DOCSLIB.ORG

A Dramatic Pentecostal/Charismatic Anti-Theodicy: Improvising on a Divine Performance of Lament

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Dramatic Pentecostal/Charismatic Anti-Theodicy: Improvising on a Divine Performance of Lament A DRAMATIC PENTECOSTAL/CHARISMATIC ANTI-THEODICY: IMPROVISING ON A DIVINE PERFORMANCE OF LAMENT By STEPHEN CHARLES TORR A thesis submitted to The University of Birmingham for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Theology and Religion College of Arts and Law The University of Birmingham March 2012 University of Birmingham Research Archive e-theses repository This unpublished thesis/dissertation is copyright of the author and/or third parties. The intellectual property rights of the author or third parties in respect of this work are as defined by The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or as modified by any successor legislation. Any use made of information contained in this thesis/dissertation must be in accordance with that legislation and must be properly acknowledged. Further distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the permission of the copyright holder. Abstract Stephen Charles Torr A Dramatic Pentecostal/Charismatic Anti-Theodicy: Improvising On a Divine Performance of Lament By engaging with Kevin Vanhoozer’s Theo-dramatic paradigm for understanding the metanarrative of salvation history, this thesis sets up and answers the question: What does it mean to produce a fitting Pentecostal/Charismatic performance in the face of seemingly innocent, meaningless suffering when God appears to be absent? The answer offered – classified, in reference to previous and current responses to the problem of evil and suffering, as an ‘Anti-Theodicy’ – provides Biblically rooted, systematic guidance for such a performance by proposing an improvisation on the divine command performance of Jesus during the suffering experienced in the Easter event. In proposing such an improvisation, it is argued that the practice of lament, so prominent in the Old Testament, becomes a Christologically qualified and justified practice to be used in the current scenes of the drama in response to the type of suffering in question. However, rather than simply arguing for recovery of this practice alone, a pneumatological twist is offered in which the Spirit is understood to be given as an aid to help with the practice of lament, post-ascension. In addition, practical suggestions are made regarding how the use of testimony in Pentecostal/Charismatic communities could be modified in the light of this thesis. Acknowledgements Undertaking and completing a project such as this one is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to do without help along the way. On the journey I have taken to reach this point there are a number of people who I owe a debt of gratitude for the support, encouragement, insight and guidance they have provided. My two supervisors, Dr. David Cheetham and Revd. Dr. Mark Cartledge, have continually given of their time and energy in enabling me to complete this work. Their reading and re-reading of what I have produced, as well as the constructive criticism and on-going encouragement that has poured forth in our many conversations, has been invaluable aid for the journey. It is primarily these contributions that have enabled the movement from some rough ideas, to the focused argument found in this thesis. For their help and friendship I am extremely thankful. I also wish to thank Dr. Scott Ellington and Prof. J. Richard Middleton for their contributions. The various conversations I have had with them in the course of this project have helped me to clarify my own thoughts as well as find fresh direction and inspiration. About the last quarter of this project has been undertaken whilst training for ordination at Ridley Hall, Cambridge. With that in mind I wish to acknowledge and thank the various staff at Ridley who have found ways for that training and this project to continue alongside each other. There are too many friends and family, who have provided in various ways to enable me to undertake and complete this project, to name individually here. I hope you know who you are and that I am deeply grateful and thankful for your love and support. Lastly, but most importantly of all, is my wife, Holly. Undertaking a project such as this one is no easy task, but it is much easier than having to live with and love the one who is doing it! Holly, thank you for your patience, sacrifice, support and love in walking this somewhat bumpy journey with me. Stephen Torr Ridley Hall, Cambridge Advent 2011 Contents Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................. 1 1.1. My Story .................................................................................................................... 1 1.2. Disciplinary Context .................................................................................................. 4 1.3. Methodology ............................................................................................................ 13 1.4. Outline of the Thesis ................................................................................................ 16 1.5. Relationship to Previous Pentecostal/Charismatic Work on Lament ...................... 23 1.6. Limitations ............................................................................................................... 26 1.7. Terminology............................................................................................................. 29 Chapter 2: An Overview of Christian Approaches to Evil and Suffering ............... 32 2.1. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 32 2.2. Defence Against the Problem of Evil ...................................................................... 34 2.2.1. Plantinga’s Free Will Defence .................................................................. 35 2.2.1.1. A Critique ........................................................................................ 39 2.3. Theodicy .................................................................................................................. 41 2.3.1. The Free Will Theodicy ............................................................................ 42 2.3.1.1. A Critique ........................................................................................ 45 2.3.2. The Irenaen Theodicy ............................................................................... 47 2.3.2.1. A Critique ........................................................................................ 51 2.3.3. The Openness Theodicy............................................................................ 53 2.3.3.1. A Critique ........................................................................................ 57 2.3.4. The Process Theodicy ............................................................................... 59 2.3.4.1. A Critique ........................................................................................ 63 2.3.5. A Critical Summary .................................................................................. 65 2.4. Anti-Theodicy .......................................................................................................... 66 2.4.1. The Problems of Theodicy: Re-Stated ...................................................... 67 2.4.2. The Nature and Role of God in Response to Evil and Suffering .............. 69 2.4.3. The Role of Humans in Response to Evil and Suffering .......................... 75 2.4.4. Critical Reflection ..................................................................................... 79 2.4.4.1. On the Nature and Role of God ....................................................... 79 2.4.4.2. On the Role of Humans ................................................................... 80 2.5. Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 82 Chapter 3: Pentecostal/Charismatic Approaches to Evil and Suffering ................. 84 3.1. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 84 3.2. Human Responsibility.............................................................................................. 90 3.2.1. The ‘Word of Faith’ Movement................................................................ 90 3.2.1.1. Question 1: Where Did Evil and Suffering Come From? ................ 91 3.2.1.2. Question 2: What is Understood by the Term Evil? ........................ 92 3.2.1.3. Question 3: What Can Be Done About Evil and Suffering and Who Can Do it? .......................................................................................... 93 3.2.2. Agnes Sanford........................................................................................... 98 3.2.2.1. Question 1: Where Did Evil and Suffering Come From? ............... 98 3.2.2.2. Question 2: What is Understood by the Term Evil? ........................ 99 3.2.2.3. Question 3: What Can Be Done About Evil and Suffering and Who Can Do it? ........................................................................................ 100 3.2.3. Morton T. Kelsey .................................................................................... 103 3.2.3.1. Question 1: Where Did Evil and Suffering Come From? .............. 103 3.2.3.2. Question 2: What is Understood by the Term Evil? ...................... 104 3.2.3.3. Question 3: What Can Be Done About Evil and Suffering and Who Can Do it? .......................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 'Come': Apologetics and the Witness of the Holy Spirit
    1 THE SPIRIT AND THE BRIDE SAY ‘COME’: APOLOGETICS AND THE WITNESS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT Kevin Kinghorn and Jerry L. Walls In a word, Christian apologetics is a defense of Christian theism. The Greek word apologia may refer to the kind of reasoned case a lawyer provides in defending the innocence of an accused person. Or, more broadly, the word may refer to any line of argument showing the truth of some position. 1 Peter 3:15 contains the instruction to Christians: “Always be prepared to give an answer [apologia] to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.”1 1. Testimony: human and divine Within the four Gospels one finds a heavy emphasis on human testimony in helping others come to beliefs about Christ. For example, St. Luke opens his Gospel by explaining to its recipient, Theophilus, that he is writing “an orderly account” of the life of Jesus “so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.” Luke describes himself as drawing together a written account of things “just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the Word.”2 As Richard Swinburne remarks, “it is hard to read the Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, and 1 Corinthians without seeing them as claiming that various historical events (above all, the Resurrection) occurred and that others can know these things on the testimony of the apostles to have seen them.”3 This passing down of apostolic testimony continued through the next generations of the early Christian Church.
    [Show full text]
  • The National Association of Baptist Professors of Religion
    College Theology Society The Human in a Dehumanizing World: Re-Examining Theological Anthropology and Its Implications Sixty-Seventh Annual Convention in conjunction with The National Association of Baptist Professors of Religion Thursday, June 3 – Saturday, June 5, 2021 **ALL TIMES CENTRAL** Thursday Evening Opening 6:00-6:45pm (CDT) Online Auditorium Welcome, Business Meeting, Award Presentations Mary Doak University of San Diego (CA) President, College Theology Society Thursday Plenary 7:00-8:30pm (CDT) Online Auditorium ID: Convention Co-Chair and Session Moderator Jessica Coblentz, Saint Mary’s College (IN) Love for the Annihilated: A Black Theological Reading of Angela’s Memorial Memorial Andrew L. Prevot Boston College Andrew L. Prevot is an associate professor in the Department of Theology at Boston College. His research interests include: prayer, spirituality, and mystical theology; political, liberation, and black theology; phenomenology and continental philosophy of religion; and Catholic systematic and fundamental theology. He is the author of Thinking Prayer: Theology and Spirituality Amid the Crises of Modernity (Notre Dame Press, 2015), and a number of article and book chapters in the fields of liberation theology, political theology, and philosophical theology. Dr Prevot’s address belongs to a burgeoning field of scholarship that addresses current social issues by drawing on Christian mystical sources. In particular, it argues that Angela of Foligno's struggle with an inner sense of personal nothingness resembles the psychological burdens of many suffering under anti-blackness and other dehumanizing regimes. It further contends that God's loving response to Angela points to the sort of love that is needed to address such injustices.
    [Show full text]
  • Theodicy: an Overview
    1 Theodicy: An Overview Introduction All of us struggle at one time or another in life with why evil happens to someone, either ourselves, our family, our friends, our nation, or perhaps some particularly disturbing instance in the news—a child raped, a school shooting, genocide in another country, a terrorist bombing. The following material is meant to give an overview of the discussion of this issue as it takes place in several circles, especially that of the Christian church. I. The Problem of Evil Defined Three terms, "the problem of evil," "theodicy," and "defense" are important to our discussion. The first two are often used as synonyms, but strictly speaking the problem of evil is the larger issue of which theodicy is a subset because one can have a secular problem of evil. Evil is understood as a problem when we seek to explain why it exists (Unde malum?) and what its relationship is to the world as a whole. Indeed, something might be considered evil when it calls into question our basic trust in the order and structure of our world. Peter Berger in particular has argued that explanations of evil are necessary for social structures to stay themselves against chaotic forces. It follows, then, that such an explanation has an impact on the whole person. As David Blumenthal observes, a good theodicy is one that has three characteristics: 1. "[I]t should leave one with one’s sense of reality intact." (It tells the truth about reality.) 2. "[I]t should leave one empowered within the intellectual-moral system in which one lives." (Namely, it should not deny God’s basic power or goodness.) 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Stewart, the GREATER GOOD DEFENSE: an ESSAY on the RATIONALITY of FAITH
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Asbury Theological Seminary Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers Volume 13 Issue 2 Article 12 4-1-1996 Stewart, THE GREATER GOOD DEFENSE: AN ESSAY ON THE RATIONALITY OF FAITH Jane Mary Trau Follow this and additional works at: https://place.asburyseminary.edu/faithandphilosophy Recommended Citation Trau, Jane Mary (1996) "Stewart, THE GREATER GOOD DEFENSE: AN ESSAY ON THE RATIONALITY OF FAITH," Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers: Vol. 13 : Iss. 2 , Article 12. Available at: https://place.asburyseminary.edu/faithandphilosophy/vol13/iss2/12 This Book Review is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at ePLACE: preserving, learning, and creative exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers by an authorized editor of ePLACE: preserving, learning, and creative exchange. BOOK REVIEWS 293 but they did have the concept of the natural powers of things. So an event which we might describe as transgressing a law of nature they might describe as exceeding the natural powers of the creatures involved. 9. In his fullest example of how a reported miracle might be assessed (on p. 161), he makes use of a pattern of supposed miracles. (The example is contained in the offset material above in the text.) 10. In his example on p. 161, Houston speaks of "well-attested reports" and "reports of some weight." Moreover, part of his reason for discounting miracle reports in other religions is the poor quality of their attestation (204-205).
    [Show full text]
  • Southwestern Journal of Theology 59.1
    CONCERNING HUMANITY Southwestern Journal of Theology EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Paige Patterson, President and Professor of Theology MANAGING EDITOR W. Madison Grace II, Assistant Professor of Baptist History and Theology and Director of the Oxford Study Program BOOK REVIEW EDITOR Joshua E. Williams, Associate Professor of Old Testament EDITORIAL BOARD Keith E. Eitel, Professor of Missions and World Christianity, Dean of the Roy Fish School of Evangelism and Missions, and Director of the World Missions Center Mark A. Howell, Senior Pastor, Hunters Glen Baptist Church, Plano, Texas Evan Lenow, Associate Professor of Ethics, Bobby L., Janis Eklund Chair of Stewardship, and Director of the Richard Land Center for Cultural Engagement Miles S. Mullin II, Vice President for Academic Administration and Professor of Religious History, Hannibal-LaGrange University Steven W. Smith, Vice President of Student Services and Professor of Communication Jerry Vines, Jerry Vines Ministries Malcolm B. Yarnell III, Research Professor of Systematic Theology EDITORIAL ASSISTANT Cole L. Peck The Southwestern Journal of Theology is indexed in the ATLA Religion Database, the Southern Baptist Periodical Index, and the Christian Periodical Index. Southwestern Journal of Theology invites English-language submissions of original research in biblical studies, historical theology, systematic theology, ethics, philosophy of religion, homiletics, pastoral ministry, evangelism, missiology, and related fields. Articles submitted for consideration should be neither published nor under review for publication elsewhere. The recommended length of articles is between 4000 and 8000 words. For information on editorial and stylistic requirements, please contact the journal’s Editorial Assistant at journal@ swbts.edu. Articles should be sent to the Managing Editor, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, P.O.
    [Show full text]
  • God and Universal Value Commensurability Yujin Nagasawa
    God and Universal Value Commensurability Yujin Nagasawa Department of Philosophy, University of Birmingham, UK [email protected] A first draft. Please do not quote. 1. Introduction In the eleventh century Anselm introduced a concept of God that is now widely accepted among Judaeo-Christian-Islamic theists: that than which no greater can be thought.1 Anselm presented primarily two applications of this concept: (i) We can construct the ontological argument for the existence of God from this concept; (ii) we can derive from this concept the proposition that God has such individual attributes as omniscience, omnipotence and omnibenevolence. Over the last nine hundred years philosophers have concentrated on these applications of the Anselmian concept of God. As to (i), they have tried to examine the cogency of the ontological argument. Some have attempted, in particular, to construct objections to the argument and some have tried to defend or improve on it. As to (ii), philosophers have tried to analyse the concepts of omniscience, omnipotence and omnibenevolence. Some have tried, in particular, to provide proper formulations of these attributes and some have tried to show the incoherence of and inconsistency between these attributes. Ironically, however, philosophers have rarely examined in detail the Anselmian concept of God itself. In exactly what sense is God that than which no greater can be thought? The most intuitive response to this question is to say that God is that than which no greater can be thought by virtue of occupying the top link in the ‘great chain of being’, a 1 Anselm, Proslogion, in M.J.
    [Show full text]
  • An Atheistic Argument from Ugliness
    AN ATHEISTIC ARGUMENT FROM UGLINESS SCOTT F. AIKIN & NICHOLAOS JONES Vanderbilt University University of Alabama in Huntsville Author posting. (c) European Journal of Philosophy of Religion 7.1 (Spring 2015). This is the author's version of the work. It is posted here for personal use, not for redistribution. The definitive version is available at http://www.philosophy-of- religion.eu/contents19.html This is a penultimate draft. Please cite only the published version. Abstract The theistic argument from beauty has what we call an ‘evil twin’, the argument from ugliness. The argument yields either what we call ‘atheist win’, or, when faced with aesthetic theodicies, ‘agnostic tie’ with the argument from beauty. 1 AN ATHEISTIC ARGUMENT FROM UGLINESS I. EVIL TWINS FOR TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENTS The theistic argument from beauty is a teleological argument. Teleological arguments take the following form: 1. The universe (or parts of it) exhibit property X 2. Property X is usually (if not always) brought about by the purposive actions of those who created objects for them to be X. 3. The cases mentioned in Premise 1 are not explained (or fully explained) by human action 4. Therefore: The universe is (likely) the product of a purposive agent who created it to be X, namely God. The variety of teleological arguments is as broad as substitution instances for X. The standard substitutions have been features of the universe (or it all) fine-tuned for life, or the fact of moral action. One further substitution has been beauty. Thus, arguments from beauty. A truism about teleological arguments is that they have evil twins.
    [Show full text]
  • Creation As Theodicy: in Defense of a Kabbalistic Approach to Evil
    Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers Volume 14 Issue 4 Article 6 10-1-1997 Creation as Theodicy: In Defense of a Kabbalistic Approach to Evil Robert Oakes Follow this and additional works at: https://place.asburyseminary.edu/faithandphilosophy Recommended Citation Oakes, Robert (1997) "Creation as Theodicy: In Defense of a Kabbalistic Approach to Evil," Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers: Vol. 14 : Iss. 4 , Article 6. DOI: 10.5840/faithphil199714441 Available at: https://place.asburyseminary.edu/faithandphilosophy/vol14/iss4/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at ePLACE: preserving, learning, and creative exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers by an authorized editor of ePLACE: preserving, learning, and creative exchange. CREATION AS THEODICY: IN DEFENSE OF A KABBALISTIC APPROACH TO EVIL Robert Oakes The doctrine of Tzimzum (or divine "withdrawal") occupies pride of place in the Jewish mystical tradition as a response to what is arguably the chief theo­ logical or metaphysical concern of that tradition: namely, how God's Infinity or Absolute Unlimitedness does not preclude the existence of a distinct domain of finite being. Alternatively, how can it be that God, by virtue of His Maximal Plenteousness, does not exhaust the whole of Reality? I attempt to show that, while a plausible argument - one that does not involve the idea of Tzimzum - can be mounted against this "pantheism" problem, the doctrine of Tzimzum has considerable force as the nucleus of a theodicy.
    [Show full text]
  • Christianity - the Afterlife and Judgement
    Christianity - The afterlife and judgement Task 1 – Write notes on what you know about the following beliefs in Christianity. If you don’t know anything at this point, that is fine : • Day of judgement – • Heaven – • Hell – • Purgatory – Task 2 – Answer the following questions: What can you remember about the parable of the sheep and the goats? Now read the Parable (separate document) and answer the questions below: What other units have we learnt about the parable in? How might it link with the work on Christian beliefs about the afterlife? Task 3 – Read the following Christian beliefs about the afterlife and answer the questions under each piece of information to help you understand the concepts: Christian beliefs about life after death may vary but many believe that: • They will be resurrected and receive eternal life after they die. What is meant resurrected? What does eternal life mean? • This is a gift from God, and dependant on faith in God. What do you think is meant by ‘dependant on faith in God?’ • They will be judged by God at some point after they die, either rewarded by being sent to heaven or punished by being sent to hell. What does judged by God actually mean? • This judgement will happen very soon after death or on the Day of Judgement. This is a time in the future when the world will end and Christ will come again to judge the living and the dead What do Christians believe about the day of judgement? Task 3: Some of the beliefs about life after death are found in the Apostles’ Creed.
    [Show full text]
  • “Grounding and Omniscience” (PDF)
    Grounding and Omniscience Abstract I’m going to argue that omniscience is impossible and therefore that there is no God.1 The argument turns on the notion of grounding. After illustrating and clarifying that notion, I’ll start the argument in earnest. The first step will be to lay out five claims, one of which is the claim that there is an omniscient being, and the other four of which are claims about grounding. I’ll prove that these five claims are inconsistent. Then I’ll argue for the truth of each of them except the claim that there is an omniscient being. From these arguments it follows that there are no omniscient beings and thus that there is no God. §1. Stage Setting The best way to get a grip on the notion of grounding – or more exactly, for our purposes, the notion of partial grounding - is by considering examples. (By “partial grounding” I mean “at-least-partial grounding”, just as mereologists mean “at-least-part of” by “part of”.) The first example hearkens back to Plato’s Euthyphro. Suppose that a theorist claims that as a matter of metaphysical necessity, a given act is morally right if and only if it is approved of by God. At first blush at least, it is plausible that this theorist owes us an answer to following question: when acts are right, are they right because God approves of them, or does he approve of them because they are right? We all understand this question right away, right when we first hear it.
    [Show full text]
  • |FREE| God, Freedom and Evil
    GOD, FREEDOM AND EVIL EBOOK Author: Alvin Plantinga Number of Pages: 121 pages Published Date: 21 Mar 1989 Publisher: William B Eerdmans Publishing Co Publication Country: Grand Rapids, United States Language: English ISBN: 9780802817310 Download Link: CLICK HERE God, Freedom And Evil Online Read Hick claims that it would be impossible Freedom and Evil the deity to have created human with free will and yet not with the ability to choose evil. Now that we have these definitions, Plantinga returns to the original question: could God have created any world He wanted to? Therefore, every world that God creates must have not only the possibility of evil in it but actual evil as well. Freedom and Evil contingent being is dependent on external states of affairs for its existence; it could either God or not exist. For those who hold that Freedom and Evil attempt at proving that there is a deity of any kind have failed because they are not psychologically convincing or logically compelling there is no Problem of Evil. God for the Existence of God. Feb 12, Wyatt Houtz rated it did not like it Shelves: abandoned. Coming Soon. God is not a contingent being. Related Papers. July 8, at pm. Why create a universe with even the possibility of corruption? Reviews God, Freedom And Evil Plantinga argues convincingly, I think the contrary: there is no contradiction. Now, add to this the observation that there is evil in the world. I worry a bit that modal logic is too weak of a tool to prove the existence of God in the sense that he is a being of maximal greatness.
    [Show full text]
  • A Theological Reading of the Gideon-Abimelech Narrative
    YAHWEH vERsus BAALISM A THEOLOGICAL READING OF THE GIDEON-ABIMELECH NARRATIVE WOLFGANG BLUEDORN A thesis submitted to Cheltenham and Gloucester College of Higher Education in accordance with the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty of Arts & Humanities April 1999 ABSTRACT This study attemptsto describethe contribution of the Abimelech narrative for the theologyof Judges.It is claimedthat the Gideonnarrative and the Abimelechnarrative need to be viewed as one narrative that focuseson the demonstrationof YHWH'S superiority over Baalism, and that the deliverance from the Midianites in the Gideon narrative, Abimelech's kingship, and the theme of retribution in the Abimelech narrative serve as the tangible matter by which the abstracttheological theme becomesnarratable. The introduction to the Gideon narrative, which focuses on Israel's idolatry in a previously unparalleled way in Judges,anticipates a theological narrative to demonstrate that YHWH is god. YHwH's prophet defines the general theological background and theme for the narrative by accusing Israel of having abandonedYHwH despite his deeds in their history and having worshipped foreign gods instead. YHWH calls Gideon to demolish the idolatrous objects of Baalism in response, so that Baalism becomes an example of any idolatrous cult. Joash as the representativeof Baalism specifies the defined theme by proposing that whichever god demonstrateshis divine power shall be recognised as god. The following episodesof the battle against the Midianites contrast Gideon's inadequateresources with his selfish attempt to be honoured for the victory, assignthe victory to YHWH,who remains in control and who thus demonstrateshis divine power, and show that Baal is not presentin the narrative.
    [Show full text]