Refuting the Trinity? A Quick Response to L. Bryan Burke

I stumbled upon a common anti-trinitarian argument on Twitter this week. Although the argument is a common enough one, it is rare to see it stated in logical form. Here it is, as propagated by L. Bryan Burke, who presents it as a proof that the Trinity is not logically possible. This is a much stronger claim than saying that the trinity is not supported by the Biblical evidence, for it claims that the trinity cannot even possibly be true. Here is his argument:

1. There’s only 1 Most High God.
2. The Father is the Most High God.
3. Jesus is not the Father.
4. Therefore, Jesus is not the Most High God.

Burke ends with a challenge: “Which premise can trinitarians deny?”

Let me get one quibble out of the way first. Even if this argument is successful, it certainly does not show that the trinity is logically impossible. All it would show is that Jesus is not God. That is nowhere near proving that the trinity is logically impossible.

Anyhow, let us look at each premise and see if there is an answer to his question, starting with premise 1. It’s probably safe to say that no trinitarian would or should deny this premise. Whatever model we use to throw light on the trinity, it is always the case that orthodox trinitarians are talking about one God. Monotheism is basic to orthodox Christianity, and no orthodox trinitarian will abandon monotheism. So, premise one appears sound and cannot be denied by the defender of the trinity.

Let us next look at the premise that some trinitarians might be tempted to deny, premise 3. The position called “modalism” is one route that some Christians have taken to avoid the conclusion of arguments such as the one above. This position denies that Father, Son, & Holy Spirit are different at all. Instead, they are taken as 3 forms of the same divine person. For instance, I once heard a modalist preacher say “After Jesus’s ascension, he returned as the Holy Spirit.” The image here is of a single actor with 3 different costumes or masks for different roles that he or she plays. This is not orthodox trinitarianism and is regarded by orthodox thought as a heresy. So, if our local friendly trinitarian wants to remain faithful to orthodoxy, as well as avoid absurdities like Jesus was in the Garden of Gethsemane talking to himself (since on Modalism Jesus just is the Father), then she must also affirm premise 3: “Jesus is not the Father.”

This leaves us with premise two: “The Father is the Most High God.” Again, this looks like something the trinitarian cannot deny, after all the trinitarian will affirm “The Father is God.” However, it seems to me that with premise two the unitarian is a bit sneaky and through this sneakiness he seeks to make his mischief. Once we see through it, we will find that the trinitarian can escape the unitarian’s argument.

The fundamental problem is that premise 2 trades on an imprecision, which makes it vague. What is actually meant by saying “The Father is the Most High God”? The unitarian and the trinitarian do not, in fact, have a univocal understanding of this premise. If the premise means something like “The Father alone is the only divine person,” then there is no reason at all for the trinitarian to grant the premise. However, if the premise means something like “The Father shares in the divine essence,” then the trinitarian will grant the premise, but now the conclusion simply does not follow. The unitarian needs the trinitarian to read premise 2 the way the unitarian does, but that is simply begging the question against trinitarianism. The trinitarian does indeed affirm the premise, but not with the understanding the unitarian gives the premise. For the trinitarian the technically correct premise would be “The trinity is the Most High God,” with 3 divine persons sharing in the divine essence. The argument is therefore a patent failure due to the equivocal readings of premise 2.

Whether a unitarian or trinitarian understanding of the nature of God is true, there is no way to avoid the hard work of laying out the scriptural witness and arguing which view best systematizes it. The question cannot be settled by a neat little deductive argument containing a vague premise, and which glosses over the actual issue at stake and masks the subtlety of trinitarian understandings of God. The doctrine of the trinity has a long pedigree within Christian thought and is often taken to be so central that it is a chief marker of orthodoxy. It was arrived at by way of a reflection on the scriptural witness which appears to suggest there is one God, but that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. If the unitarian wants to challenge this understanding of God, it will have to be done by challenging this interpretation of the scriptural witness. A deductive question begging argument simply is not good enough.

Stephen J. Graham

The Meagre Moral Fruits of Twitter Engagement – Some Clarification Concerning an Accusation

Benjamin Watkins of Real Atheology was on the receiving end of a block from me this week on Twitter. In response he tells his followers that he was blocked because he “called out his analogy between transgender inclusion and acts of pedophilia.” Firstly, that was not the reason I blocked him, and secondly, I made no such analogy (as I had already made clear to him). I blocked Watkins for this reason: rather than engage in a reasonable dialogue about a point I made, he simply slapped me with the “transphobic” label and accused me of “meagre moral fruits” (a branding he stamps frequently on Christians who dare take a different moral position from him on some point).

My original tweet – in response to the Dalai Lama asking a young boy to suck his tongue – said this: “Who had “Dalai Lama turns out to be paedo freak” on their 2023 bingo card? The world just gets worse and worse with every passing day.” I jokingly followed up with this: “I’m assuming he’ll be in talks with Budweiser soon?” – a reference to the recent controversial decision by that company to employ Dylan Mulvaney in its advertising.

