What do you think?
Rate this book
A Theology of the Dark Side: Putting the Power of Evil in Its Place
"How can we oppose evil without creating new evils and being made evil ourselves?"Walter WinkWhat we think and don't think about evil is important. Nigel Goring Wright provides us with a thorough biblical and theological study of the nature of evil, Christ's victory over it and our participation in that victory as we await its consummation. In this revision and updating of The Fair Face of Putting the Power of Darkness in Its Place, Wright sorts through the options to develop a thoroughly Christian understanding of the danger of the enemies of both God and humanity. Getting our thinking right will help us get our ways of living and acting right as well.
- GenresTheology
204 pages, Paperback
First published December 1, 2002
16 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
August 22, 2021
I just finished "Theology of the Dark Side: Putting the Power of Evil in its Place," by Nigel Goring Wright.
So the book begins by stating that before the enlightenment one could explain any event not obviously naturally caused by Satan (or God). Once past that where the west began to see how science does show cause and effect that doesn't target Satan (or God) as primary the enchantment once held to was starting to slide (and I'd say that "God of the gaps" was appealed to but slowly began to decline). What's the happy center?--is there a place one can live without making all evil psychological? An answer needs to be sought since for various reasons "spiritually" is being eyed (reeyed?) more and more by the church and the world. This can be seen in everytyfrom new age movements, the church of Satan, and the Charismatic movements inside the Church. Do we just Bultmannize all the concepts? In that theology would God survive such a vast demythologization?
After the first chapter it sounds like Wright sees Satan as "personal" rather than subpersonal or metaphorical as a device for plumbing one's psychological depths. Some of the sound is really 1980s, Satanic Panic and don't listen to Ozzy. I'll have to hang in there to see.
He posits the two extremes: Satan is real in the very fundamentalist view or Satan is nothing more than an ancient way to speak of the psychological and structural issues of the day. He then offers a third option which sees Satan as personal but not calling him personal. So the way Wright sees it is Satan as personal gives too much to Satan. For me "personal" suggests a will used bybthe individual and a bit of autonomy, perhaps. Wright seeks words like subpersonal or antipersonal due to us not being in relation to him (and we shouldn't call him a "him"). I get what he's doing but we aremlimited by language. For Satan to be subpersonal would suggest he operates like a Venus fly trap (an interesting thought) but it doesn't get the thought across that Satan has a will and some autonomy. All that said, the writers warning against giving too much/little credit to Satan is be avoided at all cost is a good one. Further he lands at Satan having intelligence, will and personality as an entity, but not personal because that insinuates relationship of the positive kind.
Wright analyzes three schools of thought in seeking the correct view of evil. The first is Edwin Lewis who ended up heading down the Zoroastrian road which ends up also somewhat modeled in Plato which is a metaphysical dualism between good and evil with the creation as a residue.
Next is Karl Bart's Nothingness (Das nichtige) which sees God's "yes" of the good at creation having a somewhat logical consequence of an implied "no" which left space to be filled by the evil which exists as parasitic but not autonomous: the "nothing" isnt intelligent with a will.
Finally we visit Walter Winks "powers". Wink would have us reinterpret the biblical language of devil, Satan, demon, etc, keeping the spiritual import but seeing these as the innermost essences of earthly reality: mob Spirit, for instance. For Wink the interiority or Satan is a psychological manifestation once one demythologizes the scriptural accounts. Wink gives is great things for thought experiments but his denial of the autonomy of Satan removes his premise.
As kinda a postscript Wright throws in Moltmanns thought (God in Creation). This dives into the Jewish thought of zimzum, concentration and contraction: God so fills His creation that He has to withdraw or contract to make space for creation. But with the contraction for us there is also a sacrificing of power on God's part which evil can and does fill: space abhors a vacuum and the vacuum was created by the contraction of God therefore the vacuum must be filled by evil. Wright believes there is no solid exegesis to back Moltmanns thought.
