Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images? |
The major strength of Boyd's position is that, as he says repeatedly, evil is not a philosophical problem to be solved, but a reality to be fought. On a practical level, we do not look for God's "higher purposes" in the evil events that occur in the world. Instead, we are to resist them in acts of both spiritual and social activism.
This viewpoint, unlike many of the more popular Christian world-views out today, EXPECTS evil to befall the Christian (1 Pet. 4:12). The Christian is in the middle of a war with Satan and his angels. Bad things can and do happen to good people in warfare. God does not promise complete protection in this life but only that He will be victorious in the end and that nothing can separate us from His love (Rom. 8:35-39).
The book fails on two levels. First, Boyd uses many "minority" views to buttress his arguments. The Gap Theory of Genesis 1:1 is used not only to explain the apparent age of the earth, but to wedge Canaanite and other pagan creation myths into the Genesis account. Boyd also argues for the annihilation theory of hell and damnation. Finally, Boyd is a militant Arminian who argues that God not only cannot change the will of His creatures but that He also cannot know the future with definite knowledge. These minority, and sometimes radical views, can make the more orthodox of his readers uncomfortable and may cast doubt onto his larger thesis on evil.
Second, Boyd's book is basically a theodicy (reconciliation between a Good God and creation filled with evil). It fails on that level because Boyd sometimes appears to cast the argument between God's omniscience (which Boyd says is limited to the present and the past) and "unexpected" evil events. Normally a theodicy must reconcile God's omnipotence, not His omniscience, against a creation filled with evil. "If God is all powerful why does he allow evil to exist?" It appears Boyd must ultimately redefine God's omnipotence in the same way as he has redefined God's omniscience. But Boyd does not confront that argument in this book.
"For example, how is this view of things compatible with a belief in God's omnipotence? Why would God create a world in which his will is not necessarily carried out? Why would God create beings who have the power to hurt so many others? How are we to conceptualize God being influenced by our prayers? Can God guarantee ultimate victory over his rebellious foes and our spiritual cosmic nemeses? If so, why does he not simply destroy those rebel forces now? Why does he tarry while the innocent suffer?" (Page 166). All these questions Boyd recognizes and even asks, but then defers the answers to a future and yet unpublished work. This is frustrating for the discerning reader and weakens the force of the book.
Still I recommend the book strongly. The power of the major thesis overcomes the book's weaknesses. Also, when the (hopefully) forthcoming "Satan and the Problem of Evil" is published, many of these weaknesses will be resolved or at least sufficiently addressed.