Muslim/Christian Dialogue Overload

The Vatican warned against the overload of Muslim/Christian Dialogue. Such an overload could cause overlap and confusion. There is a proverb for this somewhere…wait.. there it is: “You may talk too much on the best of subjects” (Ben Frankiln).

Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran, head of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue said in an ingterview, “There is now so much interest in Christian-Muslim dialogue that it is getting hard to see where it is going.” Cardinal, you express my sentiments exactly. Where is all this dialogue going? Does anybody know? Let me ask a pertinent question: How many Muslims have come to faith since these dialogues began? No, not the Muslim faith, the true faith, i.e., faith in Christ as the only justifier of the ungodly.

More Folly to Come After a Loooooooong Hiatus

It’s been a long, long time since I did anything with this blog. Things became very busy for me, and, since I have two blogs, I had to make the decision to write for one or the other. I couldn’t write for both. So I ignorerd this one and wrote for the other. I was going to delete this one, but upon reading over what I wrote and some of the comments I received, I thought that it was a good idea to start up again. So, folks, there will be more Folly to come. Stay tuned…

How Hot is Your Pastor’s Wife?

Watch this commercial. There are times in my life when all I can say is, “What the…” This was one of those times. This is a commercial for City Church in Chicago.

Folly Unites Evangelicals and Progressives

Leaders from Evangelical and Progressive parties came together at the “Come Let Us Reason Together” Conference on October 10th to find common ground on divisive issues. I am so glad that liberals and evangelicals are now able to look past the differences that divide and look for ways to get along. There were free T-shirts given out at the conference with the caption, “Plays well with others.” (In the event that you did not read the sarcasm, there were no T-shirts given out.) 

What were some of the divisive issues? The article in the Christian Post listed nothing of the Trinity, nothing of Penal Substitution, nothing of the gospel whatsoever. It listed, however, things like abortion, homosexuality, the role of religion in public life, Darfur, and the environment. Does that mean that evangelicals and liberals now agree on theological issues? The purpose of the Conference was to look for ways to work with each other. For the life of me, I cannot think of any way how evangelicals could work with liberals unless the evangelicals have rejected the gospel of Christ as the liberals have. Let me be straight with you. There is no common ground between true Christianity and liberalism, and, sadly, it seems that there is no common ground anymore between true Christianity, and evangelicalism.

I hope and pray that a conference like this is indicative of the way things are going in the Evangelical world. This conference was by no means a step forward in the right direction. It is nothing more than apostacy.

Muslim and a Christian?

 The Rev. Ann Redding of Seattle Washington, an Episcopalian priest (priestess?), has made the shocking claim that she is both a Muslim and a Christian. Many of those who are either Muslim or Christian will ask, “How can you be a Christian and be a Muslim at the same time?” Indeed, Hisham Farajallah, president of the Islamic Center of Washington, said, “I don’t know how that works,” and Kurt Fredrickson of Fuller seminary said, “I don’t think it’s possible to be both just like you can’t be a Republican and a Democrat.” We were hoping for an answer from Folly herself on how it could be possible to be a Christian and a Muslim at the same time. She has not given us a satifactory answer yet. She was having a problem with getting past the “Jesus Christ is the Son of God and Redeemer of sinful humanity” clause within Christianity. When she figures it out we’ll let you know. On the upside of it all, Rev. Ann gets more holidays than the rest of us.

Folly on Happiness

The Christian Post reported on a survey done by the Associated Press and MTV on what makes American Youths happy. When asked what made them most happy, a large majority said a good relationship with parents; next was relationships with friends as well as romantic relationships. 8o percent of youths who thought spirituality was most important in their lives said they were happy with life.

The folks at Focus on the Family were giddy with the results of this survey saying, “A groundbreaking survey from an unlikely source backs up what family groups have been saying about kids all along and reveals teens are on the right track when it comes to their role models, family and sex. This is truly good news.” I am glad to see youth being family oriented and such, and I am glad to see youth going the opposite way of what MTV and Hollywood tell them. However, I cannot share in Focus on the Family’s giddiness because I still don’t think that youth are on the right track.

