Being Reasonable In An Argument

Giethorn, Holland/Netherlands: Facebook & Travel+Leisure

Vancouver

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

The author explains that a person can win an argument by being offensive (as in bad-mannered) as long as the force of the reasoning cannot be withstood by the opponent. Pirie (2006)(2015: 26).

That being stated the author, wisely in my view, points out that it is easier to win an argument 'if your demeanour is pleasant', (26).

Pirie then uses the good example of salesmen convincing people to purchase goods. (26).

A skilled arguer will often allow his opponent 'a let-out, a graceful retreat'. (26). This allows one to concede an argument without losing face. (26). I very strongly hold to the idea of humbly letting an opponent in an argument 'save face'. There are several possible reasons to do this, but one is to love one's neighbour as self (Matthew 22 and Mark 12), and to love those in Christ (John 15, 1 John) and another is that even as it appears one may be winning an argument, persons are finite and sinful and a very humble attitude in arguing is itself reasonable.

One may have made the better premise (s) and conclusion but is not necessarily completely free from potential intellectual error in that context. Even after the most successful arguments there is always some room for humility and doubt as a finite, sinner.

As well, no argument, thesis or post, for example, is completely exhaustive in presentation.

There is also room within an argument to cease argumentation and take the position of student in order to learn.

Even in the next realm with perfected humanity (1 Corinthians 15, Revelation 21-22), those in Christ will still be finite.

The author states that in winning an argument it is better to appear reasonable than dogmatic. (26). It is more persuasive to readers and listeners. A warning to those that are philosophically, theologically and religiously fundamentalist (ic). The authors explains that the best way to appear reasonable is to be reasonable. (28). Win the argument he states but in a level and civilized manner. (28).

Arguing On The Internet

Lake Como, Italy-trekearth

Arguing On The Internet

Preface

This article is part of my Pirie, entry by entry, book review, published originally October 10, 2015. Edited with additions for an entry on academia.edu, March 23, 2024.

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

Arguing On The Internet: Pirie

'In regard to arguing on the internet'. Pirie (2006)(2015: 22). Arguments can take place 'in the comments responses to blogs'. Pirie (22). I will add for 2024, on websites and on social media. Further he states 'Not many people who read blogs bother to go through the comments section, below them', (22). He explains that those who do comment are not likely a typical reader. (22). 'Interested minority' (22) is the what he states in regard to persons that comment. Those who comment may be very opinionated and have their minds made up and what takes place in comments is a form of 'jousting'. (22). As these types of readers are set in their views, the object in writing blog comments is not so much to change the views of others but to score intellectual points. (22).

As I have noted with the rise of Facebook and far more social media options, my Blogger website comments drastically declined over the years, to virtually nil. In fact, my Blogger website posts are previewed on a Facebook Business page, Russell Norman Murray, PhD which would more likely receive any related comments, but the number of comments are few.

Blogger pageviews for both this website and my other related Blogger website, Satire Und Theology. vary from year to year in amount, but according to official Blogger statistics, both websites still receive thousands of pageviews most months. I am fine with the change from basically a blog format to a website format, as I have transitioned from full-time student, part-time employee to full-time, government employee and part-time scholar. I still do the academic work, mostly on the weekends, and listening to messages and reading during the week, but frankly I do not have the time or energy for answering many comments. I need to also be more in-person social than while I was a student.

Pirie opines that in blog comments the 'level of courtesy is much lower than would be expected in face-to-face confrontation'. (22). True enough in many cases and it should be remembered by those claiming a public Christian faith, philosophy and walk that Biblical views on love, truth, morality and ethics would in no way be altered because an interaction was virtual and not actual! Similarity, those of non-Christian worldviews should also seek consistent morality and ethics in both offline and online contexts. The author mentions internet trolls and their ability to hide online and be abusive to online writers. (22). I reason there is too much 'hiding' online in many contexts, rather than dialogue, but being an internet troll is cowardly and distasteful, especially when ad hominem, against the person, attacks are used. I do realize that there is online fear in other contexts, such as women being defensive in protecting their identity and motives. 

