Feminism & The Problem of Evil, Revisited: Satire Und Theology Version

Feminism & The Problem of Evil, Revisited

Preface

Question 25 image

Questionnaire data from my PhD, from a slightly revised Blogger article, 20170403, for an entry on academia.edu, 20250223. My work on feminism was strongly suggested by my tutors for my research in the context of the secular, British University, I was attending.

PhD/MPhil full versions

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

PhD, University of Wales Trinity Saint David, Lampeter, 2010: Theodicy and Practical Theology.

Questions and graphs from the PhD

Question 25: Scripture describes women as more evil than men

One hundred and thirty-four (62.9%) respondents selected ‘DS’ and fifty-one (23.9%) chose ‘D’. So 86.8% of completed questionnaires contain the view that Scripture does not describe women as more evil than men.

This proposition was soundly rejected. Only 11 (5.2%) persons chose ‘AS/A’. Gebara offers a different perspective stating that within Christian tradition, only male sacrifice is valuable. She also notes that women symbolically have often been represented as weak and ‘evil.’ Biblically, although Christ was male, he died for both genders within Christian tradition. Additionally, within Gebara’s own Roman Catholic tradition, Mary is known as the ‘Mother of God.’ Within this view, Mary is recognized and praised as Jesus was born of a truly ‘human mother.’ This is a key example of a woman being highly esteemed within Gebara’s tradition, and therefore, although I do not dismiss her comments, they should be considered cautiously.

Question 29: God desires that women’s sufferings be understood

Many respondents, 140 (65.7%) supported this idea while only 16 (7.5%) opposed it with a choice of ‘D/DS’. Fifty-seven (26.7%) were ‘NC’. Gebara writes that Biblical Scripture, which emphasizes differences between male and female, has led to a ‘hierarchical dualism’ that is used to exclude women. Gebara reasons evils experienced by women are often linked with the idea they are considered a second, less valuable sex. Gebara’s comments demonstrate that her particular feminist views are not supported by the majority of my respondents.

Question 33: God desires women to have influence in the Church

One hundred and ninety-five (91.6%) persons supported this proposition; 101 (47.4%) agreed strongly with the question. This question was not dealing with thorny issues of women leadership such as being elders and pastors, but was simply dealing with the broader idea of general influence. Therefore, in my estimation, this strong support for the proposition is because the idea of female influence will not cause disagreement between conservative and liberal wings in the Christian Church.

Mennonite New Testament scholar, Willard M. Swartley (1983) reasons ‘the concept of equality’ for women is present in the New Testament, but he asks what these concepts mean in regard to ‘social, political and economic’ contexts. Swartley also ponders on what equality for women means within the Biblical ancient texts, and what it should mean today. Individual churches need to consider concepts of equality for women with men, when deciding where women should have greater influence.

Question 37: God dislikes women being viewed as sex objects

One hundred and eighty-nine (88.7%) respondents supported this proposition; 136 (63.8%) chose ‘AS’. Only 8 (3.8%) persons, four from each category, disagreed. Gebara notes some women have high value as objects of ‘enjoyment’ and ‘pleasure’ or on the flip side, ‘revenge’ and ‘hate.’ She lists prostitution as an example of women being viewed as ‘merchandise.’

Question 41: Christian thought has been dominated by men

One hundred and forty-four (67.6%) respondents chose ‘AS/A’, 44 (20.7%) persons chose ‘D/DS’. This question can be related back to my earlier comments regarding how difficult it is for women to become senior pastors. The concept of ‘Christian thought’ within this question is not necessarily regarding professional leadership alone, but is presented in the context of both professional leadership and lay teaching.

Question 45: Women need freedom from male authority

Seventy-one (33.3%) persons chose ‘AS/A’, while over twenty percent of respondents were ‘NC’ (21.2%). Over forty-five percent (45.5%) of persons were not in support of this idea. Admittedly, this is a strongly worded statement, but two denominations were in support of this idea with a majority. Anglican respondents with 10 out of 18 (55.5%) supported it, as did United Church of Canada respondents with 8 out of 8 (100%). Twenty-nine of forty-eight persons (60.4%) surveyed in my non-denominational group choose ‘D/DS’ for this question. As alluded to earlier, this non-denominational group is not an actual denomination, but some of these persons were from independent, fundamentalist Baptist churches in the United States that have very conservative views that would minimally preclude women from elder and clergy positions. 

