Ah. Janelle is a recent graduate of Pindel.
She did an excellent master's thesis on the topic.
She's going to talk about open theism and The Odyssey.
And you may be aware, within the Wesley and Armenian community, wesley and
Armenian theology classically is not open theism.
Right.
We're not open theists in general, but there are some Wesleyans who are
sympathetic some Iranians are sympathetic to openness theology, open theism.
And so it's an interesting question for our community.
So I want to thank Janelle for bringing it to our attention.
I brought a handout.
I think it kind of helps follow the order of my presentation.
Sure.
Yeah.
There's yeah, that opens towards the door.
There's a bathroom, and the back door, I think, does open to the front.
Yeah. Come on in.
We're just you're right on time.
Come.
Oh, yes, sir.
You got one.
Back. There one.
Good afternoon, everyone. Like Dr.
Penley said, my name is Janelle, and I'm a recent graduate from Timdale.
Can you turn the volume?
I'll try.
First time really presenting anything
academic in front of a group, so I'll try to speak loudly.
I'm a little bit nervous.
My name is Janelle Lee.
I'm a recent graduate from Tyndill with my Master of Theological Studies.
I graduated in November, and I'm very happy to be here and be able to share with
you this presentation, which is based on part of my thesis.
So you've got the handout. It's double sided.
It kind of follows the order of my
presentation, so I hope it's relatively clear.
So I've titled this presentation comparing Armenianism and Open Theism on The Odyssey
an example of how experience affects our preferences for theological system.
So while we might think that which
theological system such as Calvinism Armenianism or Open Theism that we choose
to align ourselves with should be based primarily on biblical exegesis and
systematic theology, in reality, it is much more complex.
In this presentation, I will show that our personal experiences, beliefs, and
preferences also affect which theological system we are most drawn to.
This will be done by comparing the
differences between Armenian and open theist approaches to theodicy and showing
what factors influence which system is more personally convincing.
Theodosy in particular, is a good example to use to compare theological system as
theodosy can be argued to be one of the most important aspects of any theological
system, and it is also one of the most practically relevant.
I'm sure all of us have wondered about
God's relationship to the evil and suffering in our lives.
In fact, theodosy is possibly the area where our experience most directly
influences our theology, as theodosy attempts to explain our experiences of
evil and reconcile them with our faith in a good and loving God.
So each of us experiences different instances of evil and suffering in our
lives in the sense that we will all approach the Odyssey from our own personal
perspective with our own sufferings, most prominently in mind.
And as we will see, our view of The Odyssey will influence our view of God.
So there are many similarities between open theism and Armenianism.
So both Armenians and Open theists agree that God can only act according to his
nature, which is love, and thus God can never do evil or will evil.
Both also make use of the free will defense for The Odyssey, which explains
evil as a misuse of God given creaturely free will.
However, due to differing definitions of God's omniscience, there are significant
differences in their implications for theodicy.
I will focus on three main areas where the differences between Armenian and Open
theist approaches to theodacy are the most distinct.
However, before we can discuss this, we
have to deal with a somewhat abstract philosophical topic.
So please bear with me for now.
So the main issue that divides Armenians and Open Theists is on the issue of how
God's foreknowledge relates to human freedom.
Armenians say that God knows what we will
freely do, but this does not force us to act in ways that God foreknows.
But open seats disagree and believe that if the future is foreknown by God, then
the future is fixed and we have no real freedom to change it.
Ultimately, it's impossible to know who is right.
And here is where our own philosophical
beliefs can affect which theological system appears most credible to us.
On the Armenian side, it makes sense that we are still free, even though God knows
what we will do simply because we do not yet know what we will do.
So when making any choice, it's free from
our perspective because we do not know the future.
So for example, let's say that God for knows I will eat spaghetti for dinner
tonight when I'm in the kitchen, choosing what to eat.
I do not know that God knows I will eat
spaghetti and God is not forcing me to eat spaghetti.
