Double Feature: Thoughts on Christian career women (very non-exhaustive) and Five important books on the problem of evil

Canary Wharf, London (photo from trekearth.com)

The previous post for January was actually done in December. I realize I discuss the problem of evil and theodicy much on this blog and so here is a bit of a break, but only a bit.

Previous post:

Does God Evolve?

Part One:

The issue of career women has been on my mind blogging as I run into to various types of Christian women. Some are the classic fundamentalist Christian present or former 'maidens', as in stay-at-home types while others seemingly want or already have a career, marriage and family.

Biblically In GENERAL terms (therefore I acknowledge exceptions), women are to marry and have children. In Genesis 3:16 it explains after the fall that Eve shall bear children and this concept is applied to her female decedents that marry also via the command to multiply in Genesis 1: 28. I Timothy 2: 9:15 suggests according to Roger Nicole that a major part of wives' church life is in child bearing. Nicole (1996: 1179).

It is not dictated how many children a wife should have within a marriage.

There are examples of women Biblically serving God in ways other than being Mothers or Mothers alone. Phoebe is a good example of this in the New Testament. Browning suggests she is a deacon that worked with the Apostle Paul. Browning (1997: 295).

Priscilla and Aquila, a married couple served with the Apostle Paul (Acts).

I deduce Biblically a woman can rightly have a career and a wife/Mother can be a career woman.

Personally, career women can be interesting. I like their dedication to various intellectual pursuits, both academic and professional and I would be willing to learn from them in ways, even with a significant age difference, if it existed.

I have tremendous respect for good Mothers whether they are stay-at-home permanently or not and especially Christian Mothers that bring their children up with the gospel.

Yes, I realize that some stay-at-home Moms are intellectual so I am remaining open-minded on the issue. I am not dogmatic here. Someone into theology at least a bit, could interest me, stay-at-home or not.

I would prefer to have children (no set amount) in the future, but not necessarily any time soon.

If via the web, the United States, Eastern Europe or wherever, I met someone in person that I would potentially, eventually have a relationship with, I would adjust my objectives depending on what the woman needs when required.

Quite a concept eh? Especially for a kingpin? I am no pushover, but I think it is part of loving one's neigbour as one loves self (Matthew 22, Mark 12, Luke 10).

Would not a potential relationship be as important neighbour as any?

So, if my potential relationship was roughly 31-35+ years old, for example, and would like children within a few years and would like to stay at home, I could support that concept. I could also support her with any career endeavors in life.

If my potential relationship would be roughly 20-29 years of age, for example, I would be willing to wait for children several years and would fully support her in her academic and career objectives.

In other words, I find a career woman worth considering partly because of her goals and dreams, if she is on the younger side or older side, within my age range, I am not going to do anything to work against her hopefully God-given goals, but will be fully supportive.

I am not go to work against what I find at least somewhat interesting in the woman in the first place.

Common sense.

I exercise a lot and am in generally good shape and could still live for a very long time and so no, I am not in a rush to be a Dad...far from it.

My openness with career women concerning children and timing is intellectually consistent with the large age range I am considering.

This range exists largely because although I am meeting women I need to find one that can relate significantly with my Reformed Christian background. No not an academic necessarily.

Sacrifice? Quite a concept in today's Western world.

And yes, if needed, I am willing to look after the little kiddies as Mr. Mom at times. I am the 'Big Love Monsta.'

I am also in no rush to be married as I am looking to finalize my PhD and then look for work.

Pursuing a potential friendship and perhaps relationship does not equal wanting to be married immediately, as in soon.

I realize many young Christian women assume that it does though.

I think there often needs to be a lot more dialogue and a lot less assumption. Let us consider that I need to get my final pass from Wales, look for work for months, get legal permission to move, unless I work in Canada or the UK where I am citizen, find a place to work and to live and then start working. I do not see where I would have the time to marry someone soon. But, I could dialogue with someone online or meet someone that is an actual prospect (and not virtual) in person.

