Written by Mark Van Steenwyk : November 16, 2004
It seems to me that there has been little discussion within the emergent/pomo/post-liberal/post-evangelical/etc. dialogue about the nature of evil and the nature of Satan. Why do you suppose that is?
8 Responses to “An Evil Question”
Got something to say?
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Christarchy! is a growing network of small groups for people who want to put the ethical teachings of Jesus into practice.
Submergent is a network of leaders who, embracing the Anabaptist impulse, are living into the Kingdom of God in a postmodern, post-colonial, post-Christian world. Together, we will re-baptize the Christian imagination!
Anchored in the West Bank neighborhood of Minneapolis, Missio Dei is committed to following Jesus' way of peace, simplicity, prayer, and hospitality.
The Missio Dei Breviary includes morning and evening prayers for one month. Edited (and freely shared) by Missio Dei, it draws primarily upon the Gospels, reflects Anabaptist convictions, and emphasizes missional commitment.
Because Satan isn’t trendy enough.
That is a good point. Much is determined by trendiness. But who determines the trends? I think many of the current trends in the Church started out of a valid concern. I think many reject such trends simply because they are trendy, and therefore react back into 17th Century Calvinism (hence the popularity of John Piper and the like). I think serious thought about evil and Satan is probably neglected by most Christians–except our Pentecostal and Charismatic sisters and brothers, who tend to over-indulge in speculation about evil and the occult. WHere is the balanced view?
Because many of us come from contexts where ’spritual warfar’ and ‘deliverance’ were big (and sometimes pastorally destructive) themes, and we overcompensate by hardly mentioning evil/Satan at all?
Or because the people we encounter in our culture are already quite aware enough of the darkness, and we just want to bring in a candle?
The last thing the emergent movement needs is more candles.
It’s not only this, but people within the regular evangelical camp. For instance, Wolfhart Pannenberg and people in the theology of hope movement tend to not have this emphasis. Karls Barth, and Rhaner, Paul Tillich, and many other of the “big” theologians of the twentieth centuries haven’t emphasized this metaphysical reality. It’s much wider than the camps you have mentioned, Mark. Evangelical, post-evangelical, post-liberal, pomo, and emergent theologians need to come out of the liberal theology and philosophies that have made this de-emphasis possible to begin with.
ADDENDUM-
I forgot to mention that there is a growing number of scholars in whatever “camp” who are drawing from these significant figures in theology. For instance, Bethel Seminary’ LeRon Shults.
Does any tradition have an adequate theology of Satan? Honestly, the conservative Protestant tradition to me seems just as bankrupt in this area as the emergent/missional tradition (ah, it’s a tradition already!). If your main theological theme is the absolute sovereignty of God, then there’s not much point in talking about Satan. He is merely one of many “secondary causes.”
Alright, I’ll do it. You guys have brow beat me long enough, I’ll do it. I’ll write the definitive modern theodicy that has been lacking for over a century. And when I have completed this monstrous work, don’t say I never did anything for you.