And so my choice does seem to be free, as
Armenians say, even though God foreknows it.
In fact, if I had chosen soup instead, God's foreknowledge would have been
different and he would eternally foreknown that I would eat soup.
But then let's think about another example.
Let's say that God perfectly foreknows
that I will be in a car accident next week.
Since it's perfectly foreknown by God and
nothing can alter his knowledge, then nothing I do between now and then can
prevent me from being in that car accident exactly as God foreknows.
So I can't take a different route or take public transit instead.
Or I would be changing the content of God's foreknowledge.
Even prayers for God to protect me while
driving could not change the future that God foreknows.
And so, from this perspective it does seem
that if God foreknows something, then the future is unchangeable.
So therefore, Open Theists say that in order for humans to have real freedom and
significant choices, god cannot foreknow what we will choose.
At first glance, this would seem to be an unbiblical idea.
And so, to reassure you that it's not heretical, please let me give a short
overview of how open theists understand God's omniscience and omnipotence.
So open theists say that God's omniscience
means that God knows everything that any being can know.
He knows everything that's ever existed,
everything that now actually exists, everything that could possibly exist in
the future, and everything that he has decided to do.
However, because of the conviction that
God's foreign knowledge of a future choice would remove our freedom, open theists
believe that in order to preserve real human freedom, god either willingly limits
his own knowledge of the future, or else perhaps the nature of the future is such
that there are some things even God can't know for certain.
This is kind of similar to the commonly accepted idea that there are some things
that even God can't do, such as make a square circle.
But this doesn't mean that God loses all
providential control, because God still knows a huge amount of information.
He knows the present and past perfectly.
He knows things that do not depend on free choice.
He knows our hearts completely.
And God knows what options are open to us
and even how likely we may be to choose one option over the other.
So if you take the previous example about
choosing what to have for dinner, god could know that there's like a 70% chance
that I'll have spaghetti and a 30% chance that I will choose soup.
But open theists would say that God
couldn't know for sure which one I would choose.
And then regarding omnipotence, open
theists say that God's omnipotence does not mean that he controls everything.
Instead, it means that God is so resourceful, flexible and intelligent that
he can achieve his purposes in a variety of ways.
So God can work around any good or bad
choices we make, and he can even work around those who directly oppose Him in
order to ensure that his ultimate goals are never defeated.
Therefore, to open theist, God does not
need perfect poor knowledge in order to still achieve his purposes.
And by now, you're probably wondering about how open theism handles biblical
prophecy and I'll get to that in a few minutes.
So now, while this may seem to be simply
an interesting abstract debate, it actually has important implications for
how we understand God's relationship to evil, which then has practical
consequences for how we face evil in our lives.
Depending on our opinion of these philosophical questions, we might be
inclined more towards Armenianism or open theism.
If one believes that God's foreknowledge of the future does indeed mean it is fixed
and unchangeable, it would seem that the open theist approach may offer more
motivation to oppose evil than the Armenian one.
If we believe that we can actually change
the future because it is not set in stone due to God's perfect foreknowledge of it.
It can encourage us to do what we can to oppose evil and relieve suffering.
Now also we can believe that we are not
doomed to experience any particular occasion of evil simply because God
foreknows it will occur, such as the car accident example I mentioned earlier.
So the open PSU may also help encourage us
that our futures are not predetermined by God's foreknowledge.
Which means we can change ourselves and the world around us for the better.
This can be a very encouraging outlook on the world.
So on the contrary, to preserve motivation to oppose evil, an Armenian would have to
hold tightly to the conviction that God's knowing of the future does not remove our
freedom and responsibility to work against evil.
If they were ever tempted to think that because God foreknows something, that it's
unavoidable, or that God has preplanned evil or allowed evil for some greater
good, it could easily lead to apathy or complacency to work against evil.
So therefore, depending on one's thought
process and philosophical beliefs, open theism could possibly provide more
motivation to oppose evil than the Armenian approach does.
