Hermeneutics of Suspicion, Feminism, Christopraxis (PhD Edit)

British Columbia (trekearth) British Columbia (trekearth) McSween, BC (trekearth)  

McSween, BC (trekearth) 

A short post on my birthday... 

Hermeneutics of Suspicion 

Marie McCarthy (2000)(2007) writes that given the human tendency to distort the truth within a certain tradition,[1] a certain hermeneutic of suspicion should exist.[2] She is not specifically discussing Biblical hermeneutics,[3] but is concerned that certain individuals may make personal spiritual experiences normative.[4] In particular as with Gebara,[5] McCarthy is concerned that a hermeneutics and a spirituality that overlooks the real human suffering of persons should be questioned.[6] 

Christopraxis 

Ray S. Anderson defines Christopraxis as the continuing power of Jesus Christ, as his ministry works with followers through the Holy Spirit.[7] Anderson’s theory of Christopraxis assumes a bodily resurrection of Christ, which Anderson states is a fact of history,[8] but presently Christ works through the Holy Spirit in this world.[9] The inner core of practical theology, as Anderson views it, is the life of a historical Jesus Christ, his resurrection and the work of the Holy Spirit of God continuing the gospel plan on earth.[10] Anderson deduces that the concept of Christopraxis includes the Holy Spirit of God working with Scripture to bring about revelation and reconciliation to persons within the Christian Church.[11] Gebara does not deny the death of Christ on the cross as a historical event and she explains there is evidence that he was crucified.[12] Gebara’s feministic theology is concerned that making the death of Christ central for salvation within the Christian faith,[13] affirms a path of suffering through male martyrdom as the only way for salvation.[14] Gebara concludes that this theory of salvation makes the suffering of women over the centuries useless.[15] Although I can fully acknowledge that women have suffered throughout history and continue to suffer in ways that are not always recognized,[16] I respectfully disagree with Gebara,[17] as the New Testament salvation is for persons that believe and trust in Christ.[18] God has a definite plan of salvation for persons.[19] Women’s status before God within the New Testament is equal to that of men with respect to personal salvation, and there is no difference between male and female as both are saved through the atoning work of Christ.[20] There is no exclusion of persons based on their gender within this process.[21] Bloesch suggests feminists desire for men and women to be able to work together as equals.[22] 

Rosemary R. Ruether (1998) acknowledges that within Christian history there has been a theology where the original equality of all people in Christ is restored.[23] She believes that equality shall not be completely accomplished until social hierarchy is ended,[24] but she states that in Christ’s new Kingdom all class, race and gender divisions are overcome.[25] This Kingdom will include both men and women redeemed through the work of Christ.[26] Rebecca S. Chopp (1995) suggests that a goal of feminist theology is to deconstruct patriarchal images of God.[27] She writes that feminist theology looks to overthrow oppression based in patriarchy.[28] New Testament scholar Aida Besançon Spencer (1991) notes that the feminist critic is to alert the reader that there is a human tendency to alienate those persons who are different and have less power.[29] Klein, Blomberg and Hubbard explain that feminists desire readers to examine the Biblical stories concerning women from a feminine perspective.[30]

[1] McCarthy in Woodward and Pattison (2000)(2007: 203). 

[2] McCarthy in Woodward and Pattison (2000)(2007: 203).

[3] McCarthy in Woodward and Pattison (2000)(2007: 203). 

[4] McCarthy in Woodward and Pattison (2000)(2007: 203). 

[5] Gebara (2002: 122-129). 

[6] McCarthy in Woodward and Pattison (2000)(2007: 203). 

[7] Anderson (2001: 29). 

[8] Anderson (2001: 52). 

[9] Anderson (2001: 52). 

[10] Anderson (2001: 52).

[11] Anderson (2001: 54). 

[12] Gebara (2002: 117).

[13] Gebara (2002: 118). 

[14] Gebara (2002: 118). 

[15] Gebara (2002: 118).

[16] Gebara (2002: 110, 112, 117).

[17] Gebara (2002: 118).

[18] John 3:16 mentions that whoever believes in Christ will have everlasting life, and John 14: 6 explains that no one comes to the Father, but through Christ. My point is not to exegete or exposit these verses but to point out that females and women are included and not excluded from the salvation process. Male and female alike are saved within the Christian tradition through faith and trust in Christ. NASB (1984: 1197, 1215). 

[19] Thiessen (1956: 277). 

[20] Erickson (1994: 548). Erickson (1994: 548). 

[21] Thiessen (1956: 277).

[22] Bloesch (1987: 256). I can support this desire in general terms, even while accepting men and women are equal but not the same, even as all men, and all women, are not the same.

[23] Ruether (1998: 28).

[24] Ruether (1998: 28). 

[25] Ruether (1998: 28). 