Now, I accept this might have been open to misunderstanding, so Watkins initially sought clarity: “The recent Budweiser controversy involves a transgender person and Budweiser’s support for LGBTQ rights. The recent controversy with the Dalai Lama involves acts of pedophilia. Are you really suggesting these two things are analogous, because if so…[LINK TO ARTICLE ABOUT HIS PET TOPIC OF MEAGRE MORAL FRUITS].

Sure, I see how he could have been concerned about my comment. The nature of Twitter is it is brief and a lot of meaning and intent can be “lost in translation.” So, I responded to clarify the analogy I was making:

“Analogous insofar as both would involve a company throwing themselves at something controversial and (frankly) offensive to try to make sales.”

Watkins replied with “Social equality and inclusion for transgender persons shouldn’t be controversial and the judgment that it is “offensive” is a meager moral fruit. I stand by my claim then.”

Well, that missed the point. I was particularly referring to Dylan Mulvaney, who is widely considered to be controversial amongst many people broadly sympathetic to trans issues. Mulvaney is not even considered “trans” by some within that movement, and his portrayal of womanhood is considered offensive by many women. My point had nothing to do with “equality and inclusion for transgender persons.” So, I briefly explained: “He’s a bad actor, in my view; presenting a crude caricature of femininity. Strikes a lot of women as offensive too. Aligning beliefs with reality isn’t a “meager moral fruit.” You throw that phrase around a lot. It’s not worth much, to be honest.”

Watkins continued to miss my point and again accused me of making an analogy I wasn’t actually making: “A ‘crude caricature of femininity’ is not even remotely analogous to pedophilia. That’s the meagre moral fruit. I couldn’t care less if you’re offended by social equality and inclusion for LGBT persons. It turns out *moral* facts also don’t care about your feelings.”

I confess I found that tiresome because he was missing the point again and flat out ignoring what I had said. So, I invited him to go back and re-read what I actually said, to which Watkins replied “I’m well aware of what you wrote [HE CLEARLY WASN’T], and you are well aware of the analogy you are trying to draw [YES, BUT WATKINS WASN’T]. Playing coy isn’t a good look. Then again, neither is transphobia.”

That got a block from me. Tiresomely throwing around labels rather than listening to and engaging with a point I was making was the final straw. Moreover, it was incredibly disappointing that Watkins accused me in this way (without any Benefit of the doubt) for a number of reasons: I had already explained my intent, I have had positive engagements with Watkins in the past, and I had recently donated $100 to a GoFundMe campaign of his to help pay the medical bills for a sick relative. To be accused of “meagre moral fruits” was particularly galling, and a far cry from the charitable nature Watkins paints for himself on social media.

In a subsequent tweet in response to another person, he defended his accusation of “meagre moral fruits” with this: “I think it’s morally disgusting and utterly abhorrent when Christians (or anyone else for that matter) compare the acts of the LGBT community to acts of pedophilia. My respect extends widely among views that disagree with my own, but that is simply a bridge too far.”

As should be clear by now: I did not do that. That is clumsy, lazy thinking, bordering on dishonest, which makes his constant complaints about “meagre moral fruits” somewhat ironic.

In a response to someone who pointed out his misrepresentation he said: “I’m open to clarification.” He already got the clarification. He chose to ignore it.

Stephen J. Graham

Evil is a Minor Thing – Richard Swinburne

A debate clip was posted recently on Twitter of Christian philosopher Richard Swinburne making some cursory comments about evil:

“The world is a good place….most people in the world are pretty good people…evil is a minor thing in the world, in the structure of things.”

This caused a mixed reaction, from head-scratching bemusement to outright dismissal. It’s obviously false, right? Evil is a minor thing? Tell that to victims of child abuse! Go preach it in Belsen!

However, when properly understood, Swinburne’s comments strike me as obviously correct, and in fact it’s odd that people should be surprised that a Christian philosopher would say such a thing. I want, therefore, to make just a few very quick observations about the comments.

Firstly, Swinburne is a first-rate philosopher who is incredibly careful and measured in his language. Moreover, Swinburne has written a lot about the problem of evil, and it is clear from his written work – both quantity and style – that he takes it very seriously. His comment in this debate was not intended to dismiss the reality or gravity of individual evils faced by very real people. No Christian writing today on the problem of evil would dismiss the horrendous sufferings of the holocaust, the gulag, napalm, starvation, or disease. It’s not as if Swinburne is looking at a drowning child saying “it’s OK, your suffering is only minor, don’t worry about it!” He’s talking at a higher level than that – about “the structure of things.” Arguing that evil is a minor thing in the world is very different from saying that the evil that happens to people is minor.

