Book Review: Greg Boyd’s “God At War”
Disclaimer: If you’re looking for a video game you’re @ the wrong place. If you’re here for a theology book – you’ve searched correctly.
This book was on a req’d reading list for a class I’m taking on Biblical perspectives on evil. I’d heard Boyd’s argument before and found it deeply compelling – some of the best answers to the problem of evil – that I’ve ever heard. But at the same time it left me with questions – something wasn’t normal - in the sense that we are used to orthodoxy. After deeply studying the book, arguing it, debating it, discussing it – I think I get what’s not sitting well with me now, along with several classmates. The prof seems convinced; we remain unconvinced – although deeply compelled. I wouldn’t go so far as to call it heterodox - but it definitely is UN-orthodox. Here’s my review:
Boyd begins with a compelling argument for an examination of evil as a concrete, even incarnated reality, as opposed to abstraction which can only be known through “faceless, nameless statistics or abstract theorems” (34). Thereafter his entire position is grounded in this sort of realism, keeping the suffering of Zosia close at hand and consciously unavoidable as we delve into complex theodicy.
The main thrust of Boyd’s opening argument on the problem of evil simultaneously does two things: First, it challenges epistemological assumptions of how Christians have come to understand evil today, and secondly it offers an alternative theological and philosophical basis for our concept of evil. Boyd argues that our current, inherited theodicy wrongly indicts God in a hyper-sovereignty model of Providence, and detracts from the primary source of evil, Satan himself, as outlined by the Patristic and Biblical sources. He argues that it is the Augustinian framework and before that, the rubrics of Hellenistic philosophy that have shaped theodicy as we understand it today. In exposing this foundation as erroneous and at best, taken too far, Boyd is acting as ballast, strongly swaying the argument of theodicy back into a consideration of pre-classical perspectives on evil.
This brings us to a consideration of cosmology and the possibility of a pre-cosmology (as we understand creation according to the Judeo-Christian tradition). Boyd begins with a discussion of the Enuma Elish, and its bearings on the formation of the Judeo creation narrative. In this scheme, the Leviathan is equated with Tiamat, suggesting the primordial existence of evil, a decidedly different ontological starting point than we are used to. It is on this precise gestalt that our whole conception of evil pivots. Boyd argues that our understanding of the origins of evil determines our posture towards it; do we passively succumb to an evil that is providentially ordained, or do we war and rail against an evil that has been there right from the beginning as enemy of our souls (and bodies, and lives)?
Personally I have found Boyd’s argument to be the most compelling theodicy I have ever encountered. However it is still with great difficulty that I divorce myself from the providential worldview. It creates somewhat of a crisis in me; if God is not ordaining all, then what assurance do I have? Perhaps it is helpful then to consider God as powerful Redeemer as opposed to Powerful Cause – for a God who can fix anything precludes the need for a God who causes everything; for such a God, being infinitely adaptive, has no need to be causative. Still there is greater force to the idea of God as cause of all. But then this can also be construed as entrapment within Hellenistic philosophical values. Perhaps then, it is best to understand this tension as dialectic as opposed to antinomy.
Concerning cosmological beginnings, Boyd concedes his framework to be “tentative and controversial” at best, and is right in asserting that his warfare premise still holds ground even if this “restorationist” understanding of Genesis 1 is rejected (113). Arguably, a sort of overall biblical coherence develops when one takes Boyd’s view into account, and several hitherto unanswerable questions seem to be adequately addressed (e.g., the origins of Satan, the fall of the angels), but it still remains an untried hypothesis and “should not be raised to the level of a doctrine” (his own words). Nonetheless he is right in asserting that the warfare perspective towards evil can still offer a compelling theodicy (and the resultant praxis) even without this approach to cosmology.
In the end I fear that the subject matter of this book may incorrectly place it exclusively within certain esoteric categories, thus rendering an otherwise powerful thesis silent and not taken seriously by the academic establishment, where it needs to be tried, tested, and applied.
Like
Thanks for this! I find it very enlightening. I believe Boyd is the one who started the “openness of God” controversy back in the 90s. We have to remember that the “evangelical theological establishment” is essentially Calvinist. Even if many scholars never address those types of issues, they tend to go to Calvinism and Augustinianism when confronted with questions of sovereignty, election, and evil. In fact, I think this is one of the reasons for a certain measure of snobbishness from theologians towards “pop evangelicalism”, which is basically unreflective arminianism. So you have the classical notion of God (tied to Greek categories, Augustinian, Anselmian and Calvinist) where perfection implies impassibility (the perfect can never change). A whole view of God flow from this: God is static, all events are predetermined, evil is part of God’s plan, the universe occurs in one “timeless” divine moment. It sounds good and orthodox because how can you go wrong if you apply the absolute best and most to God? And yet… I agree with Pinnock that the Bible presents us with a pre-philosophical view of God and of evil. It does not necessarily answer the questions we would like to pose. So the question is whether we will accept these topics in their biblical categories (which Boyd appears to be doing) or we will insert them in philosophical models. I favor the first option, but what are the implications? Is this a question of historical church doctrine vs. Bible? Is it evidence that the Bible is not sophisticated for modern thinking and it thus needs to be supplemented? Actually, no because the Classical view of God has been under criticism by moderns and postmoderns too, from Hegel to process theology. One thing I do believe quite firmly: If we are going to take the personhood of God seriously we cannot invest ourselves in a theology that does not allow him to be relational. Thanks for letting me ramble.
Here’s what I really like about Boyd: in his re-addressal of Christian cosmology he’s not vindictive, that is to say, he’s not out to disprove the foundations of Xian religion, but rather seeking to provide pastoral and pietistc answers to the ques of evil. As Barth would say, “he too, is a Xian”