What is our ultimate source of happiness? Is it family? Is it relationships? Is it spirituality? Or is it God? I heard a lot of talk about family, friends, and spirituality being a sources for happiness, but these things do not have the capacity to make us happy. Our only source of happiness is God who is infinitly happy in himself. Read this sermon by John Piper and see if you can still conclude that those youths who were polled are really happy.

An Answer to Greg Boyd’s Argument from Demonically-Influenced Infirmities

Read Boyd’s argument here.

When people disagree over theological issues it seems like the opposing parties skip over the good points and focus only on the bad. I want to point out that I think Boyd has made a some good points about demons and their ability to influence the natural world. I also like his point that just because something can be explained scientifically does not rule out the supernatural aspect about it. That being said, I still have to take issue with Boyd’s hypothesis, and I will only relate a few observations in response.

1. Boyd’s explanation of “natural” evil falls short of the Biblical explanation. He says, “I’m summarizing my case for my belief that “natural” evil can only be adequately accounted for if we accept that fallen spirits have, to some extent, interfered with God’s good creational design for nature.” As I have mentioned earlier, Boyd has a problem with over-simplification. There are more things going on in this world than merely fallen spirits messing things up. Now, Boyd would have us believe that God has nothing to do with the bad things that happen; the Bible, however, says otherwise. Consider the case of Saul. After God had rejected Saul, he was plagued by an evil spirit. He had David come and play his harp and sing for him. Whenever David did this, the evil spirit left Saul.  It is not exactly clear as to what the evil spirit did to aggravate Saul, but it is clear that his infirmities were related to this evil spirit. So far we square with what Boyd says. But the Bible goes further and states that the evil spirit was “from the Lord,” or “from God.” (1 Sam. 16:14-23; see also the case of Abimelech and the men of Shechem, Judges 9:23; as well as the case where the Lord put a lying spirit in the mouths of the prophets, 1 Kings 22:19-23) I would be interested to see how Boyd weasels his way out of these and other explicit statements. Boyd, for some reason, won’t accept the fact that the infirmities in this world are from God. In fact, death itself, the ultimate infirmity, is a result of God’s sovereign decree. It is man’s lot to die once, (Heb. 9:27) why, because God declared, in judgment upon sinful humans, that the wages of sin would be death.

2. Even though many infirmities in the Bible are caused by evil spirits, not all infirmities are caused by them, nor can we say that all infirmities are a result of God’s judgment. Consider the case of the man who was born blind. The disciples asked Jesus, “Master, who did sin, this man or his parents, that he was born blind.” Jesus answered them, “Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.” (John 9:1-7) Now we may conclude that evil spirits were the cause of this man’s blindness, or we may simply say that he was blind as a result of natural causes. I tend to think that it was the latter, but whatever the case may be, it is clear that it was ordered by God for this man to be born blind, so that God might reveal His glory in this man.

3. Perhaps the greatest example of God’s sovereignty in sending spirits to afflict humans is the case of Job. The book of Job begins with Satan looking for a man to tempt. God tells Satan of Job. God permits Satan to harm Job’s resources and possessions but not Job himself. Satan causes great affliction upon Job, yet Job remains faithful to God. Satan, again, approaches God asking permission to harm Job himself. God gives him permission, and Satan afflicts Job with sores, yet he remains faithful to God. The rest of the book is about Job’s friends accusing Job of sin, yet they have no occasion to do so. Job all the while seeks an audience with God so that he might plead his cause. At the end of the book God visits Job in a whirlwind. God does not offer Job proof that He had nothing to do with his afflictions. He does not say to Job that He should not be blamed with Job’s problems. Rather, God affirms His sovereignty and states that Job is a man without knowledge. Job does not say to God, “You are right, it was Satan’s fault. I am sorry for blaming you.” Rather he says, “I know that thou canst do every thing and that no thought can be withholden from thee.”