There is another difficulty Armenian may
have with respect to the Odyssey, which is the problem of foreknown evil.
So this comes from looking back at evil events that occurred in history.
For example, if God perfectly forensic
what Hitler would do, he had created him anyway.
And does that mean that God is guilty for unleashing such a person on the world?
Or did God know it was better to allow Hitler's actions than to not allow them?
Thus, Armenians must find ways to justify
why God allows the evil that he forenose will occur.
But opatheists have a similar problem.
Instead of having to justify why God
allows evil that he foreknows will occur, open theists must explain why God allows
evil that he is quite certain will occur based on his present knowledge.
So for example, even if God did not
foreknow what Hitler would do, once God knew Hitler's evil intentions and saw the
evil that he had already done, then why did God continue to let Hitler live?
Or regarding the events of September 11,
god would have known the plans of the terrorists and would have seen them
carrying out each step, yet seemingly did nothing to stop them.
To answer these problems, both Armenians
and open theeists can appeal to God's respect for human freedom.
Both could argue that God does not prevent more evil, because if he did prevent, say,
the worst evil, then because they didn't happen, we would not be able then we would
demand that God prevent the next worst evils which we do see occurring.
And this would continue in a cycle until
we would demand that God prevent all evil in the world.
Yet this would mean that God would have to override all free will.
So if God desires that we exercise free
will to love and obey Him, then he must accept that since we are free, we will not
always use our free will in the way he wants.
And in order to honor the freedom he has
given us, he must not override the evil that results from the misuse of free will.
Both Armenians and open theists could
agree with Clarkinox, who wrote god is moved by love to restrain the divine power
temporarily and voluntarily, out of respect for the integrity of creatures,
even creatures whose activities fall short of God's purposes.
However, there may be one case where open theism has an advantage, as illustrated by
the story of Suzanne as told by her pastor, Gregory Boyd.
So Suzanne wanted to be a missionary to Taiwan, and she had prayed that God would
guide her to the right man to marry who would have a similar heart for missions.
In college, she met a man who had the same
goals as she did and who was compatible with her in many other areas.
So she felt it must have been divine providence that they had met.
But Suzanne wanted confirmation from God
that this was indeed the man she should marry.
She prayed intensely and finally believed that she had received this confirmation.
Yet she was devastated two years later
when she found out her husband had committed adultery.
He appeared to repent, yet cheated on her several more times.
He lost his desire for missions to Taiwan
and became physically and emotionally abusive.
Finally, he filed for divorce and moved out.
And just two weeks later, Suzanne found out she was pregnant.
So Suzanne was angry at God because if God knew exactly what her husband would do,
then God bears all the responsibility for setting her up the way he did.
This situation could be hard for an Armenian to explain to Suzanne.
Why would God tell her to marry a man who
God perfectly forensic would hurt her in such a deep way?
Should we appeal to the common
explanations that maybe God has a greater good purpose for her suffering?
Or maybe he was trying to teach her something?
Or maybe she did not hear God's guidance correctly, or something else?
Or is it easier to say, as her open theist Pastor Gregory Boyd did, that maybe God
did not know how Suzanne's husband would misuse his free will to hurt her.
Boyd suggested that initially, God believed that Suzanne marrying her husband
would have a high chance of having a happy marriage and fulfilling ministry.
But when her husband decided to misuse his
free will to commit adultery, it led to him becoming a different person than who
he was when God had recommended that Suzanne marry him.
So this explanation comforted Suzanne, helped her love God again, and retained
her faith in being able to hear God's guidance.
The open theists have an advantage over Armenians here because they do not have to
believe that God may guide us into situations where he perfectly foreknows.
We will experience evil in response.
There are two main objections to the open
theist idea that God does not know what evil may happen to us in the future.
The first objection is that if there
really is evil that God did not foresee and is not part of God's plan, then
doesn't mean the evil we experience has no purpose.