[26] Ruether (1998: 28).

[27] Chopp (1995: 88-89). Patriarchy can limit God to being humanly understood from a male point of view. Gebara (2002: 165). 

[28] Chopp (1995: 89). 

[29] Spencer (1991: 239-240).

[30] Klein, Blomberg, and Hubbard (1993: 455).

ANDERSON, RAY S. (2001) The Shape of Practical Theology, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press. 

BLOESCH, DONALD G. (1987) Freedom for Obedience, San Francisco, Harper and Rowe Publishers. 

CHOPP, REBECCA S. (1995) Saving Work, Louisville, Kentucky, Westminster John Knox Press. 

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House. 

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

KLEIN, WILLIAM W., CRAIG, C. BLOMBERG, AND ROBERT L. HUBBARD, JR. (1993) Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, London, Word Publishing.

RUETHER, ROSEMARY R. (1998) Introducing Redemption in Christian Feminism, Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press. 

SPENCER, AIDA BESANÇON (1991) ‘Literary Criticism’, in David Alan Black and David S. Dockery (eds.), New Testament Criticism and Interpretation, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.

THIESSEN, HENRY C. (1956) Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

WOODWARD, JAMES AND STEPHEN PATTISON (2000)(2007)(eds.), The Blackwell Reader in Pastoral and Practical Theology, Oxford, Blackwell Publishing.

 

A photo from the previous post...

A Problem of Suffering

Automne, France (trekearth)

June 30, 2012

A homecare worker arrives at this condo this morning and my Mom answers the door downstairs. I often do this for her as my Mom is disabled and deaf, even though I live upstairs, but I slept in this morning. I hear the worker state paraphrased, 'Are you alone today, is your grandson not here'?

At a restaurant a few years ago a waitress asked if I was taking grandma out.

June 27, 2012

Introduction

Listening to philosopher Gary Habermas online from time to time on his website, one of the interesting things he states and I am paraphrasing is that theistic disbelief and objections, and therefore it can be deduced, disbelief in and objections to Christianity are often primarily from negative emotional reactions to suffering, life and to concepts of God.

Gary Habermas

Granted there are philosophers and like that do have philosophical differences with theism and Christianity and I have read several of them, especially in United Kingdom theses work. I do fully admit that some skeptical and atheistic authors do make some reasonable and good critiques within the theodicy and problem of evil debate. They are often cited on this blog.

Critics

I was reading an academic advice column connected to one of professional associations I am connected to and some persons that studied to a PhD level with evangelical training were now pondering on skepticism and atheism as more likely worldview options than Christianity. Having studied Reformed Christianity, Evangelical Christianity, and atheism in the context of theodicy and problem of evil from 1998 to 2010 I can somewhat understand someone arriving at those types of conclusions having read authors with similar views, but intellectually with my research the more I studied the more I became convinced a Reformed sovereignty theodicy and defence was the most reasonable explanation for the problem of evil, superior to the free will views and soul-making theory.

Besides not having the best explanations within the theodicy and problem of evil discussion I also thought that philosophically, skepticism, agnosticism and atheism failed to adequately deal with the issues of first cause and the problem of origins that would be larger than the problem of evil as they have to do with the basics of existence.

If somehow the Biblical record could be proven false, as in all of the prophets, apostles and scribes could be shown not be of supernatural origin, which I see no good evidence for, deism in my view would still be a more likely philosophical alternative than skepticism, agnosticism or atheism as at least the problems of first cause and origins would be reasonably dealt with.

First Cause

Deism

I have discussed deism previously on this blog and I will present again with edits:

My brief and former academic advisor David. A. Pailin, defines deism as coming from the Latin word deus and parallels the Greek which is theos. Pailin (1999: 148). In modern times deism is used to define a supreme being who is the ultimate source of reality, but does not intervene in the natural and historical processes through revelation or salvific acts. Pailin (1999: 148). Pailin writes that the common use of the term ‘theism’ does not carry the same negative implications. Pailin (1999: 148). He explains that historically deism is not so much a set of doctrines, but a movement, largely British, that became popular in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Pailin (1999: 148). Many within deism will have doubts concerning concepts of supernatural religious doctrines, revelation and the authority of the Bible. Pailin (1999: 148). Pailin notes that some within deism desire to replace Christianity with a more ‘reasonable’ faith, and for others it is an attempt to produce a more ‘reasonable’ version of Christianity. Pailin (1999: 149).

William J. Wainwright explains that deism understands true religion as natural, as opposed to supernatural religion. Wainwright (1996: 188). He writes that some self-styled Christian deists accept revelation although they argue that the content is the same as natural religion. Wainwright (1996: 188). Most deists reject revelation as fiction, but many reason that God has ordained that human happiness is possible through natural means that are universally available. Wainwright (1996: 188). Salvation therefore does not come via divine revelation. Wainwright (1996: 188).