That sounds like a few years until marriage in a reasonable best case scenario to me IF and WHEN I get to know an actual prospect in person. And yet another reason to consider a younger woman...

I like how Christian counselor Henry Cloud suggests on these types of issues that sometimes questions just need to be asked.

I do not however, believe that marriage is near as difficult to work on in conjunction with a career as is bearing and bringing up children. I do not however, believe in living together as it is unBiblical (Romans 1: 29), not to mention could ruin my career.

And trust me, God willing, I would not let any woman assist me with that.

BROWNING, W.R.F. (1997) Oxford Dictionary of the Bible Oxford, Oxford University Press.

NICOLE, ROGER. (1996) ‘Woman, Biblical Concept of' in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

Part Two:

This was published previously but when I had fewer readers:

Five important books concerning the problem of evil:

This is not a top five list, but a short diverse review of books that have been influential in my writing on the problem of evil with my MPhil and PhD dissertations. I am not necessarily in agreement with these texts on several points. These explanations are brief but further information will be provided in my completed doctorate. God willing.

In alphabetical order:

AUGUSTINE (388-395)(1964) On Free Choice of the Will, Translated by Anna S. Benjamin and L.H. Hackstaff, Upper Saddle River, N.J., Prentice Hall.

Augustine was one of the first ancient writers to deal with the problem of evil. Peterson, Hasker, Reichenbach, and Basinger (1996: 231). Within On Free Choice of the Will, Augustine presents his free will theodicy, theodicy being an explanation for the problem of evil in a theistic universe. Augustine was somewhat influential on Alvin C. Plantinga’s free will defence in the 1970’s. Plantinga (1977)(2002: 26). Augustine reasons that God is not the cause of evil, but rather human beings create the problem when they choose to follow their own temporal ways rather than God’s. Augustine (388-395)(1964: 3). A possible problem with Augustine’s view is that he blames the problem of evil on human choice but at the same time places a heavy emphasis on God’s sovereignty in creation. Augustine’s view on human free will appears libertarian while, as John Feinberg points out, Augustine’s concept of God’s sovereignty would seemingly require some form of determinism. Feinberg (1994: 98).

FEINBERG, JOHN S. (1994) The Many Faces of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.

Within this text Feinberg presents a defence which could be labeled a sovereignty theodicy. My personal sovereignty theodicy is embedded within my MPhil and more so my PhD and is somewhat similar to Feinberg’s work. As well as presenting his own perspective Feinberg does a thorough job of reviewing various theistic and atheistic concepts on the problem of evil. He reasons that God does not presently eliminate the problem of evil because to do so would violate divine plans and human development. Feinberg (1994: 130). I found Feinberg’s explanation of this a bit repetitive and it would perhaps be good for him to have speculated on God’s reasons for willingly allowing evil in more specific terms as I have to some degree in my work.

GEBARA, IVONE (2002) Out of the Depths, Translated by Ann Patrick Ware, Minneapolis, Fortress Press.

Gebara is a Brazilian, feminist, Catholic sister. The back of the text notes that she is one of Latin America’s leading theologians. The book is interesting because, although no formal theodicy or defence is presented, she looks at the problem of evil from the perspective of the suffering of women. Gebara, Ivone (2002: 13-59) I can agree with Gebara that women within this corrupted creation have experienced much suffering, and some of it has not been thoroughly acknowledged. However, I disagree with her tendency to reinterpret the Christian faith, for example concerning the doctrine of physical resurrection which she reasons is idealistic theory. Gebara (2002: 122). She thinks it more valuable to look at resurrection in metaphorical terms today as lives are improved and evil resisted. Gebara (2002: 122).

PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (1977)(2002) God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Plantinga successfully demonstrates that a free will defence is logical and reasonable. Plantinga (1977)(2002: 28). He speculates that the price of God creating a universe with significantly free creatures is that wrong actions will inevitably occur leading to the problem of evil. Plantinga (1977)(2002: 30). Plantinga’s free will approach is not primarily theological as is Augustine’s and therefore offers a different but somewhat related perspective. A question arises if Plantinga has really successfully answered the objection of theistic critics such as Feinberg, and atheists such as J.L. Mackie on why God could not simply create human beings who were significantly free and never committed wrong actions. I believe that God could have created significantly free human beings, or at least human-like creatures that only committed right actions. Perhaps God desired to create human beings that would ultimately possess a greater spiritual maturity than Adam and Eve prior to the fall because those restored in Christ would have experienced sin, the problem of evil, death and the atoning work and resurrection of Christ. Quite possibly restored human beings would ultimately be more spiritually mature and valuable to God than persons that never knew what it was like to disobey God and experience evil. I would also point out that Biblically speaking the angels that did not fall would seemingly be significantly free and have not committed wrong actions.

HICK, JOHN (1970) Evil and The God of Love, London, The Fontana Library.

Hick rejects Augustinian and Calvinistic views on theodicy, and instead supports what he views as the Irenean position. Hick (1970: 221). Ramsay (2004: 2). Hick also rejects conservative Christian doctrines and instead favours the idea of universalism. Hick (1970: 172). Hick (1970: 381). He reasons that human beings were made immature and capable of committing wrong human actions in order that God eventually can bring all persons to the creator through soul-making. Hick (1970: 292). I can accept that some type of soul-making is used by God in the development of believers, but without the atoning work of Christ and resurrection within a Christian tradition we do not have a revealed divine means of salvation and are left to speculate on how God should or could save persons, as Hick speculates.

AUGUSTINE (388-395)(1964) On Free Choice of the Will, Translated by Anna S.Benjamin and L.H. Hackstaff, Upper Saddle River, N.J., Prentice Hall.

FEINBERG, JOHN S. (1994) The Many Faces of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.

GEBARA, IVONE (2002) Out of the Depths, Translated by Ann Patrick Ware, Minneapolis, Fortress Press.

HICK, JOHN (1970) Evil and The God of Love, London, The Fontana Library.

PETERSON, MICHAEL, WILLIAM HASKER, BRUCE REICHENBACH, and DAVID BASINGER (1996) (eds.), ‘Introduction: Saint Augustine: Evil is Privation of Good’, in Philosophy of Religion, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

PLANTINGA, ALVIN, C. (1977)(2002) God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

RAMSAY, MEGHAN (2004) ‘John Hick: ‘Evil and Soul Making’, Philosophy of Religion, (ed.) Philip A. Pecorino, Web Surfers Caveat, Suffolk, Virginia, Philosophy of Religion.


No, not my dream at all.

Does God evolve?

Colorado

Non-exhaustive thoughts on process theology and panentheism

Summary upon request:

Please consider that with posts like this one, I deal with some of the material in the comments section as well. As in I provide more opinions. Cheers. Whitehead, like Brightman, Mill, and James, along with others reason the God of the Bible needs to be abandoned for concepts of a finite, developing progressing God. This work is edited from my PhD and is mainly descriptive although I do point out some difficulties with the views as I postulate Biblical, Reformed doctrines and therefore hold to a traditional view of the nature of God.

Jeff Jenkins of the Thoughts and Theology blogs is responsible for the fine art work.

Jenkins

Process Theism: Alfred North Whitehead

David Viney (2008) suggests that Edgar Sheffield Brightman is one of the twentieth century proponents of Process theism.[1] Although Brightman’s views were primarily independently made, process theism refers to a general group of theological concepts attributed to Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947)[2] and Charles Hartshorne (1897-2000).[3]

Whitehead is the more preeminent exemplar and within Process and Reality (1927-1929)(1957) explains he desired to complete an account of humanity and its experience in relation to philosophical problems.[4] In Religion In The Making (1926) Whitehead explains it is legitimate to attempt with a more definite knowledge of metaphysics, to interpret human experience, but these general principles must be amplified and adapted into one general system of truth.[5]