Question 52: Churches should assist exploited women

One hundred and forty-one (66.2%) chose ‘5’ as an option. With adding another 36 (16.9%) that chose ‘4’, this brings the total to 177 persons (83%) that supported this idea. Gebara explains that the Church should understand the physical, psychological, and social suffering of women in regard to the cross. The community suffering of women needs to be understood, and this obviously should include those persons that need extra assistance.

Question 25

Question 29

Question 33

Question 37

Question 41

Question 45

Question 52

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. 

BRYMAN, ALAN (2004) Social Research Methods, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

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. 

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. 

SWARTLEY, WILLARD M. (1983) Slavery Sabbath War Women, Herald Press, Scottdale, Pennsylvania. 

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

WHALE, J.S. (1958) Christian Doctrine, Glasgow, Fontana Books.

Are we on shifting ground?: Satire Und Theology Version

Are we on shifting ground?

Amsterdam (2025) photo from Civil Engineering Discoveries, LinkedIn 

Preface

Originally published 20170730, revised on Blogger for an entry on academia.edu, 20250215.

The Pirie entry by entry review continues...

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

The Definitional Retreat

'A definitional retreat takes place when someone changes the meaning of the words in order to deal with an objection raised against the original wording. By changing the meaning, he turns it into a different statement.' Pirie uses an example: 'When I said I hadn't been drinking, officer, I meant that I hadn't had more than I get through in a normal social evening.' (77-78). 

My examples: 

When I said I was a Christian, I meant that I think there is probably a God. 

When I said you were fat, I meant that you were phat, as in excellent. 

The author explains that a definitional retreat allows a person to save face when their argument has been demonstrated to significantly lack merit. (78). Pirie reasons that philosophers often change definitions when shown as questionable. (78). Definitions are not to be subjective, they have objective meanings. This is a reason I revise my writing, because sometimes corrections have to be made in premises, conclusions and reasoning. 

Definition twisting, does not assist with my pursuit of the truth. My revisions are documented when significant. I admit that minor revisions are often made after publish, because some problems are not apparent until after publish. That is a visual issue, not an integrity one. But if I do change my mind...it is better to revise statements and/or arguments when needed and to note it. 

Pirie mentions that UK finance ministers are good at the use of this fallacy. (79). They use definitional retreat. I think politicians often use fallacies when definitions are changed to portray a different story. Statistics can be stated to mean one thing in January and something else in December. 

Shifting ground?

When making arguments, people may hedge with ambiguous premises. (185). Or people may use a definitional retreat to make words within premises mean something else. (185). A type of this defensive type of argumentation is to use shifting ground. (185). This fallacy is used with attempts to avoid criticism of an original premise (s) by shifting the meaning of premise or premises. (185). This would require a new critique of the argument. (185).

My examples:

Premise: I think x is a bad thing.

Conclusion: Yes, x should be banned.

After negative critique from others, the shifting ground fallacy is used:

Premise: Rather, x is usually a bad thing.

Conclusion: Well, x should probably be banned, anyway.

As Pirie explains the arguer will change the ground he/her is standing on and still maintain the continuity of the argument. (185). It is fallacious to change the substance of what is being stated.

In my example, the premise shifts from 'is a bad thing', to 'is usually a bad thing'.

The conclusion shifts from 'should be banned' to 'should probably be banned, anyway'.

Based on my years of discussion and debating, this is a tempting fallacy for intellectual and non-intellectuals, alike, to use as defence. As with my writing on my websites, sometimes arguments simply require edits in humility. The person in my example is attempting to save face, when he/she should more likely reconsider the entire line of reasoning.

Pirie opines that politicians at times use the shifting ground fallacy rather than admit that he/she changed their mind. (186). The shifting ground fallacy is often used when one cannot prove his/her point but does not want to appear to be wrong, or admit he/she is wrong. (186).

