The Warfare Worldview

 The "Warfare Worldview" is one way Christians try to resolve the Problem of Evil. 

Quotes are from here, on the ReKnew web site, by Greg Boyd.

The trinitarian warfare worldview seeks to reconcile our experience of radical evil with the conviction that reality is created and sustained by an all-loving, all-powerful God. Six principles form the foundation for this view. These principles are based on Scripture’s account of God’s battle with Satan as well as our experience with the war-zone reflected in the world around us.

In this view our world is a battleground, and God is engaged in an on-going war with Satan.

There are some big theological issues to ask about that - the most obvious being why an all-powerful god allows Satan to continue. It does not matter how powerful Satan is, if God is all-powerful he must be able to readily defeat Satan any time he wants. If there is an on-going war between God and Satan then either God is not all-powerful, and indeed he is comparable to Satan, or God chooses to allow the war to go on because it suits his purpose.

The idea that God and Satan are comparable in their power is like Zoroastrianism, which has a supreme being, Ahura Mazda, in conflict with a destructive god, Angra Mainyu, and there is some evidence that Zoroastrianism was a significant influence on Judaism during and as it emerged from the Captivity. But it is not a common Christian view, as Christians usually take the view that God is all-powerful.

And that leaves me wondering if God wants this war to continue; he is using Satan to serve God's own purpose.


Boyd presents a six point argument, and I will look at each point in turn.


1. "Love Requires Freedom"

Boyd's argument is that for it to be love, you need to be able to choose it, given that a computer cannot love. But is that true? Can you choose to love someone? In my experience, love just happens; it is not a conscious choice.

I think what Boyd really means is that God wants us to freely choose to worship him, which is not quite the same, but Christians have this "God is love" meme they like to promote, and the two get conflated.

Much of the Old Testament is about persuading people to worship God, rather than the other gods of the culture, and the Captivity is rationalised as punishment for them not doing so. Further, Jesus said God's greatest command was to love God, and indicates that who goes to heaven and who goes to hell is determined to whether you worship God (though Christians seem to have very mixed views on this).

The theological implication of this is that God's over-riding priority here is his ego. Everything comes down to him wanting us to freely choose to worship him because that strokes his ego, whereas having robots programmed to worship him does not.

And if that causes suffering in mankind, well that is just collateral damage.

Bear in mind that that collateral damage is billions suffering in hell for eternity. Apparently that is less important than stroking God's ego.


2. Freedom Implies Risk

Boyd says "The freedom to choose or reject love constitutes a risk for God. Creatures may make choices that oppose his will for their lives and the lives of others." If Boyd is right, the risk is far greater for the creature - it could end up in hell suffering for eternity.

"God considered love to be well worth the risk inherent in giving his creatures freedom." Yeah, well good for him, he is not the one likely to end up suffering for eternity.

Clearly what is important is stroking God's ego. It is not like he gives a damn about people, right?

Christians will tell you God loves everyone, but there is no way that that is compatible with this view of God. This is a God who wants you to love him to stroke his ego, and will accept that you are more likely to end up suffering for eternity than not for that purpose.

That is not love on his part. That is the antithesis of love.


3. Risk Entails Moral Responsibility

He goes on to say; "God’s creatures are held responsible for how they use their freedom." But remember, this is only with respect to whether you choose to love God or not. Christians like to say that God is just, that he punishes bad people. But really this is just about that one commandment to love God. All God cares about is if you stroke his ego, and therefore whether you go to heaven or hell is determined by that, not by whether you murder people or donate freely to charity.


4. Moral Responsibility is Proportionate to the Potential to Influence

Boyd says; "The potential a creature has for love is proportionate to the creature’s potential for evil." I am not sure where he gets that from, but possibly comparing pets to people? A dog has a limited capacity for love, and limited potential for evil, compared to a person. But that is nonsense as dogs are not moral agents - they have no sense of right and wrong - so let us assume this is not what he is say, but rather he is comparing different people.

