beyond potence...deep power

after finishing n.t. wright's book on evil and the justice of God, i have been reading greg boyd's essays on his 'warfare worldview', you can read through them here:

• what is the warfare worldview?
• old testament support for the warfare worldview
• new testament support for the warfare worldview
• six theses of the warfare worldview

although i am not here embracing the 'open theism' of greg, my theological tendencies really agree with the warfare worldview he purports in these four essays, which culminate in his books: God at War and Satan and the Problem of Evil.

in one essay, this warfare worldview is juxtaposed with the blueprint worldview (which basically is along the classic lines of calvin and the extreme sovereignty of God issues, so much so that it embraces what aurelius augustinus called monergism and double predestinarianism, which essentially supports the idea that human agency is entirely passive and God's agency is all-determining for both universal salvation, individual salvation, but also going to the edge (and people like john piper go over the edge) of saying all good and evil come from God (either purposively or permissably). in fact - and you can look on your own - greg boyd and john piper, these two prominent followers of Jesus, have been sparring off in their blogs and elsewhere on the issues of monergism and synergism (boyd tends toward synergism, which essentially supports the idea that God's agency and human agency cooperate in history, salvation, etc.)

my preference for the warfare worldview aside, the basics of the arguments are historical, reaching back to the "calvinistic" and "arminian" views of God's sovereignty and human free will and beyond.

yet what if God goes beyond potence to deep power.

[definition: potence - forceful; the quality or state of being potent]

merely being forceful is not enough. satan is what we might call a potentate on a cosmic scale, but a mere potentate is no match for the perfectly rightful and infinitely powerful King.

[definition: power - a person or thing that possesses or exercises authority or influence; ability to do or act; capability of doing or accomplishing something]

this kind of power that can give agency and choice to others in love yet still accomplish their will is beyond potence; it has more to do with the the deeper, older magic that c.s. lewis refers to in his chronicles of narnia triology.

lewis' sentiment can also be heard in what bishop n.t. wright says in his book covering this topic: Evil and the Justice of God:

• "...we are summoned by the most powerful love in the world to live by the pattern of death and resurrection, repentance and forgiveness, in daily Christian living, in sure hope of eventual victory."
• "The call of the gospel is for the church to implement the victory of God in the world through suffering love. The cross is not just an example to be followed; it is an achievement to be worked out, put into practice. But it is an example nonetheless, because it is the exemplar - the template, the model - for what God now wants to do by his Spirit in the world, through his people. It is the start of the process of redemption, in which suffering and martyrdom are the paradoxical means by which victory is won."

what seems to be the issue in most of this is the significance or meaning of suffering.

the fact is that we suffer, and others we know suffer. this is a fact of experience.

we also know that the Lord jesus promised that if indeed we follow Him, we will suffer.

...but the hell of suffering is often the why, the severity of suffering sometimes comes down to the meaning of the suffering.

i witness that if you give meaning to suffering, it empowers the person suffering (most times), but meaningless suffering is the worst kind of suffering (and thus my dis-like for the blueprint worldview: it seems to make most suffering meaningless).

[aside: it is not that i do not think that suffering cannot be redemptive, for surely it can be. it is also not that i think God does not send some suffering into our lives, for surely He does, either to test us, or to discipline us; i just do not attend to the idea that life on this earth and history are just a meaningless, predetermined chess match for God...it goes immensely beyond that, for indeed, in this history of ours and beyond it i witness that God has changed. yes, you read that right, God - the most moved Mover - has changed, in that Christ, very God of very God, became one of us (the incarnation) and lived as one of us and died (was crucified) and has been raised form the dead in an immortal body: thus God has flesh and if i have my christology right, Christ will be flesh-and-blood (and more) eternally. God becamse one of us!!! He suffered as one of us...and He saved us, as both fully man and fully God.]

as to the 'warfare worldview', i appreciate how greg brings forth soemthing i have long held to based out of scripture, especially because of the quote below on this in Jesus life and ministry, because Jesus is the center and entry-point for me even caring about this stuff:

• "The theme of God striving to establish his sovereign will (his Kingdom) on earth over and against forces that oppose him is prevalent in the New Testament. In keeping with the apocalyptic climate of the time, there are many references to angels at war with God, demons that torment people, and the powerful being who leads this rebellion against the Creator. His name, of course, is Satan."
• "Suffering takes on a different meaning when it is considered in the context of a cosmic war as opposed to a context in which everything is part of God's meticulous plan and mysterious higher good. In the warfare worldview we would not wonder about what specific divine reason God might have had in allowing little children to be buried alive in mud or a little girl to be kidnapped. Instead, we would view these individuals as "victims of war" and assign the blame to human or demonic beings who oppose God's will. Following Scripture, we would of course look to God for comfort in the midst of our suffering, trust that he is working to bring good out of the evil, and find consolation in our confidence that the war will someday come to a glorious end. But we would not look to God's purposes for the explanation of why any particular evil occurred in the first place. In the warfare worldview, this is understood to be the result of the evil intentions and activity of human and angelic agents."
• "My conviction is that, unlike the questions that the blueprint worldview raises, this question has a plausible answer. The trinitarian warfare theodicy argues that the answer lies in the nature of love. As Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, God's essence is love (1 John 4:8, 16). God created the world for the purpose of displaying his triune love and inviting others to share in it (cf. John 17:20-25). I argue that it was not logically possible for God to have this objective without risking the possibility of war breaking out in his creation. The possibility of love among contingent creatures such as angels and humans entails the possibility of war. Six theses follow from the nature and risk of love. These theses, if accepted, render intelligible the warfare worldview of Scripture as well as the problem of evil."

so, a few questions:

• what do you think? are you more calvinistic and augustinian in your thinking about God's sovereignty and human free will or are you more arminian?
• what do you think of the warfare worldview? does it make sense? does it matter?
• what do you think about suffering and the meaning of suffering?