Collins

Cited

'in American English'

'shift ground to change position in an argument or situation' 

2019 by Penguin Random House LLC and HarperCollins Publishers Ltd'

---

Hedging

Tuesday, March 28, 2017 Hedging

'Hedging in arguments means sheltering behind ambiguous meanings so that the sense can be changed later.' (120). To paraphrase the author's example: We stated we did not want a full-fledged war in the Middle East; that is still the position, we entered into limited war. (120). This type of argumentation allows for a 'definitional retreat.' (120). 'Hedging is fallacious because it puts two or more different statements under the guise of one'. (120). It is a semantic game in parsing the difference between a 'limited war' and a 'full-fledged' war. Is any war 'full-fledged' without nuclear weapons? Hedging hopes that the reviewer of argumentation, will not know better (120); the information presented becomes useless because it is not presented accurately. (120). To avoid hedging one could state: 'We are entering into war; we are committed.' Or: 'We are not entering into war, because the risks are too great.' Hedging again... We stated we did not want to colonize Mars, that is still the position, but we have several Mars space missions planned. 

Interestingly, Pirie indicates that Nostradamus used hedging to make obscure predictions. (121). The author reasons that observers look for what they want to see as far as what has already occurred and apply what Nostradamus predicted. This does not assist in making accurate predictions. (121). Hedging uses dishonesty and ambiguity. (121). 

Logically Fallacious

Cited

Description: Refining your claim simply to avoid counter evidence and then acting as if your revised claim is the same as the original.

Logical Form: Claim X is made. Claim X is refuted. Claim Y is then made and is made to be the same as claim X when it is not.

References: Dowden, B. (n.d.). Fallacies | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/ 

---

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

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. 

Professor David A. Pailin (PhD Edit): Satire Und Theology Version

Trekearth.com: Manchester University

Professor David A. Pailin (PhD Edit)

Originally published on Blogger, 20150317. Revised on Blogger for an entry on academia.edu, 20250208.

Preface

I earned my PhD thesis research degree from the University of Wales, Trinity Saint David at Lampeter, preceded by my MPhil thesis research degree at Bangor University. I had previously, very briefly, worked with Manchester University and my advisor was Professor David Pailin. I did not receive a grade at Manchester University. I used the library there. 

The professor I had agreed to work with in Manchester was away for a year, so with God’s help, I soon signed with the University of Wales and completed the academic work required on two occasions with MPhil and PhD theses at Wales. I lived in Manchester for my most of my stay in the United Kingdom, but completed most of my British academic work in British Columbia through distance learning with no local advisor. I did stay at the PhD campus in Wales on return visits to the United Kingdom and liked Wales very much. Living in Manchester had some benefits such as making church friends and also having Manchester United home membership, as well as viewing Manchester City at home as well. I also toured England with a friend in Manchester that had Arsenal away membership. I continue the football touring with my hopefully yearly British Isles/Europe trips. Staying in Wales had benefits, as Lampeter was isolated and very scenic.

Defence/Defense versus Theodicy

I reason Professor Pailin was correct in stating that academically, within the problem of evil discussion, a defence (approach) versus theodicy (approach) difference was minimal. This is contrary to what I read from Alvin C. Plantinga, although I found Plantinga's work very useful in my MPhil and PhD research. I came to this same conclusion as Professor Pailin myself as both defence and theodicy approaches largely speculate in regard to the problem of evil (more specifically, problems of evil, in my work), as human beings have finite knowledge, in comparison to God’s infinite knowledge. It is true that a theodicy is expected to be more robust and dogmatic. A defence is less dogmatic. I cautiously embedded a theodicy within my PhD relying on Bible, Reformed theology, philosophical theology and philosophy of religion. To Professor Pailin's credit, stating a defence might be true, in comparison to stating a theodicy is true, still means that a defence and theodicy are both are equally speculative, in general terms.

If one studies the problem of evil thoroughly he/she will come across the issue of a defence in regard to the problem, and a theodicy that deals with the problem. Theodicy is the explanation of how the infinite, omnipotent, and perfectly good God accomplishes his plans within his creation where the problem of evil exists. Alvin C. Plantinga differentiates between his own free will defence and a free will theodicy. Plantinga (1977)(2002: 28). He states that his defence is mainly a logical presentation, attempting to maintain logical consistency, whereas theodicy is more dogmatic in approach, Plantinga (1977)(2002: 28). Within my MPhil and PhD dissertations, however, I view defence and theodicy as equally speculative. 

