming the gospel to politics and proclaiming the gospel through politics. Maybe Christ’s claims over us and his world speak the loudest when Caesar is truly seen as a parody not to be reckoned with in every age.

Overall, this book is so far the most readable of Wright’s books on Paul. If you have been wondering what all the fuss is about with Wright and his controversial views of the historical Paul of Tarsus who lived and died within Second-Temple Judaism, I highly recommend reading What Saint Paul Really Said.

The serious student of Paul should consider the claims that N.T. Wright makes in this wonderful treatment of the biblical text.

Is Paul of Tarsus the founder of Christianity? Did Paul invent Christianity? Wright says that Jesus went to his death clearly believing he was the culmination of Israel’s history. The resurrection vindicates Jesus and substantiates Christ’s claims.

Paul meets the resurrected Jesus while on his zealous way to opposing those who are unfaithful to the covenant. After meeting the resurrected Jesus, Paul believes his vocation is to announce the gospel to the whole world. Paul’s gospel is that Jesus of Nazareth is the promised Messiah and Lord of the cosmos!

Paul believes that in Jesus… the new age has already begun.

[1] A.N. Wilson, Paul: The Mind of the Apostle, New York: Norton, 1997.

[2] N.T. Wright, Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision, Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2009.

4 Comments   |  tags: , , , , | posted in Christianity, Religion & Spirituality, Reviews, Theology

July 19, 2010

Ephesians: The Eternal Purpose of God

By David D. Flowers

Ephesians: The Eternal Purpose of God—–A Brief Overview of The Epistle to the Ephesians

The Epistle to the Ephesians has been one of the most influential and earliest attested documents in the history of the Christian church.[1] Despite the letter’s early attestation, it is not among the indisputable writings of Paul.

Authorship & Recipients

Within the last few hundred years there have been a growing number of scholars that contend that the letter was written pseudonymously from a later follower of Paul because of its striking similarity to Colossians and its dissimilarity to other letters of the apostle.

Andrew T. Lincoln is convinced that the terminology used in Ephesians is unlike anything in the Pauline corpus.  He also argues that the theology contained in the epistle is far more developed than in previous letters.  Lincoln finds the letter impersonal “having no intimate connection” with the intended audience.[2]

Is it possible that readers have been a bit hasty in their decision to credit Ephesians to a later admirer of Paul?  Can the student or scholar be so quick to overlook the claims the letter makes concerning authorship (1:1; 3:1)?

H.J. Cadbury asked: “Which is more likely—that an imitator of Paul in the first century composed a writing ninety or ninety-five per cent in accordance with Paul’s style or that Paul himself wrote a letter diverging five or ten per cent from his usual style?”[3] D.A. Carson mentions that the letter was viewed as Pauline by numerous apostolic fathers and it was not even questioned until the modern era.

Furthermore, writing under the name of someone else was not a wide practice within the early Christian church.[4] A closer examination of the epistle within the Pauline corpus, and an allowance for theological expansion upon earlier material, may enable the reader to accept Paul as the author and learn from his revelation.

The next matter of debate comes in the later part of the first verse:  “to the saints who are [in Ephesus] and the faithful in Christ Jesus.” Bruce Metzger writes that the words “in Ephesus” are absent from several important manuscripts.

Clinton Arnold believes there is still “strong manuscript support” for keeping the original reading.[5] It could be that the phrase “in Ephesus” was omitted in later manuscripts in order to universalize the letter and pass its message along to other churches in need.  This is a reasonable explanation.

The absence of “in Ephesus” has led many scholars to conclude that the letter was definitely intended to be circulated.[6] Scholars have weighed in on this problem and offered several other solutions. Conservative scholarship believes that the author intended the letter to be circulated among the churches in the city of Ephesus, a city with a first-century population of one-quarter million, and possibly in the entire west coast region of Asia Minor.[7]

Historical Setting and Purpose

The ancient city of Ephesus was first excavated in 1863.[8] The partially reconstructed ruins are some of the largest and most visited of all ancient cities. Today the city is located a few miles inland from the Aegean Sea along the west coast of Turkey.

In the first-century, Ephesus was a metropolitan port city with a thriving harbor. Like the city of Corinth, Ephesus, the capital of the Roman province of Asia, was filled with temples and theaters. The temple to Artemis, the Greek god of fertility and hunting, was four times the size of the Parthenon in Athens. In Acts 19, Paul’s preaching conflicted with the religious practices that existed in Ephesus.[9]

Many scholars struggle to see any specific Sitz im Leben (setting in life) addressed in Ephesus. In fact, the epistle does not reflect the standard Pauline address directed to saints in a particular location. Ben Witherington writes: “Ephesians is a circular homily included in a document… it does not deal with any particular problems… this document should not be compared to letters, as it really is not one.”[10]

It is likewise acknowledged by other scholars that the epistle is styled much differently from the rest of the Pauline corpus, however, there is not sufficient evidence to remove the writing from the realm of letter (e.g. 4:17-6:9).

What can be known? What is the occasion and purpose for the epistle?

In the letter we learn that Paul is writing from prison (3:1; 4:1). Scholars insist that this places the epistle during the time of his house arrest in Rome toward the end of his life in the early 60’s. This would certainly allow for a theological development—a grand view of the eternal purpose—set forth in the letter.

Paul preached among the Ephesians and remained with them for some time (Acts 19:8, 10; 20:31). His love and affection for them can be seen in his farewell address (Acts 20:17-38). Scholars that doubt Pauline authorship find the letter lacking in emotion and thus affirming their suspicions. However, the argument for a letter lacking in emotion is contestable (1:15-16; 3:14-21).