Whitehead disagreed with a traditional view of a ‘transcendent creator, at whose fiat the world came into being, and whose imposed will it obeys.’[6] The nature of God needed to be philosophically constructed anew.[7] A balance is sought between God’s immanence and transcendence, and a concept of static transcendence is rejected as instead God is understood to have a evolutionary transcendence. God and the physical realm are immanent with each other and God’s transcendence means their realities are not identical and not always determined by each other.[8] God is fully reasoned to be involved and influenced by temporal events and processes.[9] These processes unfold as sequences of events over time. God, contrary to classic and traditional Christian theism is finite, temporal, changeable and experiences intense emotion, pain and sadness. Whitehead explains that ‘It is not true that God is on all respects infinite.’[10] Process theology is a philosophical approach that does not rely on any kind of divine revelation.[11] Instead it relies on a process of change over time as a theory of metaphysics.[12] God’s actual concrete nature is responsive and influenced by the processes that take in the world, and therefore God is limited. Some things are unknowable for God, that he only can realize as they happen, and as these new things develop God’s knowledge processes over time. Divine sovereignty is questionable and certainly no longer absolute within this system.

Whitehead, a mathematician and philosopher, established a speculative philosophy of metaphysics within a scientific non-metaphysical reality.[13] This system is an attempt to adequately explain all individual beings in existence, including God.[14] Basically a system of metaphysics needed to be developed that would work with modern scientific theories and reality, and therefore God was not a ‘static essence’ but a process.[15] The ‘actual entities’[16] that make up this process are non-permanent and transient and each action and activity is dipolar having a physical pole of the past and a mental pole which is a possibility that can be achieved.[17] The physical pole feels the physical reality of actual entity, while the mental pole feels or prehends as Whitehead calls it, the eternal objects by which actual entities have conceptual definiteness.[18] These physical and mental poles are an aspect of every real being/actual entities although they are not real things themselves.[19]

Prehends is the feeling of grasping the physical and conceptual information concerning actual entities.[20] This will occur within a stream and series of occasions.[21] All occurrences take place within the process of these actual entities.[22] Each event is partially self-created and partially influenced by other occasions and entities.[23] God is also dipolar[24] and his nontemporal pole is where God conceives the infinite variety of external objects and sees the possibilities and provides the opportunity for the process of becoming. God is an actual entity and being.[25] God has a primordial nature and consequent nature, with the primordial being conceptual, while the consequent nature is God as conscious.[26] Whitehead explains that the ‘consequent nature is the weaving of God’s physical feelings upon his primordial concepts.’[27] God’s primordial conceptual nature is infinite and does not have negative prehension/feelings, and is eternal and unconscious.[28] This nature is permanent as God works out endless possibilities.[29] God in his vision can determine every possibility and adjust details where needed.[30] The consequent nature of God originates with physical experience with the material temporal world and it is integrated with the primordial conceptual nature.[31] The consequent nature as conscious is determined, finite and incomplete.[32] These two aspects of God’s deity can be distinguished but are inseparable.[33] This consequent conscious nature had God constantly acquiring new experiences.[34]

A problem arises that if God’s primordial nature is eternal and unconscious[35] it precedes the consequent nature that is temporal and has consciousness. I question whether an unconscious deity would in any way proceed to a conscious temporal reality. Where did God’s consciousness come from? I reason consciousness would have to exist eternally to lead to a finite reality of consciousness.

Panentheism

Process theism approaches are sometimes referred to as being panentheistic. The two approaches are not identical but process theism moves in the direction of panentheism.[36] David H. Nikkel defines panentheism as from the Greek meaning ‘all is in God.’[37] Both God’s transcendence and immanence are accepted, as the world and matter is in God, and God is ‘all-encompassing with respect to being.’[38] Panentheism is not identical to pantheism which postulates that ‘God is identical with everything’ or that God is in everything and that God and the universe are one.[39] The difference being that panentheism understands ‘God is in all things’ but not identical with all things as with pantheism. As example, God in pantheism may be considered to be equal with a tree. God in panentheism may be considered beyond the tree, but the vital force within it, whereas in my traditional Christian theistic understanding God is beyond a tree and sustains it, but is not the vital force within it. Panentheism attempts to ‘avoid the pitfalls’ of traditional theism.[40] Panentheism can reasonably be understood as an overarching view within many process theism approaches which I have contrasted with my own views.