Philip L. Quinn notes that Plantinga’s view of a defence in contrast to theodicy means Plantinga does not speculate on God’s reasons for permitting evil, but merely argues that God’s existence is logically consistent with the problem of evil. Quinn (1996: 611). I agree with Quinn, somewhat. Plantinga is mainly arguing that God’s existence can be shown as logical in regard to the problem of evil with his defence; however, Plantinga as does every scholar with any type of explanation for the topic of the problem of evil, speculates within his defence. Plantinga (1977)(2002: 45-59). This type of speculation is perhaps not done as forcefully as some in theodicy. Plantinga (1977)(2002: 28). I therefore reason that a defence can be reviewed under the umbrella of theodicy and did so within my formal academic work and my website work. Theodicy is by nature somewhat speculative and therefore, theodicy, like a defence, is also dealing with a possible reason for God to permit evil. A theodicy may be more dogmatic than Plantinga’s defence in its assertions and arguments, but it is still speculative, as is my own work on theodicy. Plantinga comments that one who writes a theodicy assumes that it is true, while one who writes a defense is stating that it is possibly true. Plantinga (1982: 192). However, even a person writing the theodicy does not have exhaustive knowledge of God and his reasoning in regard to the problem, and I therefore conclude that theodicy and defence are generally both equally speculative, although perhaps not equally dogmatic.

Process Theology

David A Pailin (1999) explains that within some process theology approaches, God’s existence may be viewed as absolute, necessary and unchanging. However, God’s character can change and is determined through interaction with his creation. Pailin postulates that God’s character can change, as he loves his creatures. Pailin (1999: 469). I disagree, as God is infinite, God is unlimited in nature and character. God does not change, although God as infinite can interact within finite reality that God created. In my view, the divine nature does not have a physical body that can be altered, changed or die, as in John 4:24 where Jesus stated that God is spirit. God does not change as God is infinite, ontologically. I do agree that God does love his creatures, although this love does not from the New Testament, equate to a universal human belief and trusting faith, in the triune God. If one is not regenerate (John 3, Titus 3, 1 Peter 1, as examples) in election (Ephesians 1-2, Romans 8-11, as examples), the love of God, does not suffice for salvation in these cases. Revelation 20-21, although using significantly figurative language, makes it clear that all people whose names are not within the book of life (20: 15) are not part of the post-mortem, everlasting Kingdom of God (21: 27).

Enlightenment

Pailin (1999) writes that since the Enlightenment era, the traditional propositional view of revelation has widely, but not completely, been replaced by the understanding that divine revelation comes through events. Pailin (1999: 505). Enlightenment thinkers tended to reject external sources of knowledge and elevated human reasoning. Biblical doctrines were therefore under suspicion. This view was clearly expressed to me in my few discussions with Professor Pailin. I prefer to seek enlightenment and reason through the direction of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. All truth is God's truth and the Hebrew Bible and New Testament records are revealed, religious history.

Deism

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).

I respected the Professor's encyclopedic knowledge of philosophy of religion, and have aimed for that myself, as well as focusing on philosophical theology within a Reformed, biblical, tradition. We strongly disagreed on what a reasonable, Christian faith would be. A reasonable, Christian faith and philosophy without a significant trust in scriptural revelation and guidance through the Holy Spirit in life, is more so speculative theism, and deism, in some cases, and not really a biblical Christianity at all. In contrast to a supernaturally revealed Christianity, this is Christianity within Christendom, that does not truly significantly embrace the revealed doctrines and New Testament worldview, based on a reasonable trust, by grace through faith, in the triune God. 

Bibliography

BAVINCK, HERMAN (1918)(2006) Reformed Dogmatics Volume 2: God and Creation, John Bolt (gen.ed.), Translated by John Vriend, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids.

BAVINCK, HERMAN (1918)(2006) Reformed Dogmatics Volume 3: Sin and Salvation in Christ, John Bolt (gen.ed.), Translated by John Vriend, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids. 

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

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

CALVIN, JOHN (1543)(1996) The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, Translated by G.I. Davies, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House. 

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

ERICKSON, MILLARD (2003) What Does God Know and When Does He Know It?, Grand Rapids, Zondervan. 

FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (1986) Predestination and Free Will, in David Basinger and Randall Basinger (eds.), Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press. 

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

FEINBERG, JOHN S. (2001) No One Like Him, John S. Feinberg (gen.ed.), Wheaton, Illinois, Crossway Books. 

FRANKE, JOHN R. (2005) The Character of Theology, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids.

GEIVETT, R. DOUGLAS (1993) Evil and the Evidence for God, Philadelphia, Temple University Press.