Often those who make this objection fear that removing the sense of purpose behind
evil, pain or suffering will remove the ability to endure it.
Yet. Open theists reply that because God's
significance means he is very resourceful, flexible and intelligent, we can still
trust that God can bring some good out of the evil we experience, even if the evil
was not intended for good and even if God did not foreknow the evil would happen.
It may even be that God is so capable of recovering good out of unforeseen evil
that it might appear to us as if his backup plan was his original plan.
The second objection is that if God does not foreknow the evil that will happen to
us, then how can he give us useful guidance to avoid it?
Open theist can reply that God's present
knowledge is so complete and God's wisdom is so great that in most cases, perfect
knowledge of the future is not necessary to give helpful guidance for long term
guidance, such as who to marry or which career to choose.
Open theists say that while God does care
about these things, he does not have one set plan for our lives.
Instead, what matters most to God is that
we are conformed to the image of Christ and this can happen in a variety of
careers or with a variety of marriage partners.
So there might not be one set plan for our
lives, but many different good paths that we can choose.
And God can work out his plan for us in many different ways.
So as we've seen, the story of Suzanne can show that to some people it's more
comforting to believe that God did not knowingly guide them down a path that
guaranteed they would experience evil and suffering, even if it means accepting a
different perspective on God's omissions and guidance.
Others who are drawn to Arminianism might
find more comfort in the belief that God knows exactly how their lives will unfold
and trust that God's poor knowledge means he has planned for good to come out of any
of the evils they experience along the way.
Some people might find the idea that God does not have one set plan for their lives
liberating, while others might find it terrifying.
And like Suzanne, we may even change our views if something happens to us which is
significant enough to make us question our previous convictions.
Therefore, our personal perspectives on
philosophy and theology and our personal experiences can certainly affect which
theological system we are drawn to, and these factors can change over time.
However, I do think at this point in time.
There is one clear advantage for Armenianism in relation to the Odyssey and
that is regarding the problem of prophesied evil.
So open theists say that God can predict
things that are likely to happen on the basis of his perfect present knowledge and
God can predict things that he plans to do in a specific circumstance.
So while this approach may work for a
large number of prophecies, there are still a few specific cases that are
troubling, particularly the cases where God prophesies very specific evil events.
I have not yet read a convincing open theist approach to how God is able to
prophesy Judas's betrayal of Jesus or Peter's three denials of Jesus before dawn
or even the crucifixion of Jesus on the exact right date of crossover.
We can't say that God caused Judas to betray Jesus or made Peter deny Christ in
order to fulfill prophecy or we would be taking away Judas and Peter's personal
responsibility for their behaviors and making God responsible for evil.
So while God could have known that Judas
was considering betraying Jesus, jesus open theists can't say that God perfectly
for me, he would actually go through with it.
If Judas had freely chosen not to betray Jesus, then God would have needed some
other way for Jesus to be delivered to the sanhedrin.
And while God might have known that at that particular moment in time peter had
this sort of character which made him likely to deny Jesus, if you were
pressured, it would have required God to coordinate all the circumstances.
Peter was in that night in order to make
sure he was asked by the right people at the right time to make it all happen.
And what if Peter really decided to go home and sleep after the first denial?
So a similar level of complicated design coordination of people's evil actions
would have been needed to ensure that Jesus would be crucified on the exact
right date, not a week earlier or a few days later in order to fulfill the
passover foreshadowing from the Old Testament.
So these are the sorts of complicated explanations that open theists need to
have in order to explain these very specific prophecies.
But at this point it seems like it's much easier to take the Armenian approach and
say that God can prophesy about evil actions simply because he foreknows them,
which means that God does not have to have any involvement in coordinating evil
events in order to make them happen as prophesied.
So therefore, if someone desires to have a more straightforward explanation for
biblical prophecy which keeps God from being involved in any coordination of evil
events, perhaps Armenianism is more attractive.
Yet if someone can tolerate a little mystery surrounding how difficult biblical
prophecies work, perhaps open theism may be an option.