4. The Bible tells us that sickness and other bad things happen as a result of God’s judgments upon wicked men. But sickness and other bad things can also happen because God is chastening those he loves. (Heb. 12:5-11) It doesn’t matter if the infirmity is caused by an evil spirit or not, God is still the one who ordained it. This should be a terror to those who do not believe in God. For whatever happens to them, whether good or ill, all things are a judgment upon them. Even the gospel itself is a savor unto death for those who do not believe. (2 Cor. 2:16) But for those who are the called according to God’s purposes all things, whether good or ill, are for their good. (Rom. 8:28)

5. This is unrelated to Boyd’s S. I. N. hypothesis, but I still take issue with it. Boyd takes the position that Gen. 6:2, 4 is referring to materialized angelic beings having sex with humans. There is no good argument that this is the case. Many scholars think that the Sons of God and the Daughters of Men are referring to the godly line of Seth and the ungodly line of Cain. Listen to Calvin on this passage: “That ancient figment, concerning the intercourse of angels with women, is abundantly refuted by its own absurdity; and it is surprising that learned men should formerly have been fascinated by ravings so gross and prodigious. The opinion also of the Chaldean paraphrase is frigid; namely, that promiscuous marriages between the sons of nobles, and the daughters of plebeians, is condemned. Moses, then, does not distinguish the sons of God from the daughters of men, because they were of dissimilar nature, or of different origin; but because they were the sons of God by adoption, whom he had set apart for himself; while the rest remained in their original condition.”

The Bible speaks clearly concerning the absolute sovereignty of God. “Whatsoever the Lord pleased, that he did in heaven, and in the earth, in the seas and all the deep places.” (Ps. 135:6) Boyd will not accept this and would rather place us in the hands of evil spirits rather than in the hands of Almighty God. I for one am thankful that God sends us the good along with the bad; I would rather it come from Him than any one else; wouldn’t you?

Folly Goes Reggae

  Good news for Reggae lovers! The Anglican Church in Jamaica will be adding songs from Bob Marley and Peter Tosh to their hymnals. I love it when the world and the Church get along so well together. I hope that they add “Buffalo Soldier” to the hymnal.

 On a side note: the Anglican Church has announced that they have added weed smoking as a sacrament.

Folly is Transgenderal

While many denominations are duking out over the nature of the atonement or the meaning of justification, the real issues are being overlooked. Should the Church be inclusive enough to let transgenders be pastors IS a real issue. Recently the Rt. Rev. Ann Gordon decided that being a woman wasn’t who God created her to be. (How silly of God to make a mistake like that!) Now she, excuse me, he is the Rt. Rev. Drew Pheonix. If you want the whole story go here. 

I personally think she should have left her (Sorry!!!! I mean his) name, Ann, and just added the Drew. Ann-Drew is a good name, I think. I guess this brings a whole new meaning to Open Hearts, Open Minds, Open Doors. Thankful for her…aaaarrrrrghhh, why do I keep doing that…HIM, the Untited Methodists’ Book of Discipline has nothing to say about transgender clergy. (One wonders if the Book of Discipline has anything to say about anything) Drew, it appears, is off the hook, that is, unless the one who wrote the real Book of Discipline has anything to say.

An Answer to Greg Boyd’s Argument from Animal Suffering

“To everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven.” And, finally, I have the time to blog! I am not the only one in history to complain about not having time to write. Luther’s excuse for not writing in response to Ersasmus was lack of time. NO, I am not comparing myself to Luther. That would be like comparing Paris Hilton to Albert Einstein (PLEASE don’t read into that!). Anyway, we at An Appraisal of Folly (Durell Flood and I, Steve Carr) promised to give an answer to Greg Boyd’s S. I. N. Hypothesis. Here is the long awaited first response (hopefully the other responses won’t take as long). The entirety of Boyd’s argument can be read here.