Some people, being in a position of power, have more potential to influence, more potential for evil, than other people at the bottom of the ladder. In feudal times, for example, the king had all the power, the serf had none. Would it be fair to say that the king's potential for love was vastly more than the serf's? Of course not.


5. Power to Influence is Irrevocable

This is the biggy, in my view; the answer to the Problem of Evil.

"Genuine freedom must be irrevocable. If it can be revoked, creatures cannot be held responsible for their use of it, nor can they fully realize their potential for love. Within the parameters of the freedom God gives creatures, God must tolerate evil. Since God is omnipotent, he is able to accomplish his will within these parameters without compromising his own integrity or limiting the potential of his creatures by revoking their freedom."

Boyd is saying that if a man decides to commit rape, the freedom to do that cannot be taken away from him, because if it can (i.e., if God intervenes to stop him), then the man cannot be held responsible for attempting the act. I am not sure why not. God knows what he intended, and Jesus said just looking at a woman with lust is as bad as rape, so why can God not punish the attempted rape?

Even more bewildering is where Boyd says "... nor can they fully realize their potential for love". How does God intervening to prevent rape stop people from fully realising their potential for love? It makes no sense.


6. Power to Influence is Finite

This is essentially the usual "Jam tomorrow". We are assured God will defeat Satan one day - but no suggestion as to why God is waiting so long - and then we can all stroke God's ego for eternity!

I am left unconvinced.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Southern Baptist Convention Position on Abortion

Evangelical Christians in the US are very strongly anti-abortion. However, it was not always so. As recently as 1970 the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) - the largest Protestant denomination in the US - advocated for legalising abortion. A Complete Reversal The landmark law case in the US was Roe v. Wade, in 1973, and abortion has been legal since that time. Jane Roe was the pseudonym of the woman wanting the abortion; Henry Wade the district attorney who stood for the state, prohibiting it. Roe was represented by two attorneys; one was Linda Coffee, a member of the SBC. The Baptist Press interviewed her after the successful conclusion of the trial. The decision of Roe v Wade was generally regarded as a good one by the SBC. To evangelicals of that time abortion was seen as a Catholic issue. You can find a list of abortion-related resolutions made by the SBC from 1971 onwards  here . It is clear that in 1971 they saw abortion - quite reasonably - as undesirable, but it ...
Read more

Hinman's "Argument From Transcendental Signifier"

ETA (23/Jun/20): I have just heard Joe is in hospital. I wish him a speedy recovery. All the best, Joe. This is an argument for God that Joe Hinman has presented several times on various of his sites: http://www.doxa.ws/Ontological/TS2.html https://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2020/05/transcendental-signifier-argument.html http://religiousapriori.blogspot.com/2011/06/transcendental-signifier-argument.html http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2018/01/premises-4-7-ts-argumet.html The argument is a seven step syllogism: 1. Any rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe must of necessity presuppose organizing principles (Ops) 2. OP's summed up in TS 3. Modern Thought rejects TS outright or takes out all aspects of mind. 4. Therefore, Modern thought fails to provide a rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe. 5. minds organize and communicate meaning 6. Therefore universal mind, offers the best understanding of TS 7. Concept of God unites TS with universal m...
Read more

Kent Hovind: Third wife in three years?

Kent Hovind is, perhaps the very worst of the creationists, so it is with some interest I note that he is now on this third wife in three years. For many years he was married to Jo Hovind, who ended up going to prison for a year due to her involvement in tax fraud. Once Kent got released from his rather longer prison sentence, it was not long before Jo filed for divorce (early 2016) - possibly to distance himself from any further gaol sentences. A few months later, 24th Sptember 2016, and he married Mary Tocco - not a full marriage, but a covenant before God. It looks like she got various assurances that Kent's new business was entirely honest before she got married. However, she later cam to realise that that was not really the case, and, again to avoid ending up in prison , she left him in November 2017. http://kehvrlb.com/mary-tocco-on-leaving-kent-hovind Less than a year later and he has a new wife, Cindi Lincoln, a former friend of Mary's. It is not clear if they ...
Read more