This shows how there are many factors that are at work in our choice of theological
system and there are tradeoffs no matter which system we choose.
So in conclusion I hope this analysis has
shown that our personal experiences and philosophical beliefs have a significant
influence on which theological system we choose to align ourselves with.
In particular, our experiences of evil can
have a powerful effect on our belief system, which may cause some to hold even
more tightly to their previous beliefs, while others may find that, like Suzanne,
switching theological systems can provide answers they need to continue loving God.
There is a level of faith required in all
cases that open theists may need to have faith that Bible prophecy is true and
accurate, even if it's not yet fully explainable by open theism and also have
faith that God can still achieve his purposes and provide guidance to us.
Even without fully knowing the future, an
Armenian will need to have faith that there is some reason why God allows all
the evil that he forenos, and that despite God knowing the future, we are still
responsible to do what we can now to oppose evil.
So there are trade offs in every
theological system that must be weighed by the individual.
Depending on their own beliefs, needs and priorities, each person may come to
different conclusions on which tradeoffs are acceptable to them.
Perhaps this is why multiple theological
systems exist despite having only one Bible, despite some critics who argue that
there is only one right system and label anyone who disagrees with them a heretic,
this shows how theological diversity is valuable in the church.
Because of this time, we all see in a dim and partial way.
Our experiences and personal beliefs are currently an important factor in helping
us make sense of faith right now until the day when we all speak clearly.
So therefore, because we're all different
and have different experiences that influence our theological understanding,
theological diversity among regions is necessary in order to help as many people
as possible find a place in a church which can encourage their faith, help them love
God, comfort them in difficult times, and keep pointing them to Christ.
Thank you.
Very much.
In case you didn't catch it, that's the first time doing an academic paper.
So please encourage her and glad that you did a wonderful job and really helping us
do to relate it to life and ministry and things we can all relate to.
And I should have mentioned also that
Janelle has been accepted into a PhD program at Whitlock College in the Fall,
where she's going to be working on Jonathan Edwards and The Odyssey.
Continue that work, but questions, comments, responses?
I've worked in mission work two African
countries and there are non Christian belief.
For instance, fatalism determinism.
This expression we often hear it must have happened for a reason,
or the soldier that says there's a bullet out there with my name on it.
Well, these are from secular sources.
The person that has that view has to
identify with one of these theological positions.
I guess it's comforting to know that
something has been predetermined and I can't do anything to change it.
So life goes on.
Now, how to convey these thoughts to a congregation,
for instance, of people who grew up in a culture of paglist is a huge challenge.
I guess that's sort of what I ran across when I was doing my thesis.
I was comparing Calvinism mostly with osintm.
And Calvinist can be very deterministic to
the point of saying that everything that happens is what God wants to happen.
But I think probably the clearest rebuttal to that idea is that what does God want?
Sin.
And some of them maybe go so far as to say that, yes, God does want sin for some
obscure reason, to show his glory and his wrath at sin and all that sort of thing.
I think it's much clearer to say that God doesn't want sin.
So therefore, if something happens that
God doesn't want, clearly not everything is caused by God.
So there's other factors.
There must be other factors going on,
especially once you include the idea of spiritual warfare.
This can also prevent the idea of fatalism.
We can say that there are other forces at
playing in this world besides just what God wants.
There's a bunch of different ideas.
I also ran across the story of John Piper
who talked about his experience when his mom died in a car crash.
And to him, he said that he could not worship the God who can't control, like a
piece of lumber which came through the van and killed his mom.
So to him, he had to believe that God had caused him death for a greater purpose and
that's the only way he could continue loving God and worshiping God.
So it really shows us how people react to the evil.
And suffering is really in a bunch of different ways.
And to some people it really does comfort them to think that, okay, God's happening,
god caused this to happen and he's doing it for some reason.
Everyone's different.
Have you read Tom Horton? Not yet.
I've read a couple of reviews about it.