Secondly, he’s drawing attention – quite rightly – to the enormous amount of good in the world. Much of this good goes unreported precisely because it’s normal. We look after our elderly parents. We educate and discipline our children. We give to charity. Most of us are productive members of society who add to the common good in hundreds of small ways daily: we thank a taxi driver, we make a cup of tea for an upset friend, we help an elderly man lift his groceries into his car, we hold the door for the person behind us. There’s so much good in the world that it’s utterly banal. Evil in the world stands out precisely because it is abnormal. Of course, the media will always focus on the negative – fear and anxiety is one of the best ways to get a news audience. They will report knife crime in London as if every third person in the city is under threat. It massively distorts our perception of the amounts of good and evil in the world.

Thirdly, and finally, Christians typically have a different understanding of what “the world” actually refers to. To the naturalist the world is simply 13.5 billion years of chaos, and each human life within it nothing other than about 3 score and ten, if we’re lucky. However, that’s not the Christian view of the world at all. For Christians, “the world” is the entire state of affairs including such incommensurable goods as salvation, the ultimate defeat of evil, and eternal life. Whether or not evil is mild or minor if naturalism is true is a different question, and the Christian isn’t obliged to make his case within the confines of a naturalistic worldview. Naturalists – I’m sorry to say – don’t call the tune to which we all must dance.

To illustrate the difference: Imagine a white circle with a diameter of 3 inches. Within this white circle imagine now a large black dot measuring 2 inches in diameter. Let the black dot represent evil and the white dot present good; together they symbolize the good and evil in our world. As things stand the black dot takes up most of the space. That’s perhaps the view of the pessimistic naturalist. But now consider the notion of eternal life in Christianity. The white dot begins to expand, while the black stays steady. Imagine now the white dot measures 58 miles in diameter and the black dot within remains at only 2 inches: seemingly, “evil is a minor thing in the world, in the structure of things.”

Stephen J. Graham

Charismatic Christianity & Bogus Miracle Claims

I took part in a podcast recently with The Non-Alchemist in which we discussed supernatural claims within the modern Pentecostal and charismatic movements.

You can access the podcast here: https://youtu.be/0VPhg1-xI2c

Stephen J Graham

Why do Churches not Teach Christian Belief Properly?

Christianity is a worldview, a set of beliefs and practices about reality. The content of Christian belief has taken shape over centuries in various creeds and confessions of faith, some of which were painstakingly debated for years. Doctrinal belief has traditionally been of utmost importance to the Christian Church. And yet it occurred to me that in around 25 years of church attendance I have never attended a church – or even heard of one in my native Northern Ireland – that provides a dedicated course for doctrinal teaching. This strikes me as grossly negligent.

I remember as a young graduate being asked to assist a presbyterian minister in leading an Alpha Course. I was charged with leading group discussion through the issues and attempting to answer questions that were raised. I was a bit nervous about it but was pleased to discover that a church elder was placed in my group to assist me. I remember one discussion around the doctrine of the trinity. It quickly became apparent that this church elder hadn’t the foggiest idea how to state and defend the doctrine. Even worse: he hadn’t even got a clue concerning the pertinent biblical texts. He had been an elder in the Presbyterian Church in Ireland for years and was completely lost how to state and defend a central Christian doctrine. How can that happen?

It happened because this church – with so many others – neglected to equip its members to understand, articulate and defend their Christian convictions. For many church attenders their only teaching is a 20-45 minute weekly sermon that, frankly, tends to be something of a meandering ramble around a biblical text, often at the mercy of the minister’s interests. From one week to the next sermons are rarely connected, and there is little to no systematic expounding of what Christians believe and why.

And yet it strikes me as crucial that Christians have a sound grasp of what they believe and why. It might seem a little quaint these days, but the bottom line is that Christianity is an entire worldview and as such commits followers to a set of beliefs concerning reality: God exists, God has certain properties such as omnipotence and eternity, God created the world, humankind is fallen and in need of redemption, God the Son became incarnate to provide atonement for sin, Christ rose again from the dead, and so on and so forth. Simply by being a Christian a person is committed to a set of basic beliefs, and the Christian can thus be a good theologian – understanding and defending his/her beliefs – or a bad one – like the elder who had no idea how to articulate his belief let alone find any biblical basis for it.

Unfortunately, too often these days Christians are challenged simply to live a certain way: be good to others, love our enemies, and experience the love of God. As important as such things are, there’s no getting away from the intellectual elements of Christianity. How does one live like a Christian if one cannot understand what a Christian is? An atheist can be a good person and love her enemies too, but that’s not enough to make someone a Christian.

There are important aspects of Christian faith that require a good understanding of Christian doctrine. For instance, one biblical tradition calls us to love God with all our minds. In fact, when asked what the greatest commandment is, Jesus replied: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.” Studying and reflecting on the nature and person of God is surely one element of this.

Furthermore, the importance of being able to articulate and defend one’s belief is crucial for anyone, particularly in western culture. Being able to lay out a belief and say why you hold it is a basic requirement for anyone who seeks to discuss faith in secular culture. There is no getting away from that. I almost never – ever – speak to people about religious issues without having to address why certain beliefs are held. If you want a place at the table of ideas these days, you simply cannot ignore the giving of reasons for the things you believe. Without doing so, you cannot hope to influence culture, and in fact you simply contribute to the cultural assumption that not only are Christians unable to defend their beliefs, they cannot even state them. People are interested in rational arguments. They almost always engage and naturally ask the “why” question. It seems to me that if anyone has a chance winning the ear of any such people it will be those who understand their faith and who can state and defend it.