I reason that many people hold to views too emotionally and subjectively, as opposed to seeking a more rational, objective approach to propositions/statements, and as well premises that lead to conclusions. I trust that rationally and objectively, everything that I have is from the Lord, and that everything I do not have is from the Lord. I therefore can read and listen to views I do not agree with rationally and objectively, not trusting primarily in myself as the source of truth, but in the Lord as the source of the truth. This gives me peace whether I agree or disagree with the views of others. The following verse from the NASB (and an interesting bonus, technical explanation) is at the core of my worldview.

New American Standard Bible (NASB) John 14: 6 

6 Jesus *said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except through Me. 

Logos.com 

Cited 

'Did you ever notice this little asterisk in your New American Standard Bible? 

This is what the NASB says it’s doing: “A star (*) are [sic] used to mark verbs that are historical presents in the Greek which have been translated with an English past tense in order to conform to modern usage.” For example, instead of, “They go into Galilee,” which is a literal translation of the Greek, the NASB will have, “They went* into Galilee,” which is more natural in contemporary English.'

'This article was originally published in the January/February 2021 issue of Bible Study Magazine. Slight adjustments, such as title and subheadings, may be the addition of an editor.'

End citation

Pirie advises blog writers to keep blog comments short and factual. (22). Short comments are not difficult to present as the Blogger format is meant to limit the length. Being factual should be absolutely, positively essential for academic websites such as mine. Revising material where and when necessary. Publicly note it where and when necessary. The author also claims response should be 'immediate'. (23). Deal with an issue while relevant and I agree. Again, seeking to be rational and objective, in my case prayerfully, through grace through faith (notably Ephesians 1-2).

Ad hominem: Blackburn

Blackburn writes that ad hominem is an attempt to argue against a person by personal attack, less commonly by praising a person, or it may or may not be forceful attacks against a person's position but they do not advance matters intellectually against a person's beliefs and views. Blackburn (1996: 24).

Ad hominem: Walton

Douglas Walton explains that argumentation ad hominem is an argument against the man. It is a personal attack against an arguer to refute the argument. In the abusive form the character of the arguer is attacked. These arguments are often used to attack an opponent unfairly. Walton (1996: 374). In other words, it is an informal fallacy, to use name-calling and abusive actions to attempt to win an argument. A formal fallacy is concerned with presenting a logical form to avoid being fallacious, and an informal fallacy occurs when there are errors in reasoning with a premise (s) and conclusion.

Ad hominem: Pirie

Ad Hominem/Against the Man 

'If you cannot attack the argument, attack the arguer.' Pirie (2006)(2015: 122). The author states that an insult in itself is not fallacious, (122) but ad hominem is used in a way to attempt to undermine an opponent's argument. (122). The argument is not treated by its merit. (122). Therefore, in my opinion, someone could be rightly and justly called a 'jerk' because he/she is acting in such a negative way in an argument and this would not be the use of the fallacious. An informal fallacy being the use of poor and invalid reasoning. The invalid structure of argument is a formal fallacy. But if someone is called a 'jerk' in an attempt to undermine the opponent's argument then it is fallacious. 

Ad Hominem Argument Circumstantial 

With this fallacy 'the appeal is to the special circumstances of the person with whom one is arguing. Instead of trying to prove the contention true of false on the evidence, its acceptance is urged because of the position and interests of those appealed to.' (124). 

Cited

'You can't accept the legitimacy of lending for profit. You are a Christian, and Christ drove out the money lenders from the temple.' (124). Pirie explains that the Christian is invited to agree because of Christian convictions. (124). I agree that this would be fallacious argumentation. Jesus Christ in the biblical context is removing the business of moneychanging and related banking from the temple. This should not be expanded to Christian theology and philosophy where all moneychanging, money lending and banking is therefore considered, sinful, immoral and unethical. In other words, banking outside of the temple, or in our modern context, the Christian Church, is not necessarily sinful, immoral and unethical. Interestingly, the British author also documents the example of nominal Christians that in reality do not follow biblical views in their personal lives. The nominal Christian could then be 'forced into a reluctant and resentful acquiescence you could never have gained otherwise.' (125). Problematically, many nominal Christians are biblically illiterate to the point where he/she may very well be unaware whether Jesus Christ's actions of removing moneychanging and banking from the temple, in the New Testament Gospels, would therefore require a modern-day Christian theology and philosophy that is anti-lending and anti-banking. Context is extremely important within Biblical Studies. 