Overview of Epistle

A simple reading of the epistle reveals that Paul is addressing a predominantly Gentile audience (2:11-22). It could be that the church has grown significantly since Paul’s last visit, for there seems to be some distance between them (3:1-6). His message to his audience is that the “mystery” hidden in Christ has now been disclosed to all saints, to bring all things in the cosmos under the headship of Christ Jesus (1:9-10), and to form one new humanity from Jew and Gentile (2:14-16; 3:5-6). Flowing from the glorious revelation of the “eternal purpose” of God in Christ (3:7-13), comes a “unity of the Spirit” in the building up of believers through the church—the dwelling of God (4:1-16). For the wisdom of God to be made known, the saints are called to live intentionally (i.e. put off/put on) as “children of the light” (4:17-5:21). This life “in Christ” permeates all relationships (5:22-6:9). Therefore, the saints must “stand firm” and be on guard against spiritual evil that works against God’s eternal purpose in Christ (6:10-18).

It has been said that Paul presents a cosmic Christ, a realized eschatology, and an advanced ecclesiology in this magnificent Epistle to the Ephesians.[11] As Paul pours out his divine revelation after years of service as Christ’s bond-slave, listen and be moved to join the triumphant Lord and his bride whom he has seated in the heavenlies.

The following overview of Ephesians may help you to capture the flow of the epistle before or as you read it:

1:1-2 Greetings—salutation to saints in Ephesus

1:3-3:21 God’s Eternal Purpose in Christ

1:3-14   Prayer of praise and thanksgiving—inclusion into promised Holy Spirit and guaranteed inheritance.

1:15-23   Continued prayer of thanksgiving and supplication—full knowledge of the hope and glorious riches in Christ.

2:1-10   God’s mercy and kindness in Christ—created to walk in goodness as a proper response to grace.

2:11-19   Remembrance of exclusion from promise—now included in Christ as a new creation.

2:19-23   New creation is set in motion by Christ, apostles, and prophets; manifested through the dwelling of God together with the saints.

3:1-13   Paul called to Gentiles—mystery of Christ made known through apostles and prophets—Gentiles are included in the mystery and the promise.

3:14-21   Paul’s ecumenical prayer for the experience of Christ’s riches with encouragement to discover love over knowledge (gnosis).

4:1-6:20  Living in Christ

4:1-16   Knowing the eternal purpose calls for living worthy of it—unity in the Spirit—obtain a full knowledge of Christ through the building up of the body—corporately grow up into Christ.

4:17-6:9  Living intentionally in Christ

4:17-5:2   put off former conduct of the flesh—put on Christ.

5:3-14      call to purity—be on guard.

5:15-6:9    live not as unwise, but as the wise—relationships.

6:10-20    Stand firm against spiritual warfare—put on the armor of God.

6:21-24  Final Comments—Tychicus sent to encourage saints

Conclusion–Applying the Text

If you have followed this brief overview of Ephesians, I think you should be able to see the aged apostle Paul used up for Christ in Rome.  The gospel has reached the heart of the empire, and the story that began ages ago has been fulfilled in Jesus.  Paul had previously described an astounding revelation of the cosmic Christ in his Letter to the Colossians.  He was so fond and familiar with his language to those saints—even having hidden it away in his heart—that it spills over into his Epistle to the Ephesians.

As Paul grew older, his vision of Christ matured.  This seasoned revelation is evident in his presentation of the “mystery” of God in Christ, which is the central message to the saints in Ephesus and all those who have believed on the Lord Jesus (Eph. 1:9-12).

The eternal purpose of God in Christ is that through the church God’s glorious grace might be known in all the earth; that all things would be gathered up into Christ.

The lack of historical and cultural issues in this epistle makes application fairly easy.  For the message is transferred to the reader with little to stumble over.

The God who existed before time, placed man in the Garden, traveling through the wilderness to Canaan, and sent the Son up a hill to Calvary, has been vindicated by the resurrection of Jesus.  He has revealed his eternal purpose in Christ.

Out of Adam… God brought forth Eve.  Out of Jesus… he called out a Bride.  The Trinitarian God, who is heavenly community, looks for a dwelling in his children upon the earth.  By the power of his Spirit and the fullness of his grace we are included in his plan.

Are you participating in the eternal purpose of God in Christ?

The overwhelming glory of God invites us to join him in the building of a spiritual house.

[1] Harold W. Hoehner, Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 1-2.

[2] Andrew T. Lincoln, Ephesians. Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word Books, 1990), lix-lxi.

[3] H.J. Cadbury, “The Dilemma of Ephesians,” NTS 5 (1958-59): 101.

[4] D.A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 480.

[5] Clinton E. Arnold, “Letter to the Ephesians.” The IVP Dictionary of the New Testament. ed. Daniel G. Reid (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 324.

[6] Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2d ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994), 532.

[7] Clinton E. Arnold, “Introducing Ephesians: Establishing Believers In Christ.” SWJT 39, no. 1 (September 1, 1996): 9.

[8] Hoehner, Ephesians, 79.

[9] Michael J. Gorman, Apostle of the Crucified Lord: A Theological Introduction to Paul and His Letters (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2004), 499-500.

[10] Ben Witherington III, The Letters to Philemon, the Colossians, and the Ephesians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Captivity Epistles (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2007), 217-218.  [Witherington says: “The profound theological and ethical reflections found in Ephesians would have sounded more like  a philosophical oration to Gentile ears.” p. 219]

[11] Charles B. Cousar, The Letters of Paul (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1996), 174-175.

7 Comments   |  tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | posted in Christianity, Church, Theology