Of course, the kind of systematic learning I’m speaking of isn’t for everyone. However, I think we often underestimate people and assume they have neither the time nor intelligence. However, embarking on a basic systematic study needn’t take any more time than an hour or so a week, and the average person watches TV for 3-5 hours a day! Further, the intellectual acumen required isn’t beyond the reach of adults with an average education – we’re talking the basics here. Sadly, we often patronize people. I remember hearing a youth pastor say that the finer points of doctrine would be beyond his group. This group included young people who had embarked on university courses in subjects like biology and chemistry. So, these students can be expected to grasp the workings of biological systems, electrons, scientific formulae, but don’t have the ability to learn how to state and defend central Christian doctrines? They have to be fed a diet of cutesy motivational nonsense instead?

We need to give people more credit than that. Not only do Christians deserve better, but an unbelieving world deserves a better class of Christian.

Stephen J. Graham

Criteria for Recognising Cases of Demon Possession: A Response to John Woolmer – Part 2

In his book “The Devil Goes Missing?” John Woolmer presents 5 criteria for recognising a case of demon possession:

1. Being simultaneously attracted to and repelled by Jesus. 

2. Speaking in voices not one’s own – this can be unknown languages or manners of speech untypical of the person themselves. 

3. Possessing super-human strength. 

4. Engaging in self-harm. 

5. Having wild or blazing eyes. 

In Part One I discussed the first two criteria, commenting that the real-life examples Woolmer provides are far from convincing. In this part I examine criteria 3-5.

3. Superhuman Strength

Woolmer’s example of the strength criterion concerns a man – James – who called to his manse and collapsed, unable to talk. After confessing to having beaten his wife, he asked Woolmer to go and see if she was OK. Woolmer went to James’ home and found his wife was calm. She told Woolmer that her husband was “a binge-drinker and these things happen.” By the time Woolmer returned to his own home, where James had been left with some of Woolmer’s friends, the dining table was upended and James was growling and gnawing at one of the legs with 4 policemen trying to restrain him. Woolmer reports that on another occasion James broke a chair he was sitting in and later Woolmer thought James was about to pull a pew out in Woolmer’s church. 

Super-human strength? I hardly think so. In passing, Woolmer mentions a crucial detail about this man, describing him as a “large, tall ex-marine…over 6-foot.” That certainly puts things in a different light! I’m not far off 6 foot and currently weigh 182lbs, and I reckon I could make it difficult for 4 policemen to restrain me. Breaking a chair or almost breaking a church pew strike me as feats that are well within the natural capabilities of a large, tall ex-marine.

4. Self-Harming

Woolmer remarks that self-harming is often a symptom of physical or sexual abuse, or severe emotional distress. Mental health problems such as anxiety and depression can cause self-harm up to and including suicide. Oddly, the example Woolmer provides is of a woman who engaged in self-harm, but about whom he says, “there was nothing demonic in her actions, but they did display an inner turmoil which needed to be addressed.” So, after years in deliverance ministry Woolmer illustrates an example of a criterion for demon possession that by his own admission didn’t actually involve demon possession? 

5. Wild/Blazing Eyes

The example provided by Woolmer of “wild/blazing eyes” isn’t obviously a case of possession either. It involves a woman in the midst of depression who had suffered at the hands of her abusive Mason father. After Woolmer had prayed to cut her free from masonic influence, “her eyes had changed. They looked much clearer. The depression had lifted.” It’s great that Woolmer was able to help a woman in the midst of a deep depression, but we must be careful not to read more into the case than there actually is. Eyes can convey all manner of emotions: from joy to anger, and they can flash from one emotion to another incredibly quickly. Often “wild/blazing eyes” is symptomatic of psychosis, drug addiction, extreme anxiety, and even minor infections. My late father in law would always have a wild look in his eyes when he had nothing more sinister than a urinary tract infection. Others simply have a wild look about them for no other reason than that’s simply how they look! To be fair to Woolmer, I think he would readily agree. However, he presents no way to differentiate between a case of demon possession and something completely natural, and this is perhaps my biggest criticism of him concerning any of his 5 criteria.

Although these are the main criteria Woolmer discusses, he does add others: unexpected deafness, mocking laughter, severe shaking, inability to speak, inexplicable fear, retching, and uncontrollable coughing. Space prevents me dealing with each of these, and I fear the reader is bored enough already. Suffice to say much the same can be said of all these symptoms. There’s just one other that almost all “exorcists” or practitioners of “deliverance ministry” speak of, and I suspect it’s the crucial one: discernment. Often it’s described as a feeling or sensing that such and such is the case. What are mere mortals supposed to do, then? It seems we can do one of two things: we can take the word of the ‘spiritually enlightened’ when they tell us that someone is demon possessed, on the grounds that they’re in tune with the powers that be; or, alternatively, and more reasonably, we can remain skeptical and resist the notion that someone’s spiritual feelings provide good enough grounds for accepting a case of demon possession when there are perfectly good alternative explanations at hand.