Tu quoque 

A type of ad hominem. Tu quoque means 'you also'. (201). This fallacy is committed by the claim that the proponent is guilty of what he/she accuses the opponent of. (201). This fallacy does not adequately deal with the subject under discussion. (202). Premises and conclusions do not reasonably deal with and resolve the subject under discussion. The truth or falsehood of the discussion is avoided and instead the background of the proponent, making the argument, is attacked by the opponent. (202). As well, the opponent may attempt to demonstrate inconsistency in the proponent's position, again without dealing without reasonably resolving the issue. (202). The previous views of the proponent are claimed to be inconsistent with present views. (202). 

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

COURSON, JON (2005) Application Commentary, Thomas Nelson, Nashville. 

ELWELL, WALTER AND YARBROUGH, ROBERT W., Third Edition (2013) Encountering The New Testament, Grand Rapids, Baker Academic. 

FOULKES, FRANCIS (1989) Ephesians, Grand Rapids, Inter-Varsity Press. 

GUNDRY, ROBERT (1981) A Survey of the New Testament, Grand Rapids, Zondervan. 

HARPUR, GEORGE (1986) Ephesians in The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan. 

NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE, 1960, 1971, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation. ORR, R.W. (1986) 'The Letters of John' in The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

WALTON, DOUGLAS (1996) ‘Informal Fallacy’, in Robert Audi, (ed), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Arguments and Logical Fallacies

Arguments and Logical Fallacies

Preface

Updated for a posting on academia.edu, 20240309. This was the first review of the Pirie text.

Photo was of recent books purchased. The Kant book was a PhD reference.

---

Philosopher Madsen Pirie explains that 'sound reasoning is the basis of winning at argument. Logical fallacies undermine arguments'. Pirie (2006)(2015: xii). He writes that any trick of logic or language which allows a statement or claim to be passed off as something it is not, actually, has the 'admission' card to the enclosure known as fallacies. (xii).

In describing 1. What is an argument

It is stated that an argument begins with a disagreement. (1). A first person puts forward a point or view or opinion and this is contrasted by a point, view or opinion differing.These views are not compatible, in other words the two views cannot simultaneously be held to.

An argument supports one side and position and undermines the other side and position. (1).

This is a loose term for an argument, states the author, when people assert opposing positions; the term argument is more correctly applied with supporting material. (2).

Point, view and opinion could also be called a premise (s) leading to a conclusion, notably from my MPhil and PhD questionnaire work. 

(A proposition/statement would be a singular point/claim. Not technically an argument)

The Elements texts states that an argument is a set of claims, one of which is supported by the others.

A claim or a set of claims support a claim. Elements (1997: 5).

The conclusion is supported by the premise (s). My add.

A conclusion is a claim meant to be supported by the claims or reasons provided in the argument.
A premise is a claim put forward to support a conclusion. (5).

Elements states 

Argument=conclusion+premises, (5)

Or again from my United Kingdom theses work, it could be stated

Argument=premise (s)+conclusion

One infers or makes an inference each time a conclusion is drawn from a premise or premises. (6).

An argument can fail if it has a false premise (s) or has premise (s) that is irrelevant or provide inadequate support for a conclusion. (7). But the authors point out that a bad argument is still an argument. (7).

In other words a bad argument is not sound or true.

Further from Pirie: A valid argument can have a false premise. (69). As long as the premise (s) are not true and the conclusion false, it is logically possible to have a valid argument. Premise-Conclusion TT, FF, FT, TF combinations. A true premise (s) and false conclusion (TF) from these combinations, cannot possibly be logically valid. The other combinations are logically valid. However, as Pire recognizes, a sound (true) argument has all true premises. (69). I am not placing a limit on the number of premises within every type of argument. The conclusion would also be true.

CONWAY DAVID A. AND RONALD MUNSON (1997) The Elements of Reasoning, Wadsworth Publishing Company, New York.

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York. (Philosophy).

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

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

PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (1982) The Nature of Necessity, Oxford, Clarendon Press.

PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (2000) Warranted Christian Belief, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

VR Zone/Facebook

A, B, C, D: Problem Of Evil Interviews

A, B, C, D: Problem Of Evil Interviews

Updated for academia.edu entry on July 18, 2022

Photo 1: Bangor University, official

Photo 2: Bangor University, official, 2016

Photo 3: Bangor University, official, 2021 

Through this University, I completed part one of my PhD project with my MPhil, although never attending this apparently beautiful campus.