One which kind of was negative about it
and called him kind of close to a process theist.
And then another one which kind of was
more positive and saying that, no, he's really not a process theist.
He's just expressing his own ideas of kind of an open theist view of God.
Open theism based on the idea that God's
essential nature is love is never controlling.
So God cannot be controlling.
So he can't prevent evil because he
actually has no control over because of his essential nature, which is love.
It's a way of getting God up.
Yeah, I mean, just based on what you said
there, I think that maybe that goes a little bit too far.
I think we should say that God can prevent some evil and he can override some
evils which we obviously are not aware of because he's prevented them.
But we'd say that in general he doesn't override evil because he respects freedom.
So there must be some evils which God realizes are serious enough that he must
override otherwise the human race might come to not exist anymore such as the
threat of nuclear war or all sorts of spread of disease and stuff like this.
I think God has control over these things in order to keep us alive.
And on this planet, once you have the idea of spiritual
warfare that God is countering constantly what the opposing forces are trying to do.
So I don't think it's the case that God can't control evil because he's loved.
I think it's just there's a certain limit that in general he doesn't prevent smaller
incidences of evil because of our freedom and everything.
But I think he does prevent big instances
of evil because you have to to keep them all alive.
Because or you would say we have a logical inconsistency because God will prevent the
murder of one person, allow a holocaust to occur.
And if you want to split the positive heal someone has many, many other die.
And so it's back and forth.
And God seems very capricious.
So that's his way of engaging.
That's another work in this.
There's a very interesting couple of interesting books.
Have you read God at War by Gregory Boyd?
Or Satan and the Problem of Evil for Boyd
has a very interesting idea that God gives different amounts of freedom to different
creatures and depending on how these creatures use their freedom they can cause
more or less evil depending on what they're doing.
And depending on how many
people decide to align themselves with evil, god is going to have a more
difficult time countering those than countering instances where there's less
opposition, less people throwing their free will kind of behind that.
So I think that's probably a promising way to go.
And I think I have an idea, I'm starting
to work on that that might be a solution to the biblical prophecy of evil events
from an open thes perspective and I hope to eventually write a book on that.
Within the academic community.
Is open theism seen as an evangelical theology?
I think it depends on which evangelicals you talk.
Ask the question.
Clark Kenneth and Gregory Boyd, who are
both the most vocal advocates of open theism that I've run across at this point,
also John Sanders, they all come across as very evangelical.
I think it just depends on it being more well known in the evangelical community.
Lots of people don't know what open theism is.
When I first heard about it, like oh, the
idea that God doesn't know the future, I'm like oh come on, that's ridiculous.
I can't believe that the Bible says otherwise.
But once you really get into the details
of understanding how open theism works, it becomes much more credible.
There was association evangelicalism on file where.
There was a move right, to kick in and out
of the Evangelical Theological Society, but it didn't happen.
He just doesn't come.
He might be there.
In any of your readings, did you find that
some of the just because you mentioned evangelical did you find any indication
that some of the evangelical response to comes from a lack of comfort with mystery?
I mean, you mentioned mystery at one point during during your talk and certainly your
talk this morning asking that joint question, what are you afraid of?
I wonder if that question is asked at all about.
I think there's a level of mystery in all of our beliefs.
All theological systems like the Calvinists often have to appeal to the
mystery of why God ordains things that are evil and they just say, oh, we don't know.
It's a mystery. Maybe we'll know in heaven.
And like for the open theists, the mystery
is how do we deal with difficult biblical prophecies?
And our media says, well, why does God allow evil?
That he pornout will happen.
But I think there's just different
mysteries and depending on which one you're willing to live with, kind of
guides you toward which system you find more acceptable.
A pertinent passage.
Genesis 66 the Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth.
How we deal with that passage?
Yeah, that's one of the big ones that opens his appeal to the idea that God can
change his mind and he can work in different ways with humanity.
So he thought this was going to be a good way, then everyone turned evil.