Stephen J. Graham

 

Criteria for Recognising Cases of Demon Possession: A Response to John Woolmer – Part 1

What is required before we can rationally believe in something like demon possession? It seems to me that the defender of demon possession must clear 5 hurdles: 

1. They must provide a coherent account of what a demon actually is. 

2. They must provide reason to believe such entities actually exist. 

3. They need to present and defend an account of how possession is supposed to happen. 

4. They must provide criteria outlining how we can recognise a possession when one occurs. 

5. They need to present cases of actual possession. 

It is with Nos. 4 and 5 that I am concerned in these 2 articles. 

In his book “The Devil Goes Missing?” John Woolmer  – who for years has been involved in “deliverance ministry” – takes his cue from the story of the Gerasene demoniac in Mark Chapter 5, and presents five chief criteria for recognising a case of possession, criteria which he claims to have witnessed in his own deliverance ministry. 

Woolmer’s five criteria are: 

1. Being simultaneously attracted to and repelled by Jesus. 

2. Speaking in voices not one’s own – this can be unknown languages or manners of speech untypical of the person themselves. 

3. Possessing super-human strength. 

4. Engaging in self-harm. 

5. Having wild or blazing eyes. 

After laying out these criteria, Woolmer is careful to add: “they do not guarantee the presence of demons. Many psychiatric patients will exhibit similar signs and we must not rush to make diagnoses.” 

I think that’s worth noting, since the examples Woolmer himself provides are far from convincing.

In this Part I will look at the first two of these criteria, dealing with criteria 3-5 in Part 2. 

1. Being simultaneously attracted to and repelled by Jesus

Woolmer’s entire book is largely anecdotal. Concerning this first criterion, he tells us the story of a woman who came forward for prayer – willingly – but as she approached the altar there was a “violent reaction” and she “was thrown” to the ground. Woolmer adds: “We all had the impression that she was trying to levitate, which was something she claimed to be able to do.”   

As with so many of Woolmer’s anecdotes, there are few details provided. I’ve heard before the claim that possessed people would levitate if they weren’t being restrained, but frankly I wish people would just let go of them to see what happens! The upward force of a person on the ground trying to get up can easily feel like the person is rising – or, “trying to levitate.” Moreover, a person throwing themselves to the ground would look very much the same as someone who, allegedly, “was thrown.” These are certainly plausible aspects of an alternative explanation for what was going on. This woman may have had a personality that was prone to hysterical outbursts. She may have been suffering from schizophrenia – hence the attraction-repulsion episode. Perhaps she was an exhibitionist who was simply playing a scripted part. All these explanations are not even mentioned by Woolmer, and yet they seem eminently plausible in a case like this, and have been well known to feature in other similar cases of purported possession. 

2. Speaking in Strange Voices or Languages

Woolmer claims that people sometimes speak in languages not their own, or in tongues that “sound menacing.” He describes a creepy episode with a couple who called to his manse to make a complaint about something or other. In the course of the conversation the woman said, “I’m in league with the devil!” When Woolmer invited her to renounce the devil she screamed: “I renounce God!” Her demeanor then suddenly changed and she adopted the voice (and gait) of an old man. Woolmer describes her behaviour as “spiritually menacing” and tells us how she began speaking in a “strange guttural voice…like Latin backwards being spat out like a machine gun.” Woolmer began to speak in tongues himself and somehow calm was restored.  

What are we to make of this episode? Well, the key is provided by Woolmer himself: “We learnt from the medical profession that she had a personality disorder.” Seemingly, this woman would often speak in the voice of a person she called Hilda, and would show marks on her arms and throat which, she claimed, were from having been tied up and burnt at the stake in a previous incarnation. She also claimed that being anointed with holy oil burned her skin. 

Woolmer doesn’t say why he identifies this case as one of possession, since it is clear – and medically verified – that this woman was psychologically damaged. She had a personality disorder of some kind and was quite possibly engaging in a spot of imaginative play-acting, adopting certain cliches of possession: a guttural voice (the kind we are prone to imagine is used by evil spirits, thanks to movies such as The Exorcist) and being burned by anointing oil (hat-tip again to countless possession horror movies). 

In another case, Woolmer mentions an experience from his time in Zambia: “One of the women, or to be more accurate the spirit speaking through her, said “Go away. I m not leaving this person!” She was speaking in perfect Oxbridge English…a good mimic of mine.” Again, there’s little need for an other-worldly explanation when an appeal to something simple like mimicry will suffice.

Whilst it’s hard to judge from the scant details provided by Woolmer, we can at least say that thus far he’s presented precious little that would plausibly lead us to think that these criteria of demon possession really were instantiated.