Now he gets into developing his own doctrine of Satan.
Logically there are one of four places Satan or evil could be derived: a created entity beyond our universe, in God Himself, in the structures of our created universe, or in the human race.
Through this section he fights with himself over what a person is. According to Boethius Satan is a person--you only really need rationality to rank as a person with him, and his is kinda the standard--but according to the evolution of Trinitarian "person" Satan lacks anything that points to loving and empathy. Personally I'd rather say Satan is personal so as to not have people think I believe Satan is part of out psychology or something incorrect.
Wright lists out ten items he wants to check along the way for his Doctrine of Satan: evil is known in the evil of humans, humanity is affected by powers greater than itself, there are forces God created which are not evil from His creation, personal language of evil--real or no, the origin of this real Satan (metaphysical dualism, monism, agnosticism, creatures freedom), was the fall of angles real or no, if real then why did the angelic rebellions take place, does evil exist as a creation or as the vacuum left behind by a creation of its opposite, freedom is what ot means for humans to be humans in the world, and all evil was conquered (already/not yet) on the cross.
His next chapter dives into theodicy (the problem of evil: if there is a good, all powerful God then why do bad things happen?). He takes the freewill defense grounding it one step further than sinful mankind: sinful agents or the demonic which fell previous to mankind. Natural evil (tornadoes, sickness, etc) likewise are grounded in the demonic citing Jesus attributing disease to Satan. He pulls from Barth and constructs a freewill defense. But he closes with the most important part which if I were to sum it us is don't try to answer someone's "why" in the midst of suffering. God is with the suffering and we should be like God.
And that's about half the book. Following Wright dives into issues of a pastoral nature and dealing with the darkness.
Overall this was good. There was an over-commercialization of books of this nature 30-40 years ago which had the tendency to see the demonic in every feature of life; historically in modern theology and biblical scholarship there has been a trend towards enlightened dismissal of everything demonic. This book thoughtfully splits the difference.
#NigelGoringWright #NigelWright #ATheologyOfTheDarkSide #Demonology
So the book begins by stating that before the enlightenment one could explain any event not obviously naturally caused by Satan (or God). Once past that where the west began to see how science does show cause and effect that doesn't target Satan (or God) as primary the enchantment once held to was starting to slide (and I'd say that "God of the gaps" was appealed to but slowly began to decline). What's the happy center?--is there a place one can live without making all evil psychological? An answer needs to be sought since for various reasons "spiritually" is being eyed (reeyed?) more and more by the church and the world. This can be seen in everytyfrom new age movements, the church of Satan, and the Charismatic movements inside the Church. Do we just Bultmannize all the concepts? In that theology would God survive such a vast demythologization?
After the first chapter it sounds like Wright sees Satan as "personal" rather than subpersonal or metaphorical as a device for plumbing one's psychological depths. Some of the sound is really 1980s, Satanic Panic and don't listen to Ozzy. I'll have to hang in there to see.
He posits the two extremes: Satan is real in the very fundamentalist view or Satan is nothing more than an ancient way to speak of the psychological and structural issues of the day. He then offers a third option which sees Satan as personal but not calling him personal. So the way Wright sees it is Satan as personal gives too much to Satan. For me "personal" suggests a will used bybthe individual and a bit of autonomy, perhaps. Wright seeks words like subpersonal or antipersonal due to us not being in relation to him (and we shouldn't call him a "him"). I get what he's doing but we aremlimited by language. For Satan to be subpersonal would suggest he operates like a Venus fly trap (an interesting thought) but it doesn't get the thought across that Satan has a will and some autonomy. All that said, the writers warning against giving too much/little credit to Satan is be avoided at all cost is a good one. Further he lands at Satan having intelligence, will and personality as an entity, but not personal because that insinuates relationship of the positive kind.
Wright analyzes three schools of thought in seeking the correct view of evil. The first is Edwin Lewis who ended up heading down the Zoroastrian road which ends up also somewhat modeled in Plato which is a metaphysical dualism between good and evil with the creation as a residue.