The problem of evil has plagued philosophers and theologians alike. One of the most famous arguments was given by Epicurus. It went something like this:  since evil exists, either God is not all powerful, or God is not all good. While this argument seems to have put God in a trap, it forgets that there may be a third possibility, i. e., God is all good and all powerful. Boyd’s understanding of the problem of evil has its starting point with Epicurus. He contends that the third possibility is not a viable option. In fact, he has not seen any convincing arguments for a third possibility, to which I conclude: either Boyd has not read any good arguments, or Boyd obstinately refuses to be convinced. This, actually, is not my conclusion; it is really an oversimplification of Boyd’s problem with the third possibility of the problem of evil. I only said that to point out that Boyd’s arguments are really an oversimplification. The biblical data does not give us an either/or like the Epicurean argument; rather, it gives us a both/and. Evil exists, yet God is BOTH all powerful AND all good.

With all that being said, my contention is 1.) Boyd’s arguments are an oversimplification of the reality of evil and an all powerful and all good God; 2.) there is no need to assume that the existence of evil and an all powerful and all good God violates the law of contradiction; and 3.) the biblical evidence suggests that God has sovereignly ordained all things that have and will come to pass including that which is evil. In the responses to follow I hope to demonstrate these things. 

Boyd begins by stating, “I contend that animal suffering is an evil that needs to be accounted for by theists who believe that God is all good and all powerful.” I have not read all theists, and I most likely have not read all the same books that Boyd has. The theists (mainly Reformed authors but also Roman Catholic and Evangelical ones as well) I have read have not specifically mentioned animal suffering in their writings; however, they do not exclude it. When the Westminster Divines stated that God “governs all creatures, actions, and things, from greatest even to the least,” I would suppose that they accounted for animal suffering. Especially since they cited Matt. 10:29-31 in the proof texts.  This text we will return to shortly.

One problem I have with Boyd’s argument is his lack of biblical proof. Now Boyd claims to be a biblical Christian, yet when he states that animal suffering “is an evil that should be avoided and remedied when possible,” he offers no biblical proof for this. He makes this claim based upon the fact that developed societies think this sort of behavior is wrong. What developed societies do is hardly the basis for building a case for the morality of a certain action. If Boyd claims to be a biblical Christian then he should let the Bible be his moral and ethical guide. I can think of several examples in the Bible that would lead us to believe that cruelty to animals is wrong; one of them would be Deut. 25:4.

This is not the only problem Boyd has. He makes the broad sweeping claim that animal suffering is an evil. Is it really? Is ALL animal suffering an evil? (Did I mention Boyd has a problem with oversimplification?) Are we to assume that when an owl snatches a mouse from the ground and eats it, that is evil? Is it evil when a mother bear inflicts suffering upon another animal because it was endangering her cub? I love to hunt and fish, and I have inflicted suffering on many Pikes and Walleyes, was that evil? Was it evil for me to shoot a deer? Was God being evil when he told man that they could eat of the animals as well as the plants? (Gen. 9:3) What about the animal sacrifices that God commanded the Israelites to make? (Lev. 1-4) Was God being evil then? Evil is an ethical word; in order to use the word evil we need to define it in biblical terms otherwise we end up calling evil, good and good, evil. I think Boyd needs to seriously rethink his argument and maybe qualify what he means by animal suffering. I think it is clear that not all animal suffering is an evil; otherwise we must call God unethical.