I will discuss criteria 3-5 in Part 2.

Stephen J. Graham

The Devil & Evil: A Response to Woolmer & Green

In his book “The Devil Goes Missing?” Anglican minister John Woolmer suggests it isn’t possible to have a coherent doctrine of a loving God without also having an understanding of, and a belief in, the existence of Satan.  

He quotes approvingly from fellow Anglican Michael Green: 

“I believe the Christian doctrines of God, of man and of salvation are utterly untenable without the existence of Satan…The fallen nature of man and of everything he does, the self-destructive tendencies of every civilisation history has known, the prevalence of disease, together with nature, red in tooth and claw, unite to point to an outside enemy. I would like to ask theologians who are sceptical about the devil how they can give a satisfactory account of God if Satan is a figment of the imagination. Without the devil’s existence, the doctrine of God, a God who could have made such a world and allowed such horrors to take place daily within it, is utterly monstrous. Such a God would be no loving Father. He would be a pitiless tyrant.” 

Woolmer regards this as “a really important statement,” adding: “Remove Satan from our world view and we are inexorably challenged by the dark thought that God is at best incompetent, and at worst malicious. Human nature alone, however fallen, cannot really explain the horrors of Auschwitz, Stalin, Mao, Rwanda, Islamic State and all the rest.” 

It seems to me that Green and Woolmer make several errors.  

Firstly, events in the natural world appear to be the result of natural laws, not personal agency. The scientific evidence at our disposal – from fossil records, biological evolution, to cosmology – testifies to a universe which has developed over a very long time by a gradual process operating according to known laws of nature. These laws operate with uniform regularity. They certainly don’t appear to be the work of personal agents misusing their free-will. When a volcano erupts we are able to exhaust the reasons why in purely natural terms. Positing a personal agent for causing it is not something we either need to do or have any reason for doing.

Secondly, Woolmer and Green provide no reason why the moral evils of which they speak aren’t simply attributable to human agency. Why must we must posit a demonic influence behind Stalin or Mao? We know through our own experience that humans are capable of such evils. Surely the fact alluded to by Green himself – “the self-destructive tendencies of every civilisation history has known” – demonstrates that there is something dark in human nature itself quite apart from outside spiritual influence? We are moral creatures, and thus capable of the extremes of both good and evil. We are also natural creatures which can be broken – socially, psychologically, and emotionally – hence the existence of sociopaths, narcissists, and psychopaths. Moreover, we are learning all the time how humans can become broken: by culture, society, environment, upbringing, and genetic defect. If Woolmer and Green are going to put all this down to an outside agency they owe us some reason why it is that humans couldn’t possibly do such evil things off their own bat. As things stand, Green & Woolmer give us no such reason. Moreover, the bible itself frequently speaks of the nature of human beings in somewhat gloomy terms, and without chalking any of it up to demonic influence.

Thirdly, though they deny it, their view lapses into a quasi-dualistic position involving ultimate good and ultimate evil. Green in particular stresses that the devil is responsible for all manner of natural evils, not to mention the corruption of human civilisations. He appears to suggest that God had nothing to do with this and thus we must invoke the devil to make sense of it. However, is God not still sovereign? Green (and Woolmer) will say “of course he is,” and yet Green’s protestations are only valid if the devil is some kind of equal and opposite being to God. If God is truly sovereign, then the existence of the devil doesn’t solve the problem Green thinks it does, because we must still deal with “A God who could have made such a world.”

This brings us to the nub of this third error: their view doesn’t really solve the problem of evil and suffering in the way they think it does. Suppose it is true that the existence of Satan explains all manner of natural disasters, disease, the violence inherent in the natural world, and even the corruption of human civilisations. Where did Satan come from? If we want to avoid the kind of dualism we find in, say, Zoroastrianism wherein the forces of good under Ahura Mazda war constantly with the equal and opposite forces of evil under Angra Mainyu, then we must acknowledge that Satan himself was created by God. This brings us once again to the nub of the problem of evil: how evil and suffering exist in a world in which there is an omnipotent and omnibenevolent supreme power. God is still wholly responsible for the world.

We find here a problem faced by all theodicies that emphasise the fall as the reason for evil. Such theodicists seek to uphold the notion that God created all things good, but also that free creatures misused their free will, fell from grace, leading to all the evils in our world. It’s a neat way to uphold the goodness of God on the one hand and the guilt of the creature on the other. Except for a glaring problem, that is. Schleiermacher pointed out that this traditional picture was unintelligible. The problem is that we have unqualifiedly good beings, existing in the presence of God, inexplicably committing sin. If a creature sins, surely it was not flawless to begin with, and thus the creator – God – must share the responsibility for their fall. Schleiermacher adds: “the more perfect these good angels are supposed to have been, the less possible it is to find any motive but those presupposing a fall already, eg arrogance and envy.” In fact, this consideration led thinkers like Augustine to suppose that those angels who fell were simply predestined by God to do so. Had they shared the same blessedness of the good angels, they would never have fallen.