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

HICK, JOHN (1978) ‘Present and Future Life’, Harvard Theological Review, Volume 71, Number 1-2, January-April, Harvard University. 

HICK, JOHN (1981) Encountering Evil, Stephen T. Davis (ed.), Atlanta, John Knox Press. 

HICK, JOHN (1993) ‘Afterword’ in GEIVETT, R. DOUGLAS (1993) Evil and the Evidence for God, Philadelphia, Temple University Press.

HICK, JOHN (1993) The Metaphor of God Incarnate, Louisville, Kentucky, John Know Press. 

HICK, JOHN (1994) Death and Eternal Life, Louisville, Kentucky, John Knox Press. 

HICK, JOHN (1999) ‘Life after Death’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press. 

MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1990) The Book of Revelation, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

MURRAY, JOHN (1937-1966)(1977) Collected Writings of John Murray, Vol. 2: Select Lectures in Systematic Theology, Edinburgh, The Banner of Truth Trust.

PACKER, J.I. (1996) ‘Regeneration’ in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

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

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

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

 

River Taff, Wales, trekearth

PHILLIPS, D.Z. (1981) Encountering Evil, Stephen T. Davis (ed.), Atlanta, John Knox Press. 

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

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.

QUINN, PHILIP L. (1996) ‘Philosophy of Religion’, Robert Audi (ed.), in The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

SHEDD, WILLIAM G.T. (1874-1890)(1980) Dogmatic Theology, Volume 1, Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers. 

SHEDD, WILLIAM G.T. (1874-1890)(1980) Dogmatic Theology, Volume 2, Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers. 

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

WEBER, OTTO (1955)(1981) Foundations of Dogmatics, Volumes 1 and 2, Translated and annotated by Darrell L. Guder, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

WHALE, J.S. (1958) Christian Doctrine, Glasgow, Fontana Books.

Also referenced for the academia.edu version

Wednesday, November 21, 2007: The problem of evil: Defence vs. Theodicy

David A. Pailin: Wikipedia 

Cited 

David Arthur Pailin (1936–2021) graduated from Trinity College and became a leading British philosopher and theologian. He wrote numerous books, mostly in the 1980s and 1990s. He eventually became head of the Department of Philosophy of the University of Manchester.[1] In his work, he "took a critical realist approach to theology, with particular attention to the possibility of reconstructing a theism that is both credible and significant."[1] One reviewer wrote of his last collection of essays, 1994's Probing the Foundations: A study in Theistic Reconstruction: "The influence of process theology in Europe is restricted to some individuals. David Pailin, professor of philosophy of religion in the University of Manchester, is one of the most important of these."[2] 

References 

1 "Pailin, David Arthur". DMBI: A Dictionary of Methodism in Britain and Ireland. 

2 Sarot, M., Review of the book Probing the foundations, Bijdragen: International Journal for Philosophy and Theology, 1997. 

Cited 

Books

'Attitudes to Other Religions: Comparative Religion in Seventeenth and Eighteenth Century Britain (1984) 

Groundwork of Philosophy of Religion (1986) God and the Processes of Reality (1989) 

The Anthropological Character of Theology (1990) 

A Gentle Touch: From a Theology of Handicap to a Theology of Human Being (1992) 

Probing the Foundations: A study in Theistic Reconstruction (1994)'

 

Methodology and Post-Modern Influence (PhD edit): Satire Und Theology Version

Methodology and Post-Modern Influence (PhD edit)

Whitby Abbey and Saint Mary's Church (photo from trekearth.com) 

Preface

20090301

So far I have made about 2000 photocopies at Staples copy centre for my PhD revisions. I joke with the employees that it is because I love photocopying. Two of the employees have suggested I work there. In a month's worth of work I have obtained, in my estimation, seventy percent of the materials required to complete revisions. Here is another section of PhD edit that has been trashed from the final copy.

20250201

This section was edited out of my PhD work. Slight revisions of this Blogger version for an entry on academia.edu.

Methodology and Post-Modern Influence: Ray S. Anderson

Post-modernism is a general term used to describe a variety of intellectual and cultural developments in the late twentieth century[1] within Western society.[2] Post-modern views generally embrace pluralism and place value in the diversity within philosophical worldviews and religions that represent modern society.[3] An element of post-modern thought,[4] according to Ray Anderson (2001), is the death of the appreciation of objective truth.[5] Truth is no longer objectively discovered, according to Anderson’s analysis of the times, rather it is experienced.[6] Although, from my Reformed, theological perspective, I do not primarily hold to this view, I can at least acknowledge that there is some truth to Anderson’s claim that truth is not merely objective.[7] I reason that God has revealed objective truth to us in Scripture,[8] but as Anderson explains the human heart is always an element in establishing a person’s mindset.[9]

Erickson explains that although Scripture presents objective truth, the application of Scripture may be different for each person.[10] Even if one reasons that objective truth exists, each person subjectively with his/her own mindset deals with data and knowledge in an individualistic way.[11] There needs to be solid church teachings that adequately explain Biblical doctrines within their original context, staying true to Biblical theology, and yet teaching should be flexible enough to provide explanations that vary at times in order to be relatable to differing modern groups and individuals. Anderson explains three ways in which post-modern thought impacts practical theology,[12] and I deduce these are methodological matters.

One, as post-modern thought celebrates diversity, it brings with it the idea of moral relativism. Anderson writes for practical theology, it is still vital that communities and not just individuals are important in gaining knowledge.[13] Anderson explains that since in post-modern thought reason is mistrusted, the truth of the Christian message must be experienced and lived out by those within the church. He writes that belief in the Christian message will take place when it is properly experienced.[14] I do not deny that the Christian faith needs to be adequately experienced within the process of belief, but within this thesis, in regard to theodicy, I have no desire to abandon reason. By examining theoretical theodicy I am reviewing the reasonable nature of each perspective. It is my view that Christian faith/philosophy has greater believability when it is theoretically reasonable and, as Anderson notes, when it is demonstrated as practical.[15] 

Two, a celebration of diversity leads to a demand for tolerance. There is often an objection to claims of universal truth.[16] Tolerance is defined by J.E. Wood Junior (1996) as the indulgence of belief or conduct other than one’s own. This would include respect for the opinions and practices of others when they are in conflict with one’s own.[17] I am in basic agreement with Wood’s definition and reason that various philosophical and religious concepts need to be tolerated in Western society.[18] However, I also agree with Wood as he noted there are disagreements in perspective,[19] and this is where I see the need within philosophical and practical theology for respectful dialogue with use of reason and data. 

Three, secularism has expanded at the expense of ecclesiastical authority in regard to dealing with social problems.[20] Anderson comments that the Holy Spirit needs to subject human hearts to the truth of Scripture.[21] I accept this proposition and realize that there are opportunities within both philosophical and practical theological approaches to teach theology and deal with social issues within a secular framework. The internet and worldwide web is a modern example where theologians, such as myself, respectfully present Biblical and theological data without the official support of any church or ecclesiastical leaders.[22] Certain Christians concentrate on social issues, and not all are necessarily operating under ecclesiastical support. 

[1] Continuing on into the present early twenty-first century. 

[2] Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 93). 

[3] Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 93).

[4] Post-modern thought shall be further discussed in Chapter Six. 

[5] Anderson (2001: 19). 

[6] Anderson (2001: 19). 

[7] Anderson (2001: 20).

[8] Erickson (1994: 251-253). 

[9] Anderson (2001: 20).

[10] Erickson (1994: 253). 

[11] Establishing theological arguments for and against objective truth would be a fascinating thesis, but I do not have the time and space to deal with this issue exhaustively here. I have presented my personal viewpoint on this topic within the tradition I represent.

[12] Anderson (2001: 20).

[13] Anderson (2001: 20).

[14] Anderson (2001: 20).

[15] Anderson (2001: 20).

[16] Anderson (2001: 20).

[17] Wood (1996: 1098).

[18] Wood (1996: 1098). 

[19] Wood (1996: 1098).

[20] Anderson (2001: 20).

[21] Anderson (2001: 20).

[22] Through Blogging and Facebook discussion groups, for example. 

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

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

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

FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (1986) Predestination and Free Will, in David Basinger and Randall Basinger (eds.), Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

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

FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (2001) No One Like Him, John S. Feinberg (gen.ed.), Wheaton, Illinois, Crossway Books.

GRENZ, STANLEY J. DAVID GURETZKI and CHERITH FEE NORDLING (1999) Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms, Downers Grove, Ill., InterVarsity Press. 

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

POJMAN, LOUIS P. (1996) Philosophy: The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company.

WOOD J.E., JR. (1996) ‘Tolerance’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.