MPhil and questionnaire link

PhD questionnaire graphs below.

The PhD version: Saturday, July 11, 2009 PhD questionnaire graphs (the problem of evil) finale

---

From

2003 The Problem of Evil: Anglican and Baptist Perspectives: MPhil thesis, Bangor University

Also presented here with the complete thesis:

My interviewees were:

Rvd. David Adams, Anglican Church of Canada

Rvd. Daniel Clark, Curate, Holy Trinity Anglican Church Manchester, England

Rvd. Stephen W. Felkner, All Saints Anglican Church, Fountain Valley, California

Dr. Wayne Mouritzen, Retired, Former Presbyterian Minister, now a Lay Anglican

Rvd. Tony Roache, Priest-in-charge, Parish of Ringley with Prestolee in the Diocese of Manchester, Church of England

Dr. Kenton C. Anderson, Dean, Northwest Baptist Seminary, Fellowship of Evangelical Baptist Churches, British Columbia

William Badke, Associate Professor, Associate Librarian, Associated Canadian Theological Schools, Langley, British Columbia

Dr. Sydney Page, Professor of New Testament, Taylor Seminary, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

Dr. Larry Perkins, Associated Canadian Theological Schools, Trinity Western University, Langley, British Columbia

Dr. Brian Rapske, Professor of New Testament. Associated Canadian Theological Schools, Trinity Western University, Langley, British Columbia

Question A 

A person within your denomination comes to you with a serious problem, for example the death of his/her small child.

What would be one key Christian concept to mention that you would see as vital?

With this question, I was looking for a pragmatic use of the Christian faith in times of crisis, in other words, a Christian concept offered to effect real hope in a time of tragedy.

Rvd. David Adams mentioned: " The resurrection. Without it, we have no hope." Adams (2002).

Dr. Wayne Mouritzen stated: "I would refer to Paul’s teachings of the resurrection from 1st Corinthians 15. However, I believe sympathy is most needed." Mouritzen (2002).

I agree that the concept of resurrection is vital at a time of tragic death because this alone is God’s ultimate remedy and reversal of the tragedy. It is not immediate but promised in Scripture.

The Rvd. Daniel Clark stated: The Incarnation. Through that we understand that God himself has felt and experienced our human pain–he has known isolation, grief, betrayal, mocking, torture, false accusations and illegal trial, death. He has been a refugee and known taunting at his ‘dubious’ parentage, etc. It is because God knows our pain, knows what life is like, that we can draw comfort from him in times of distress. Clark (2002).

This would be another important concept at a time of tragedy. Through Christ’s resurrection, humanity will be resurrected, but through Christ’s Incarnation, Christ experienced the human experience, and thus is a suitable high priest to be sought by sufferers. He is relatable to human beings because he took suffering upon himself.

Dr. Kenton Anderson stressed that God was in control. He stated: "I would emphasize the sovereignty and the grace of God. While there is mystery in this, God can be trusted to act according to his character and his word, and in ways that are good for his people." Anderson (2002).

William Badke mentioned the sovereignty of God as well. He stated: I would work on the concept of the sovereignty of God, along these lines – If God is sovereign, we feel we can blame him for what has happened. That may be the case, but the alternative is that what happened came about by chance. While the alternative may be more comforting than believing that God actually allowed the problem and could have stopped it, in fact we are left with a universe in which there is no one to help us, no one in control. We thus abandon the only God who can give us the strength to carry on. The dark side (if you want to see it as such) of acknowledging that God is sovereign, is that you have to allow him to work in ways that seem disastrous to you, that seem cruel and unfair. It’s here that we have to balance God’s sovereignty with his love, his justice and his knowledge which is vastly superior to us. We may never know why certain things happen, but God calls on us to trust his working in our lives, regardless of how things look to us. The alternative is to have a universe in which there are no explanations and only chaos rules. Badke (2002).

Mr. Badke makes an interesting point. Because God is sovereign, Christians must take comfort in that, even in times of personal suffering and devastation because the alternative, a creation without God, is one without meaning. With a faith in a sovereign God who wills suffering, at least we know that tragedy has a purpose and it is not just part of a chaotic meaningless existence.