I find myself on the side of Schleiermacher here. God is not absolved of responsibility for evil by the existence and nature of Satan. On the contrary, He remains ultimately responsible for it, and thus we must look elsewhere for an explanation of evil, something Green and Woolmer don’t do. 

This brings me to my final point: Green and Woolmer display an ignorance of the philosophical literature wherein many theistic philosophers present defences and theodicies that make sense of the enigma of evil without resorting to “the devil did it.” For instance, Swinburne argues at length that the world must be ordered the way it is for humans to operate with significant freedom. Alternatively, John Hick draws our attention to how evils are necessary for our development towards God-centred being. Others, such as Paul Helm, argue that God has greater goods in mind which necessitate the world we live in, or something like it, goods which we perhaps cannot know. Or, maybe, Stephen Wykstra and William Alston are correct to say we can’t know God’s morally sufficient reasons for causing or permitting the existence of evils around us, but if we otherwise have good grounds for believing God is good, then the existence of evil isn’t a defeater for theism.

Whatever reason there might be for believing in the existence of the devil and other demonic beings, their existence is not required for making sense of the existence of God or the nature of the world.

Stephen J. Graham

Is Covid-19 a Divine Punishment? A Response to RT Kendall

Where is God in Covid-19? Did He cause it? If not, why does He permit it? These are questions theologians and philosophers have wrestled with through the ages. Of course, the name of the disaster changes, but the questions remain the same.

Philosophers have given lots of different answers to the questions posed by evil, suffering, and disasters (manmade or natural). Some point out that God has created free beings who choose to do evil things. Others say that natural evils are necessary in a world in which humans can have morally significant free will, or perhaps that such evils are part of the necessary environment for humans to grow towards a God-centred life through developing certain character traits that they could not otherwise develop. Alternatively, maybe the world we live in is a necessary environment for God to fix our wills and make us fit for an eternity of union with God (which is an incommensurable good far exceeding the happiness of earthly comforts).

Others, being more cautious, argue that God’s intellect is exceedingly greater than ours, such that if He has a purpose in evil there’s no reason to suppose we would be aware of it, and that our knowledge of the goods and evils in the world and the interconnections between things and events is extremely limited. Moreover, they remind us that our grasp of the divine nature and purposes is naturally riddled with enormous deficiencies, given the existential gap between divine being and human nature. A few others have chosen to bite the bullet, acknowledging that many of the world’s evils are simply gratuitous, resulting from life in a fallen world. In the latter case all there is to do is lament.

There are many variations on such themes, but in a recent article for Premier Christianity RT Kendall, a popular and influential Christian teacher, pastor, & author, asked the question: is Covid-19 a punishment from God? Well, he more than just asked it. He stated his own position fairly clearly:

“It is my view that America is under judgement…I do believe America has received a double whammy in 2020: coronavirus and violence…Never in my lifetime have I seen anything like it.”

Kendall goes much further and stakes out why he thinks America is under judgment:

“America is under judgement for four things: racism, legalised abortions for any reason, approval of same-sex marriage and theological liberalism in pulpits. God is fed up. He has stepped in.”

These certainly are bold claims (though towards the end of the article he backtracks on them a bit and calls for caution, as we will see). So, what is Kendall’s evidence for them? Nothing. Not a single scrap of evidence is presented for any of it. Nothing for the idea that Covid-19 is part of some divine punishment on America, much less for the notion that this punishment is specifically for the things Kendall claims it is. The best he does is some hand gesturing in the direction of there being biblical examples where God punishes people – and even nations – for some sin or other.

Now, most Christians will certainly agree with Kendall on a number of points. For instance, God reigns supreme over the universe, and there is nothing that happens without His authoring or permitting it to happen. Covid-19 did not take God by surprise. Further, few will dispute Kendall’s assertion that “If we really believe in the God of the Bible, then we must concede he is a God who can bring judgement, and we must not dismiss this option out of hand.” True enough, and Kendall reminds us of several biblical examples of this very thing.

However, that’s just part of the story, and in fact towards the end of his article Kendall retreats somewhat from his earlier (careless?) claims: “it could be dangerous to claim Covid-19 is God’s judgement…Who is truly qualified to say this? Caution is required.” It certainly is, not least of all because there are numerous contrary examples in scripture that Kendall doesn’t mention. The entire book of Job is surely a foil to the whole enterprise of trying to pin suffering on unrighteousness of some sort. Or take the man born blind in John chapter 9. When asked by his disciples, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” Jesus responds “Neither this man nor his parents sinned…” Consider also Jesus’ rhetorical question in Luke chapter 13 “Or those 18 who died when the tower of Siloam fell on them – do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem?”