Henry Clarence Thiessen writes that for deism God is present in his creation by his power and not in his being and nature. He has endowed creation with certain invariable laws that he oversees in general terms. Theissen (1956: 74). God has created creatures and left them under invariable laws to their own destiny. Thiessen (1956: 74). For Thiessen, the Christian world-view rejects deism because it accepts that God has revealed himself in creation through divine revelation, has providential control and does at times use miracles within his creation. Thiessen (1956: 75). For Thiessen, a deistic God is not much better than no God at all for humanity. Thiessen (1956: 75).

Thiessen has an reasonable point, if deistic approaches reject a God who intervenes within his creation, then it allows, practically speaking, for human beings to expect to have the same end in life as if there is no God. Wainwright deduces that God has ordained human happiness to all universally, but ultimately how happy can human existence be when physical death is the end result for every person? The meaning of life, human life is not substantially meaningful, if permanently terminated. People lose their consciousness and life accomplishments without everlasting life, and therefore life loses ultimate meaning and happiness does not result. The deist can speculate that God can and perhaps shall provide everlasting life and ultimate continual meaning for life, but this is merely speculation devoid of any historically grounded revelation from God.

Accepting that human nature is corrupt as described in Romans 1-3, it is very unlikely that the problem of evil would ever be solved but rather merely treated by humanity if deism is true (even if Romans was not considered divinely inspired the concept could still be correct). There would at no time be any solution for sin, death, and the problem of evil, since the infinite, omnipotent God would not interfere with his creation and regenerate and change individuals in order to eventually establish a Kingdom of God where the problem of evil does not exist. With a deistic universe seemingly sin, death, and the problem of evil continue to exist as long as humanity does. Deism seemingly does not offer any ultimate solution to the problem of evil.

There would be meaning to creation, but essentially only the creator would take lasting meaning from it.

God Wills and is Aware

In the Biblical book of Job, God as the first cause willingly allows evil for good purposes and with perfectly good motives it can be reasoned. Satanic beings and human beings will evil as secondary causes with wrong motives.

The same could be said of the historical crucifixion story of Christ. God wills the evil event with the perfectly good motives of atonement, resurrection and restoration for his people while satanic beings and persons that kill Christ have sinful motives.

It would seem that Biblically despite the very great suffering persons can suffer, God is aware of it and in fact in an ultimate cause but with good motives. Of course this is not to deny that human sinfulness can play a significant part in suffering as persons can cause suffering upon self and others. This often takes place, obviously.

A Christian theology therefore needs to understand reasonably well that God does participate in personal suffering, even though it does hurt extremely much at times.

Christians are to pray, fellowship, study and act for the good within the context of suffering and the problem of evil.

I conclude that a worldview, including religious, should primarily be determined by philosophical and theological evidences (Scripture being key) within reason, as opposed to being primarily determined from personal events and experiences.

Further:

This seems straightforward but in actuality is probably often quite difficult for many to accomplish. Grace through faith is required which leads to good works. (Ephesians 2). Another aspect of the problem of evil is problems related to suffering.

PAILIN, DAVID A. (1999) ‘Deism’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.

THIESSEN, HENRY C. (1956) Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

WAINWRIGHT, WILLIAM J. (1996) ‘Deism’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.



Cha Grande, Brazil (trekearth)

June 29, 2012

I just saw this story on the news. Stupid move by the coach...



June 29, 2012

Martial Arts 'foolery'












Photos by Saint Chucky Cheese I
Editing by Dr. RNM

Benefits of Discussing The Problem of Evil & Theodicy (PhD Edit)

Benefits of Discussing The Problem of Evil & Theodicy (PhD Edit) 

Monmouthshire, Hay on Wye, Wales (trekearth)  

Benefits of Discussing The Problem of Evil & Theodicy (PhD Edit)

Theodicy, as an aspect of theology can as well be underdeveloped.^[1] For this reason, within the Christian Church, I will review and explain free will, sovereignty, and soul-making theodicy. The free will and sovereignty perspectives exist within a moderate conservative tradition, and soul-making within a progressive liberal one.^[2] Within my survey propositions Christians from various theological perspectives will be provided concepts from three general perspectives and four authors^[3] to promote better understanding of the problem of evil. This should assist questionnaire respondents to better explain their Christian faith and philosophy with those outside of the Christian Church.^[4] I hope that my work can also provide some peace of mind to those suffering in this world of many evils. There is intellectual evidence that the Christian Church can still provide reasonable answers, and that intellectual progress has been made.^[5] 

Theodicy is a definite theological problem for Christianity and theism,^[6] but Christians can be confident that it can be intellectually, adequately dealt with, in particular in my view, with an emphasis on the sovereignty of God.^[7] I do not hold to free will theodicy, but reason that it presents a logical and reasonable case,^[8] and that soul-making theodicy has some elements of truth within it.^[9] As a moderate conservative that holds to Reformed theology, I reason that the atoning and resurrection work applied to believers in the eventual culminated Kingdom of God^[10] is the ultimate remedy for the problem of evil. I must be clear: theodicy is not the remedy to the problem of evil, but a speculative, and in my case, Biblically based attempt to explain how God deals with evil in his creation.^[11] In similar fashion, practical and empirical theology do not offer solutions to the problem of evil, but are theological disciplines^[12] which assist persons to understand how evil is comprehended and dealt with in the Christian community and in society at large.