Next is Karl Bart's Nothingness (Das nichtige) which sees God's "yes" of the good at creation having a somewhat logical consequence of an implied "no" which left space to be filled by the evil which exists as parasitic but not autonomous: the "nothing" isnt intelligent with a will.
Finally we visit Walter Winks "powers". Wink would have us reinterpret the biblical language of devil, Satan, demon, etc, keeping the spiritual import but seeing these as the innermost essences of earthly reality: mob Spirit, for instance. For Wink the interiority or Satan is a psychological manifestation once one demythologizes the scriptural accounts. Wink gives is great things for thought experiments but his denial of the autonomy of Satan removes his premise.
As kinda a postscript Wright throws in Moltmanns thought (God in Creation). This dives into the Jewish thought of zimzum, concentration and contraction: God so fills His creation that He has to withdraw or contract to make space for creation. But with the contraction for us there is also a sacrificing of power on God's part which evil can and does fill: space abhors a vacuum and the vacuum was created by the contraction of God therefore the vacuum must be filled by evil. Wright believes there is no solid exegesis to back Moltmanns thought.
Now he gets into developing his own doctrine of Satan.
Logically there are one of four places Satan or evil could be derived: a created entity beyond our universe, in God Himself, in the structures of our created universe, or in the human race.
Through this section he fights with himself over what a person is. According to Boethius Satan is a person--you only really need rationality to rank as a person with him, and his is kinda the standard--but according to the evolution of Trinitarian "person" Satan lacks anything that points to loving and empathy. Personally I'd rather say Satan is personal so as to not have people think I believe Satan is part of out psychology or something incorrect.
Wright lists out ten items he wants to check along the way for his Doctrine of Satan: evil is known in the evil of humans, humanity is affected by powers greater than itself, there are forces God created which are not evil from His creation, personal language of evil--real or no, the origin of this real Satan (metaphysical dualism, monism, agnosticism, creatures freedom), was the fall of angles real or no, if real then why did the angelic rebellions take place, does evil exist as a creation or as the vacuum left behind by a creation of its opposite, freedom is what ot means for humans to be humans in the world, and all evil was conquered (already/not yet) on the cross.
His next chapter dives into theodicy (the problem of evil: if there is a good, all powerful God then why do bad things happen?). He takes the freewill defense grounding it one step further than sinful mankind: sinful agents or the demonic which fell previous to mankind. Natural evil (tornadoes, sickness, etc) likewise are grounded in the demonic citing Jesus attributing disease to Satan. He pulls from Barth and constructs a freewill defense. But he closes with the most important part which if I were to sum it us is don't try to answer someone's "why" in the midst of suffering. God is with the suffering and we should be like God.
And that's about half the book. Following Wright dives into issues of a pastoral nature and dealing with the darkness.
Overall this was good. There was an over-commercialization of books of this nature 30-40 years ago which had the tendency to see the demonic in every feature of life; historically in modern theology and biblical scholarship there has been a trend towards enlightened dismissal of everything demonic. This book thoughtfully splits the difference.
#NigelGoringWright #NigelWright #ATheologyOfTheDarkSide #Demonology
February 9, 2020
If you know what I mean by "The Warfare", then read this book! It's essential reading, because it steers a sober-minded, surefooted course through the whole minefield.
If you don't know what I am talking about then leave this well alone!
Read
April 3, 2020Read this back in 2004, and don't remember anything about it!
March 5, 2012
A helpful overview of the powers. Talks about different theological views of the origin and essence of moral evil, the problem of suffering (physical evil), possession and socio-political character of the 'powers' and Paul. Even and balanced evangelical theology which is not demon crazy (but not devil denying either).
February 1, 2008
A really interesting meditation on the topic. Important to know what the bad guys are up to -- kind of like having to read Hillary Clinton's book...it may not be pleasant, but it can give you enough insight to protect yourself.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews