PoE #2

In my previous post on this topic, I omitted one comment that is, I think, pertainant.

The syllogism quoted in the article is Deist, not Christian:

1. If God is all-good, He would want to destroy evil
2. If God is all-powerful, He could destroy evil
3. Evil exists
4. Therefore, an all-good, all-powerful God does not exist

 A Christian  syllogism would be:

1. If God is all-good, He would want to destroy evil
2. If God is all-powerful, He could destroy evil
3. Evil exists
4. God has acted to destroy evil, done so in Yeshua of Nazareth (the Messiah) and provided  means for us to turn away from it.
5. Therefore, an all-good, all-powerful God exists

NY or YN?

I've lately seen lots of people wearing this graphic. I guess they are a new type of Christian: the graphic Y N = Yeshua (the) Nazarene.

PoE

Not Edgar Allen, but the problem of evil.

There's a long post on this at Logic and Light, but I think in a way the point is missed.

The PoE is not a problem for Christians, it is a problem for the casual atheists (and the doctrinaire atheists), the casual pantheists and their pals, the casual panentheists.

Its a bit of a problem for Calvinists, of course, but I have no sympathy for them as they bring the problem upon their own heads.

Firstly, how do the atheists and other religionists deal with the problem? Generally they have to ignore it, deny it, or accept it. After all, for evolutionists (most people these days), there is no 'good' or 'evil'. They are mere terms for convenience and inconvenience and have no meaning beyond that. Thus for materialists.

The big question for this lot is where do they get the idea that evil is a 'thing' outside of personal evaluation? Who says that something is evil? Evil to whom and why? What does their 'world view' do about this problem that they can't even start to address?

Crickets.

Secondly, unless they have a good theology of creation, Christians will miss the point that comes from this sequence of verses:

Genesis 1:26

Genesis 2:15-17

Genesis 3:7

Psalm 115:16

The L&L post hinges on 'free will'. A philosophical concept. The Bible is not a philosophy book, although it does represent a grounded philosophy, it is the book of the relationship of God and man in context of his creation.

Evil is the disrelation of man and God; it is man being in the image disconnected from the image giver, it is man saying to God, 'thanks for the world, we'll do this ourselves now'. And that can happen in true relationship where there is no inherent binding, such as mother and child (that is, the mutual status will never change); to have a relationship of friends with someone, it must be possible to not be friends. To be given the earth, but discontinue relationship with the giver, and 'do' earth-stewardship without partnership with God...results in what we have.

You want to live without God (to the atheist), but you want the world to be like you live with God. Can't be done, and you choose this every day!

verse prayer

A small verse plaque: 1 Corinthians 8:6

Reading

Over the Christmas-January break I like to dip into some old favourite books.

A passage from one such book, N. T. Wright's Simply Christian, took my eye recently:

Reading scripture in worship is, first and foremost, the central way of celebrating who God is and what he's done.

So, please, no more little snippets from one book; let's plunge in: call to worship, celebratory or reflective psalm, substantial (but not excessively so) readings from the first and last testaments, reflective passage after the sermon, then benediction.

At my church you are lucky to get one small snippet of scripture in the service; its barely noticable in our, to my view, misguided 'seeker-sensitive' times. Of course, there are rarely any seekers there, and if there were, they would expect us to be thrilled about having the very word of God!

Soul Survivor

January is the month for 'guest' speakers at church, it seems. Paid staff off, and the on paid staff have run out of talking points, it would seem.

Still, a change is as good as a holiday, and it is not a bad idea to bring different views to the lecturn.

Sunday's effort was Matt Gelding, the NSW Soul Survivor director. He gave what I'd call an 'affect'-based talk. I was braced for this when I saw Matt praying with his hands at his waist level palms open facing upwards as though ready to carry a bag of concrete, mate.

As one of the young people there said to me 'it didn't have much in it'. I was expecting the person to be carried away by the emotional affect of the talk, but was so pleased that was not so; clearly my conversational partner had mind engaged but unsatisfied!

The first point for young Christians is knowledge, learning, not ethereal affect. Sure, part of our response to the indwelling Spirit is emotional, but we confuse 'heart' these days with the 'Hollywood' heart: insubstantial, solipsistic and uncommitted emotion: a feel-good, not a know-good. Admittedly Soul Survivor seeks to do the 'do good' part, but a quick look at its website tells me that the 'know-good' is probably not there, dealing more with affect than knowledge, or 'heart' as the whole person; which is more its usage in ancient times.

Then the name: Soul Survivor. It seems negative, off-putting, even, despite the obvious play on words. Just a 'survivor', and not a thriver? You need help, do you? Inadequate eh? Only one of you? It reminds me of the euphemistic names of social work organisations in mental health. Not a good connection. I don't like the name Salvation Army either, as an example from another direction. Its connotation is wrong as well.

I would think a positive, confident, assertive name would be better (that is, if it is an organisation that promotes a positive, confident, assertive, informed, self-aware, and world-aware, high content faith). Maybe something like Soul Squad? Not brilliant, but you get the point. Actually, any name that detracts from the full humanity that God created: body and soul, mind and emotion, is that little bit of betrayal of God's creation of us in his image.

Turin shroud

An old press clipping about a 'shroud' that should never have even been noticed.