Dr. Sydney Page stated: "I would try to encourage them not to see this as God punishing them, but as a consequence of living in a fallen world (i.e., I would not play down the evil character of what had happened, but affirm the rightness of being angry that such things happen)." Page (2002).

He also notes the importance of showing God’s love and compassion, and that this type of discussion should not take place immediately in the wake of a tragedy. This is good advice, as people do need time to adjust to their new situation, and I think a healthy anger with suffering and tragedy can at times assist in healing. The suppression of hurt and anger is not healthy. It is better to be honest in anger with God and to seek his understanding in times of great turmoil.

Dr. Larry Perkins noted that: "I think that one concept to share would be our confidence in the goodness of God." Perkins (2002).

Dr. Brian Rapske stated that he "would gently and confidently assert the greatness of God based upon Scriptures, and resist the temptation to ‘redefine’ greatness to something less (which is idolatry)." Rapske (2002).

Both comments are valid. God is still good; he has demonstrated saving goodwill to humanity through Christ. Also, he is still great, and not unable or totally unwilling to prevent tragedy. Instead, at times, he uses human tragedy and suffering for his own good purposes.

Rvd. Stephen Felkner stated concerning this question and this type of suffering: "The context is eternity. The extreme pain of this world makes no sense outside of this context." Felkner (2002).

God’s plans indeed do not make sense unless everlasting life, and the healing that will take place within it are considered when dealing with pain and suffering.

Question B

Is it still valid to claim that Christ’s death, resurrection, and culminated Kingdom of God are the only ultimate practical remedies for human suffering?

Dr. Perkins stated: In my view, yes. Human suffering has a variety of ‘causes’, some of which are cosmic (i.e. the result of the Fall), and some of which are due to human ignorance or foolishness. When we enter into relationship with God through Jesus Christ, the cosmic causes of suffering hold promise of eternal reversal and the immediate issues of ignorance and foolishness have some remedy in the presence of the Holy Spirit. Suffering for the sake of our testimony for Jesus will continue in this world as part of the spiritual struggle between God and Satan. Perkins (2002).

This is very much in line with concepts in my thesis. Jesus Christ and his work, and the culminated Kingdom of God is the only hope of recapitulation for creation.

Rvd. Tony Roache stated concerning this question: The question begs another, has it ever been valid to claim that Christ’s death, resurrection and culminated kingdom of God are the only ultimate practical remedies for human suffering? If the answer is yes or no then it is still yes or no because nothing has changed in the last two thousand years to change that. The key word has got to be ultimate. Whatever human remedies we may devise will pass away and be made useless by the creativity of those wanting to perpetrate evil. The remedy once again has got to be our security in the knowledge of God’s justice. We must be able to trust God to do what is right and just with those who behave inhumanly. Yes, I think that it is still valid to claim that Christ’s death, resurrection and culminated kingdom of God are the only ultimate practical remedies for human suffering. Roache (2002).

This is good reasoning, since if Christ’s work was ever effective, this would not change over time. Christ was either God incarnate, and capable of completing the work required to save souls, or he was not. A Theology which tries to keep in touch with modern thinking by denying the exclusivity of Christ’s saving work for humanity will find that it cannot deal with "the creativity of those wanting to perpetrate evil". Christ is the ultimate remedy to the problem of evil and suffering because he is ultimate God.

Dr. Rapske states the salvation provided by Christ is holistic, designed to save the entire human being. Yes! Peter’s response to the Sanhedrin continues to be right: "Salvation is found in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved." (Acts 4:12; cf. 3:11-16) Remember, however, that Peter said, "what I have I give you"—this is a compassionate Christian response to the whole man in all of his need. The "remedy" is both "practical" (the crippled man was healed) and "ultimate" (it had interest in his salvation)—the healing and the salvation are conjoined. Rapske (2002).

A problem for humanity is that the wait for this complete healing within a culminated Kingdom of God is very painful. Every person on this planet suffers and dies, and this can lead to bitterness against God as this temporal life can be full of disappointments. An everlasting perspective is thus vital.

Rvd. Felkner stated: " The ‘Rub’ is that eternal perspective. God’s way’s are not our ways. His timing is not our timing. And the more we recreate him in our own image, as this age loves to do, the less comfort we shall receive." Felkner (2002).