After making generalized (oversimplified) statements about animal suffering, Boyd gives us three options for who is to blame for animal suffering. “So,” he says, ”if we accept that God is the Creator of nature, and if it’s true that nature sometimes (often!) makes animals suffer, then it seems we have to either: a) hold that God is responsible for animal suffering, hence not all good; b) hold that God is all good, but animal suffering is necessary; or c) hold that free agents are responsible for animal suffering.” Once again Boyd skirts around that third option. Why does he do this? Is it so hard to come to terms with the sovereignty of God? The Biblical Data is clear: God is ultimately responsible (but not culpable for evil) for animal suffering AND He is all good. Animal suffering is necessary only in respect of God’s general decree of providence. I will grant the term “free agent,” although I use it in a more restricted sense, i. e., the will is free to choose but is bound to only do evil, (Rom. 8:7) and it can only operate within God’s set decrees. (Eph. 1:11) Those who are cruel to animals are responsible for their own cruelty and they should be justly punished. The free agents that are not humans, i. e., devils, have been known to inflict suffering onto animals, e. g., when the legion of devils went into the herd of swine and drove them off a cliff into the sea (incidently, though, it was Jesus who granted them permission to do so). However, should we conclude that every time an animal suffers without human involvement it is devil related? I mentioned Matt. 10:29 earlier. In that passage it seems like God has sovereign control over the life of a sparrow. I am not sure what exactly Boyd would say of that passage, but he just might say that that passage is relating to us God’s perfect knowledge of the present. The only problem is that the passage in its entire context is future related. We are not to worry about what might happen to us in the future becuase God has control over even the most minute details.

Christians should not take part in animal cruelty. It is lamentable that people kill for the sake of killing, or inflict harm for the sake of sport. But these actions are not outside the sovereign reach of God’s providence.  Neither are the deaths of countless sparrows who fall to the ground, and neither are you. Isn’t it comforting to know that God sees you as more worthy than a sparrow? Isn’t it reassuring to know that God holds your times in His hands? (Ps. 31:15)

Folly hath builded her an argument

It is an odd man who has not heard of Greg Boyd. He has written many books including Letters to a Sceptic and God at War. Besides being an author, he is the pastor of Woodland Hills Church in St. Paul, MN. He also has a website called Christus Victor Ministries. He had a blog on his website but has recently moved it here. Greg Boyd, as many of you may know, holds to a theology called “Open Theism,” which basically states that God did not create a fully determined world but left it open to the free agents, i. e. mankind, which he created. God does not know the future and, thus, cannot be responsible for the bad things that happen. In his blog, Boyd has developed an argument which he calls the “S. I. N. (Satan In Nature) hypothesis.” His contention…well, let him say what his contention is, “My contention [is] that natural evil can only be adequately explained if we accept that fallen spirits have to some degree corrupted nature.” He has seven arguments with which he defends his hypothesis. The argument from animal suffering, the argument from demonically-influenced infirmities, the argument from God’s creational battles, the argument from God’s non-violent creational ideal, the argument from a cursed nature, the argument from cosmic redemption, and an argument from the early church fathers. These seven arguments, he confesses, may not be the only ones he has. If he has further insights he will let us know. Will he gain further insights? We are all on the edge of our seats! We at An Appraisal of Folly would humbly like to take up the challenge of answering these arguments; it is a challenge because, we must admit, we are not as smart as Dr. Gregory Boyd. However, we are confindent in the assertions we are about to make. Stay tuned for “Answers to Boyd’s S. I. N. hypothesis.” Maybe Greg Boyd would be so good as to join us in our discussion.

Folly hath builded her a house and many other things

The Book of Proverbs says that “Wisdom hath builded her house;” Folly has built one for herself as well, and she found prime realestate within the Church. Since then, she has erected colleges, seminaries, and other institutions, and her insatiable desire to build has not been quenched. Everyday, it seems like, Folly has built something new. Although she is a genius of sorts, she is modest. She prefers not to use her real name in case someone should recognize her and give her praise. She would rather use names such as practicality, tolerance, sensitivity, open-mindedness, etc. At An Appraisal of Folly our desire is to expose her and give credit to whom credit is due. We will have regular updates regarding her activities in the churches in America and around the world.