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

DIEHL, DAVID W. (1996) ‘Process Theology’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

GRENZ, STANLEY J. AND ROGER E. OLSON (1992) Twentieth Century Theology, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

NIKKEL, DAVID H. (2003) ‘Panentheism’, in Encyclopedia of Science and Religion, MacMillan Reference USA, New York.

VINEY, DAVID (2008) ‘Process Theism’, in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Palo Alto, California, Stanford University.

WHITEHEAD, ALFRED NORTH (1926) Religion in the Making, New York, The MacMillan Company.

WHITEHEAD, ALFRED NORTH (1927-1929)(1957) Process and Reality, New York, The Free Press/MacMillan Publishing Company, Incorporated.

WHITEHEAD, ALFRED NORTH (1967)(1986) ‘Adventures of Ideas’, in Forest Wood JR., Whiteheadian Thought as a Basis for a Philosophy of Religion, University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, University Press of America, Inc.
________________________________________

[1] Viney (2008: 35).
[2] Viney (2008: 1).
[3] Viney (2008: 1).
[4] Whitehead (1927-1929)(1957: vi).
[5] Whitehead (1926: 149).
[6] Whitehead (1927-1929)(1957: 404).
[7] Whitehead (1926: 150).
[8] Viney (2008: 10).
[9] Viney (2008: 1).
[10] Whitehead (1926: 153). Whitehead claims that if God was infinite in all ways this would make him as infinitely evil as he is good. I doubt logically and reasonably that an infinitely holy and good God could at the same time be infinitely evil and so I can grant Whitehead half a point here. However, God could still be infinite completely in nature and willingly allow evil to exist within his creation. I definitely agree with Whitehead that an infinitely good and evil God would be a God of nothingness. Whitehead (1926: 153). I doubt this being could logically exist.
[11] Viney (2008: 1).
[12] Viney (2008: 1).
[13] Grenz and Olsen (1992: 135).
[14] Diehl (1996: 881).
[15] Grenz and Olsen (1992: 135).
[16] Grenz and Olsen (1992: 135).
[17] Grenz and Olsen (1992: 136).
[18] Diehl (1996: 881). Whitehead (1927-1929)(1957: 407).
[19] Viney (2008: 8).
[20] Diehl (1996: 881). Viney (2008: 9).
[21] Grenz and Olsen (1992: 136).
[22] Diehl (1996: 881).
[23] Diehl (1996: 881).
[24] Whitehead (1927-1929)(1957: 407).
[25] Viney (2008: 9).
[26] Whitehead (1927-1929)(1957: 407).
[27] Whitehead (1927-1929)(1957: 407).
[28] Whitehead (1927-1929)(1957: 407).
[29] Viney (2008: 9).
[30] Whitehead (1926: 153-154).
[31] Whitehead (1927-1929)(1957: 407).
[32] Whitehead (1927-1929)(1957: 407).
[33] Viney (2008: 9).
[34] Viney (2008: 9).
[35] Whitehead (1927-1929)(1957: 407).
[36] Grenz and Olsen (1992: 142). I am not stating that this is the case in every documented view of process theism, but it is generally true that the two views are closely related.
[37] Nikkel (2003: 1).
[38] Nikkel (2003: 1).
[39] Blackburn (1996: 276). Blackburn also explains Benedictus de Spinoza (1632-1677) is noted for this view within Western philosophy
[40] Nikkel (2003: 1).


Vancouver (photo from trekearth.com)






Images from Jeff Jenkins:

Jenkins