Creation Made Free: Open Theology Engaging Science

In 2007, Eastern Nazarene College hosted the Open Theology and Science Conference and Azusa Pacific University hosted the event in 2008. From the 2007 conference and with continued interest from those attending in 2008, Tom Oord put together Creation Made Free: Open Theology and Engaging Science (Pickwick Publications, 2009). When Tom solicited readers to review the publication, I jumped at the chance - mostly because I have regrettably been unable to attend either conference.

Now, granted, this is not an introduction to Open Theism proper (though Oord does a good job of highlighting the basics in the introduction). There are better books for that - ranging from introductory (here) to scholarly (here and here). Richard Rice sums up the purpose of this book well in chapter 11: “Open Theism may now have reached a ‘post apologetic’ phase of its development, and Open Theists can turn their attention from their critics’ subsiding complaints to the welcome task of mining the constructive potential of their ideas” (p. 197, emphasis mine). For those in the Open Theist circle, this is a big deal. For the past two decades, Open Theists have been playing defense against the onslaught of criticism from more conservative branches of evangelicalism. This has made the opportunity to dialogue with the other end of the spectrum – Process theologians – much more appealing. But as Rice says, the zeal to “debunk” Open Theism is finally subsiding. And this is solely due to the tenacity of its main proponents and Open Theism’s acceptance on a popular level, mostly due to its ability to answer practical concerns in theology. The Open view is theologically sound. This compilation of essays reflects this new-found freedom to move on to “mining constructive potential ideas,” specifically in the area of science and creation.

The book is organized into four parts: Creation and Cosmology, Evolution, God’s Knowledge and Scientific Theory, and the impact of Open Theism upon anthropological issues. In the first part, Karen Strand Winslow deals with the creation account in Genesis and with the contextual issues surrounding the Hebrew terms for ”land,” “sky,” and “day.” She points out something simple but profound: our present reading of the creation account is loaded with the modern context of scientific discovery that was unavailable to ancient writers. In other words, telescopes and satellites were not part of the Genesis narrative, though we “read them in” when attempting to derive a “scientific” understanding of creation from the Bible (p. 27). Thomas Jay Oord follows with an essay using the kenotic love of God to derive a doctrine of creation for Open Theism. He draws from the anthropic principle and a cyclical universe model. Oord also ties in theodicy based on kenotic love and freedom at a quantum level. Michael Lodahl tackles the challenging subject of Islamic theology and Open Theism. Anna Case-Winters does an excellent job of exploring the role of the presence of God in the world. Rather than opting for a standard panentheistic role of Spirit in associating God with his creation, Case-Winters focuses on the incarnation as God’s way of existing “within” the creation (p. 71). However, Case-Winters uses this perspective to show why there’s no need for God to “risk” supernaturalism and ”external interventionism…can be avoided” in the natural order (pp. 73, 87). In doing so, she comes close to reaffirming the Newtonian closed system that Quantum mechanics has so quickly undermined.

In part two, Open Theists interact with evolutionary theory. Clark Pinnock supports the notion that evolutionary theory “poses no threat to faith.” Unfortunately, Pinnock falls back on apophatic explanations for specifics in the creative process: “we cannot pin God down in the details. If we could, God would be just another force in the world” (p. 106). In one of my favorite essays, Craig Boyd wrestles with the terms “good” and “perfect” in creation theology. After surveying the impact of Augustine, Boyd aptly supports the Irenaean choice of “good” in that it allows God to “play” within the created order (which fits well with both Open Theism and quantum mechanics). Greg Boyd further expounds on the Cosmic Warfare model from his God at War, specifically the ministry of Jesus and the Genesis account. 