Even with the understanding that God and Christ will eventually save the world from evil,^[13] and that this can be explained in ways through theodicy, does not mean that I or any theologian or philosopher can always provide specific reasons and answers for each instance of evil and suffering in creation.^[14] Although I do not side with critics that doubt that theism can be squared with the evil that takes place in this world,^[15] I fully admit that in many cases of evil and suffering, only God has a comprehensive understanding of what is occurring, and why it is occurring. Is this a weakness particular for theism? I reason not, in that atheists and critics such as Ferraiolo^[16] will also not be able to fully explain evil and suffering in many cases, and therefore cannot conclusively intellectually deny that the infinite, omnipotent God can use occurrences of evil in creation for his good purposes.^[17] Therefore, theists and atheists from various perspectives are all left with degrees of ignorance in regard to the problem of evil. No person can fully understand evil and the suffering that results in every case.^[18] Theists and atheists are therefore left with using reason, and in the case of the Christian theist, the Bible^[19] to work out theories concerning the problem of evil. 

---

^[1] Therefore, this type of project can still be valuable academically.

^[2] This conservative/liberal distinction is not always clear-cut, as some concepts do overlap, and this shall be observed through the reviews.

^[3] Augustine and Plantinga both write from a free will perspective.

^[4] 1 Peter 3:15 tells the believer to always be ready to give a defence to everyone that asks, and therefore Christians, both scholars and student are wise to have some knowledge concerning theodicy.

^[5] Swinburne (1998: 13-20).

^[6] Blackburn (1996: 375).

^[7] Erlandson (1991: 1). Although objections to this idea are duly noted throughout this thesis.

^[8] Peterson (1982: 204).

^[9] This will be discussed in Chapter Four.

^[10] Mounce (1990: 369-397).

^[11] Lindsley (2003: 3).

^[12] Winquest (1987: 1).

^[13] Mounce (1990: 369-397).

^[14] I can approach my theodicy presentation with confidence, but should always possess great humility.

^[15] Ferraiolo (2005: 1). Phillips (2005: 265).

^[16] Ferraiolo (2005: 1).

^[17] The idea of God using evil for the greater good, without being evil in nature himself is central to sovereignty theodicy. This will be discussed in the context of gratuitous evil in Chapter Four.

^[18] Henry (1983: 282). Blocher (1994: 84).

^[19] Thiessen from examining Scripture reasons that the evil acts of creatures are under the control of God. Thiessen (1956: 183). Henry (1983: 282). Blocher (1994: 84).

---

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

BLOCHER, HENRI. (1994) Evil and the Cross, Translated by David G. Preston, Leicester, InterVarsity Press.

ERLANDSON, DOUG (1991) ‘A New Perspective on the Problem of Evil’, in Doug Erlandson PhD Philosophy, Reformed.org, Orange County, Covenant Community.

FERRAIOLO, WILLIAM (2005) ‘Eternal Selves and The Problem of Evil’, in Quodlibet Journal, Volume 7, Number 2, April-June, Evanston, Illinois, Quodlibet Journal.Church of Orange County.

HENRY, CARL (1983) God, Revelation and Authority: Volume 6: God Who Stands and Stays, Waco, Word Books.

LINDSLEY, ART (2003) ‘The Problem of Evil’, Knowing & Doing, Winter, Springfield, Virginia, C.S. Lewis Institute.

MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1995) The New American Commentary: Romans, Nashville, Broadman & Holman Publishers.

PETERSON, MICHAEL (1982) Evil and the Christian God, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

PHILLIPS, D.Z. (2005) The Problem of Evil and the Problem of God, Fortress Press, Minneapolis.

SWINBURNE, RICHARD (1998) Providence and the Problem of Evil, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

WINQUIST, CHARLES E. (1987) ‘Re-visioning Ministry: Postmodern Reflections’, in Lewis S Mudge and James N. Poling, Formation and Reflection: The Promise of Practical Theology by Lewis S Mudge and James N. Poling, Philadelphia, Fortress Press. 

Saturday, September 19, 2020: PhD Full Version PDF: Theodicy and Practical Theology 2010, Wales TSD