Question C 

Is the Christian Church, in light of its many denominations and churches, significantly impacting western society with evil and suffering?

Rvd. Tony Roache stated: No, as a body corporate the Christian Church cannot have a significant impact on society in anything. Its role is to introduce individual people to God and nurture the growing relationship. This relationship will change lives and perspectives, thus changing that person as a member of society. The more changed persons there are in society the more society will be changed. Roache (2002).

Dr. Page stated: "Although it gives hope to countless individuals, I do not see a significant impact on the larger society." Page (2002).

Dr. Anderson stated: "Probably not. We have a bad reputation in the world at large around these kind of issues. People within and without the church have a hard time with theodicy." Anderson (2002). 

Dr. Perkins stated: I think this is very difficult to estimate. As individuals are included within a church family some help, both conceptual and practical becomes available to help people understand evil and its relationship to suffering and thereby to confront it and cope with it. Further, as the Holy Spirit indwells a person and schools them in the ways of God, the individual becomes more able to recognize evil and resist its insidious ways. I believe this does happen by and large through the local church. Perkins (2002).

My thinking with this question is that there likely has been limited impact from the church on western society. The lack of unity with all the denominations in one purpose is perhaps a difficulty in reaching the world for Christ. A definite problem is that the Gospel message has been challenged in some denominations and churches by liberal theology. I do agree with Dr. Perkins though that the local church today is still used by the Holy Spirit to battle all kinds of evil. Perhaps we as Christian should not be too discouraged when society does not seem to be changing for the better. I think it must be remembered that the message of Christ is not popular to a world that loves darkness. The Christian Church is always going to be unpopular and this is because it offers the light of Christ for a world that loves darkness. The world can always use the sin and lack of unity within the Church for a reason not to become a disciple of Christ, but this is wrong reasoning. Christianity is a faith which claims that people need grace to know God. It is not a faith that claims to have representatives beyond a fault.

However, from a human perspective, if the claims of Christ are true then the sins of his followers are not valid reasons to keep nonbelievers from becoming interested in following Jesus. It must be added that love is crucial for the Christian Church to have impact by demonstrating understanding for suffering people in society.

Dr. Mouritzen stated that: "Many denominations have little meaning. Look for a common thread." Mouritzen (2002).

People within the Christian Church must show love and understanding to those outside in order to be given the opportunity to have an impact with the Gospel message.

Question D

What could be done to make Christian Churches more effective and relevant in regards to dealing with evil in society?

Rvd. David Adams stated that it was important for the church to reclaim its heritage. "Once we know our heritage that is in Christ we are children of God, we are winners. It is harder to participate in the losing strategies of the world around us." Adams (2002).

In other words, once we who are in Christ realize what we have, and who we are in Christ, following many of the ideas of the world seems useless. By claiming the great heritage believers have in Christ, they can become a more effective help for a world that has no real remedy to the problem of evil.

The Rvd. Daniel Clark stated: We should be unafraid to condemn evil when we see it. Often that will mean simply being committed to biblical truth, and proclaiming biblical truth boldly, without compromise. That can operate on a variety of levels. As we do that, the Spirit will convict us as individual Christians where we are guilty of evil actions and thoughts (let's not pretend we're not part of the problem!). We will also be emboldened to challenge evil where we see it - the parents who see their children acting wrongly; the employee who sees books being fiddled at work or false claims being put in; the board member or chief exec etc who sees some injustice in their workplace policy or practice; the voter who writes to their MP or PM or President about national policies which discriminate or act for injustice etc. We all have voices we can use to challenge - to be the 'prophetic word' in our society, calling it back to following God's laws. Those who are Christians whose voices can be heard at higher levels (eg people high up in large companies, in politics, high up in church hierarchies etc) especially need the support and encouragement to take a stand. Clark (2002).

This is a good point and connects to the previous one. Not only should Christians know who and what they are in Christ and live accordingly in their private lives, but they should take positive steps with this knowledge. This would include standing up for truth in the world, and standing up against evil. If the Christian Church would like to be more effective in dealing with evil and suffering in our society, then individual Christians and Christian groups must be willing to take positions which may at times be controversial, but are the right position to take based on Biblical standards and reason. As

Rvd. Tony Roache stated: What would help in bringing about a changed society is the developing of a mindset in our congregations that encouraged determination in speaking out against wrongdoing. Today we seem to be fairly apathetic in most areas of life that don’t threaten our own personal security. Our own personal call within the kingdom of God is a call to love each other. That must include looking out for the welfare of our neighbour whether local or global. Roache (2002).