He's like, okay, I have to deal with this.
How am I going to deal with this?
Saves Noah and continues on in an alternate path, but one which still
progresses the story towards the fulfillment of his ultimate purposes of
having a people who love him and live in relationship with him forever.
Do we have time?
Yeah, we still have time.
You probably noticed did you know that I'm
going to get killed because I'm a Free Methodist, but I work for Hamilton Alfaya?
Did you know that the Free Methodist
Church in Canada on its website does have a statement about open theism that neither
says, oh, we believe everything they believe but expresses some sympathy, is
open to mystery and talks about the things you're trying to hold together.
Do you know that?
Take a look.
Just Google Fmcic, open theism and you'll see denomination statement.
There's also a paper from the US denomination by David Bauer, who's a
highly credible biblical scholar with their study commission's take on it.
And there's a sense of pre.
Methodist or Armenians
have some sympathy towards the non hypercalvanism of opathias, but we don't
say we buy it all and commend it as something to be wrestled with.
And list people who I think it's a
doctrine from hell, list those kinds of citations as well as
those who are even more positive on it than some of us would be.
But yeah, the Free Methodists among us have wrestled with that.
And there is a wide divergence within pre methodism, even if it's on the website.
I think you make a valid point.
That the personal experiences
of individuals tend to tip one in one theological direction or another.
And I think that that relates to the first
presentation very much, that we tend to think that doing theology is.
All about getting systematic and making it all fit and all that.
But the system we tend to relate to has to also be a place.
Where we sit and find comfort and.
Find the love of God.
I think you make very good points.
I think we have to go deeper on the
central question here of why people choose theological systems.
I don't think this is limited to the
this is why people are atheists, this is why people are agnostic.
I think this is this basis of experience
is actually something we have in common with our neighbors.
Some of us do some of us don't believe that theology has anything to do with
we just read the Bible and says but for those of us that
believe that experience plays a role, I think this is actually like a key bridge
building point to engaging all of our neighbors in conversations.
I want to encourage you.
The central question you ask I think is really important.
This is a contrast and compare Armenians.
Versus this is just one example of how
experience affects our preferences in this very narrow condition.
I'm sure there's all sorts of other ways that our experience will affect our
Armenians and all sorts of other theological topics.
And like you said, whether someone even
believes or doesn't believe experience will totally affect that.
I've heard all sorts of stories of people who say, oh, I went to a church and they
didn't like me and they were unwelcoming, so I don't want to be a part of that.
And even those sorts of experiences can really push someone one way or another.
I think there's some sociological research in the United States around authoritarians
that they're saying they have an explanation as
to the rise of Donald Trump beyond the power of a haircut.
But.
They say that there's a preexisting sort of psychological condition or
kinds of needs that lead to sort of authoritarian approaches to
government and that even these traits are not activated until certain conditions.
So I'm curious about I think there's at least a corollary there between the
central question you're asking and I think it's a new line still so encouraging.
James, you started earlier and I think you defined evil a little bit,
but I see on your hand that you have God will, never will or do evil.
Evil results from misuse of God's given free will.
So do you have more of an evil?
People differentiate sin as actions, sin as a condition eat natural evils.
There's a deep analysis of evil in a sense and how it relates, like
evil in Augustinian sense, maybe of imperfection you.
And so even when I just was asking for more naming or explanation on how we take
evil, because that even will have a difference on the issue, I guess.
When I was working on this paper and on my thesis, I would consider evil to be
anything that is not what God wants for the world.
So that would include sin, that would include natural evil, that would include
moral evil, that would include our sinful natures.
Although sinful nature is what leads to us doing evil actions in the world.
So it's really a huge category of things.
Basically, if we think of life now and
what life might be in heaven, based on a couple of books that I've read and stuff
like that, anything that will not be in heaven, I.
Would practice basically bulldogsky.
It.
If you're a doctor, it's my experience.
Yeah.
Thank you, Janelle.
Great job again.
So.