The idea that Covid-19 is some kind of punishment on America is problematic on a number of fronts. Firstly, Covid-19 has affected most of the globe – not just the apparent centre of the universe that is the good old US of A. It seems odd that God would inflict Covid-19 on the entire world because some churches in the USA have liberals in their pulpits conducting gay weddings. Indeed, the spread of Covid-19 appears fairly random rather than the measured dishing out of perfect justice. If God wished to punish the things Kendall mentions, might it not be better to target abortion doctors, Klan members, homosexuals, and liberal ministers in particular? The idea of indiscriminate punishment doesn’t seem consistent with the character of a perfectly just God. In addition, it seems crucial to the notion of punishment and justice that those on the receiving end know why they are being punished. The lack of such an explanation is what makes us recoil in moral indignation when we hear of prisoners held without knowing what charges are being leveled against them. In some of the biblical examples Kendall alludes to, God communicates his rationale for punishment, either directly or through prophets. People aren’t left to guess or speculate. In the case of Covid-19, God hasn’t communicated anything – unless, perhaps, Kendall is claiming some sort of hotline to heaven?

I doubt he is. So, what is Kendall really doing? Sadly, I suspect he’s doing what far too many Christians throughout history have done in the face of disasters: blamed it on society’s failure to abide by whatever their pet theological/ethical hobby-horses happen to be at the time. So, famine in Africa becomes the result of witchcraft, AIDS is a judgment on homosexuality, hurricanes are due to gay marriage, and Covid-19 becomes the result of “racism, legalised abortions for any reason, approval of same-sex marriage and theological liberalism in pulpits.”

Ironically, Kendall cites Ludwig Feuerbach’s notion that God is just a psychological projection, that people create God in their own image, with that image typically of a kindly being who takes us all to heaven when we die. I wonder, though, if Kendall might be engaging in a smidgen of projection himself: God as sharing his own theological and ethical viewpoints and willing to pour the bowls of wrath onto those who dare think otherwise. Frankly, such manoeuvres are downright abusive. It’s little better than saying “agree with me and do as I want you to do or God – who agrees with me about all this – will cast burning coals on your head!”

To rephrase Kendall, it could be dangerous to claim he’s engaging in psychological projection. Who is truly qualified to say this? Caution is required. But it seems to me there’s at least as much reason to argue that as to accept Kendall’s crass Covid speculations.

Stephen J. Graham

Facebook Psychics

We got into a theological family discussion the other day about the existence and nature of demons and angels. My 13 year old son was asking my wife and I what we thought. My wife believes in angels and demons along the standard conservative Christian understanding. I’m not so sure. Perhaps there are indeed immaterial beings, created by God, but I don’t care to speculate much further, and I’m pretty sure the typical understanding of demons and possession is largely imaginative nonsense.

The conversation soon turned to psychic phenomena, and my wife told us the story of a work colleague (let’s call her Julie Fitzsimmons) who met a psychic who knew all kinds of things about her, and could even see and commune with the spirits of Julie’s dead relatives who followed her to the psychic’s home. The psychic knew that Julie was in a lesbian relationship, and was able to tell her the name of her deceased grandmother. This grandmother was actually present in the room at the time, holding a baby boy – Julie’s miscarried son from several years before – and was able to relate personal family information to Julie via the psychic.

My wife had warned Julie not to go to the psychic in the first place, and remains convinced that such people might well be capable of channeling evil spirits.

I’m inclined to think differently. Honestly, I’m surprised that people are surprised that someone could know all manner of details about them, especially these transparent days when our lives tend to be all over the internet.

So, I asked where Julie had first made contact with this psychic, and the answer was “Facebook.” And there we go. Mystery solved. As an experiment I went on Facebook and looked up Julie (who is friends with my wife, but not with me). It was astonishingly easy to find out personal information about Julie. Her profile itself provides much of the information: her relationship status was public, so I discovered within 3 seconds she was in a lesbian relationship (engaged to her partner). Her friend list then provided me with details of her relatives. By searching Julie’s friends using her surname I got a list of other Facebook profiles of people who were almost certainly relatives, including her mother, at least 1 sister, and several others. These profiles – of varying levels of privacy – provided a wealth of further information. Her mother’s profile provided all the information a psychic could want concerning Julie’s grandmother. Moreover, a less obvious source of information on Facebook is information about a person provided by third parties: comments on status updates or photos. So, a photograph of a person holding a dog might have a comment like “Aw! Reminds of your wee spaniel, RIP Rocky!” So, without telling us themselves, we know the person had a Spaniel called Rocky, now deceased. For effect we could pretend to commune with said beast in a psychic reading.

The funny thing is, Julie swears that she provided no information to this psychic. And in one sense she maybe didn’t (though we can’t rule out information provided subtly to the psychic in the course of the reading), but the information was all there in public for any research-minded psychic to make use of.

Sadly, many people yearn for the other-worldly and are comforted and excited by the thought that our dead relatives are still with us and within reach. We’ll happily be parted from our hard-earned cash to be caught up in a supernatural story that takes us out of the humdrum of our mundane lives. We want our nearest and dearest to be with us. We want the world to be magical. By comparison “the psychic gleaned your info from Facebook” just isn’t a very sexy explanation.

Stephen J. Graham