As well, as the need for Christians to stand up against evil in society, the idea was also given that those in the Church must be willing to share their suffering with those in the world, for the sake of witness. Rvd. Stephen Felkner stated that: "We don’t want to suffer. We don’t want to offer up our suffering as ‘a sweet smelling savor’." Felkner (2002).

When the Christian Church, corporately and individually, can be seen as a participant in suffering, it will be a more effective witness to the world. Yes, the Church is to stand up for Biblical standards and denounce evil, and be separate from the world philosophically, but it can relate in that Christian individuals do suffer under evil. This sharing of suffering can provide a positive Christian witness. 

Interviews 

ADAMS, D. Rvd. (2002) Anglican Church of Canada.

ANDERSON, K.C. Dr. (2002) Dean, Northwest Baptist Seminary, Fellowship of Evangelical Baptist Churches, Langley, British Columbia.

BADKE, W. (2002) Associate Professor, Associate Librarian, Associated Canadian Theological Schools, Langley, British Columbia.

CLARK, D. Rvd. (2002) Curate, Holy Trinity Anglican Church, Manchester England.

FELKNER, S.W. Rvd. (2002) All Saints Anglican Church, Fountain Valley, California.

MOURITZEN, W. Dr. (2002) Retired, Former Presbyterian Minister, now an Anglican presbyter.

PAGE, S. Dr. (2002) Professor of New Testament, Taylor Seminary, Edmonton, Alberta.

PERKINS, L. Dr. (2002) Associated Canadian Theological Schools, Trinity Western University, Langley, British Columbia.

RAPSKE, B. Dr. (2002) Professor of New Testament, Associated Canadian Theological Schools, Trinity Western University, Langley, British Columbia.

ROACHE, T. Rvd. (2002) Priest-in-charge, Parish of Ringley with Prestolee in the Diocese of Manchester, Church of England.

AUGUSTINE (388-395)(1979) De Liberto Arbitrio (On Free Will), in Earlier Writings on Free Will, Translated by J.H.S. Burleigh, Philadelphia, The Westminster Press. 

AUGUSTINE (421)(1998) Enchiridion, Translated by J.F. Shaw, Denver, New Advent Catholic Website. 

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

CALVIN, J. (1509-1564), The Institutes of the Christian Religion (1536), Beveridge, Henry (Translator), R Public Domain. 

CALVIN, J. (1539)(1998) The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book II, Translated by Henry Beveridge, Grand Rapids, The Christian Classic Ethereal Library, Wheaton College. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.html 

CALVIN, J. (1539)(1998) The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book III, Translated by Henry Beveridge, Grand Rapids, The Christian Classic Ethereal Library, Wheaton College.

CALVIN, J. (1539)(1998) The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book IV, Translated by Henry Beveridge, Grand Rapids, The Christian Classic Ethereal Library, Wheaton College. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.html

CALVIN, J. (1543)(1998) The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, Translated by G.I. Davies, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

CARSON, D.A. (1981) Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility, Atlanta, John Knox Press. 

CARSON, D.A. (1990) How Long, O Lord?, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House. 

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

FLEW, ANTONY, R.M. HARE, AND BASIL MITCHELL (1996) ‘The Debate on the Rationality of Religious Belief’, in L.P. Pojman (ed.), Philosophy, The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company. 

FLEW, ANTONY AND A.MACINTRYE (1999) ‘Philosophy of Religion’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd. 

MACKIE, J.L. (1955)(1996) ‘Evil and Omnipotence’, in Mind, in Michael Peterson, William Hasker, Bruce Reichenbach, and David Basinger (eds.), Philosophy of Religion, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

MACKIE, J.L. (1971)(1977) Evil and Omnipotence, in The Philosophy of Religion, in Alvin C. Plantinga, God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

PAILIN, D.A. (1999) Enlightenment, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Limited. 

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

POJMAN, L.P. (1995)(1996) Atheism, in Robert Audi (gen.ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.