Part three deals with knowledge, omniscience, and science. Alan Rhoda writes a masterful essay in which he expands the analogy of the “chess master” to one of game theory – a more flexible and resourceful model that is in keeping with Open Theism’s view of free-will. As Rhoda states, “changing preferences changes the game,” therefore Open theism posits not one model of divine providence but rather models (p. 168). Alan Padgett compares Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle to human activity which is “free, indeterminate and unpredictable” (p. 185). However, Padgett opts for a more classical view of omniscience stating that though God may take risks, they are essentially non-risks since ultimately God will consummate creation eschatologically. Though I appreciate Padgett’s position, it feels as though he is side-stepping the issue on semantical grounds.  Part four addresses human issues in Open Theology. Richard Rice surveys psychological advances in understanding forgiveness and explains the importance of forgiveness in the Openness model. The futuristic potential found within the process of  forgiveness makes it highly compatible with the Open view. John Sanders explores linguistics and its relation to an experiential religious model.  Finally, Dean Blevins surveys the potential of Open Theism in discussing personal religious experience as a goal of spirituality.

Though the essays are solid (with a few home runs in there), the triumph of Creation Made Free is in its existence. It’s one of the recent publications concerning Open Theism that is free of polemical constraints. Scholars are merely assessing the validity of Open Theism in an interdisciplinary fashion without having to constantly defend their claims in the process.  In that setting, Open Theism is bound to make strides in the science-religion dialogue. I look forward to many more “post apologetic” writings in the future.

Confessions of an Open Theist, Part 4: Challies’ Challenge

For this final post, I want to interact with Tim Challies’ comments on open theism here. As I said back in the introductory post, my goal is not to “prove” Tim wrong. But I do want to point out some common assumptions and conclusions about open theism that cause much misunderstanding. Tim states that freedom “trumps” omniscience and uses a definition that describes open theism as “sub-Christian.” I think terms like these are overly-aggressive and I get the feeling that this article has no intention of displaying “both sides” of the debate. Yet, those of the Reformed persuasion like Tim are quick to point out how their own theology is rarely given fair representation or explained fully. Let me try to bring some balance to the descriptions of open theism in Tim’s article.

1. In open theism, God’s greatest attribute is love and it overshadows his other attributes. 

Open theists don’t believe God’s greatest attribute is love. They believe God is love. All other attributes flow from his love and seek to sustain and support the nature of God as a relational being. Humans make this mistake often in describing love as an attribute - to us, attributes sound like an object we can hold in our hand…apples, for example. We can hold several attributes at a time but when “forced” to choose one, we must let another one go. Our arms are not big enough to hold them all. If love is merely an attribute (as Tim suggests), we conclude that God chooses love over/against other attributes. And that causes us to assume that God has to let, say, “judgment” fall to the side…or in this case “omniscience” or “sovereignty” to embrace love. We do the same with the cross – we act like God “shelved” mercy for a little while so he could pour out wrath. But God’s arms can hold them all. They are not mutually exclusive and therefore, to champion God’s nature of love is not calling for sovereignty’s defeat. If this distinction is not made, then we feel we must defend one aspect of God’s character over another. Comments about a loving God being a “pansy” come from this shallow understanding of God’s attributes. And that is truly the definition of anthropomorphic.

3. In open theism, God is unable to see what depends on the choices of free will agents…

I don’t think this is accurate for open theism either. God could see or could deduce from probability what outcomes exist in the future.  He chooses not to do so. Why? Because he voluntarily leverages that ability for the sake of love and freedom. Are there other scenarios that might allow for full disclosure of the future? I imagine so. But in open theism, power is leveraged to express love. God is not “bound” by cosmic laws that forbid him to see. That would make him dependent on creation – something no open theist would ever say. Rather, it’s a voluntary gesture of his goodness and co-habitation with his creation that makes free will fully authentic.

5. In open theism, God learns.

This is a stretch. It conjures up images in my mind of some sort of Hegelian Weltgiest, bobbing from side to side in dialectical fashion, bumbling through time. Silliness. God is fully aware of the range of decisions that are available in each scenario. His choice to allow free will to exist and allow our decisions to impact his relational goals for creation is not weakness. It’s a sign of strength. No one but God could allow the complexity of life to remain intact and still bring about his intentions within it. Just because we can’t doesn’t mean that God can’t.

6. In open theism, God is reacting.

Once again, the inference is that this is some sign of divine weakness. Reactive is not the right word. Responding is. God responds to our decisions after he initiates relationship. In fact, there would be no chance for relational involvement with him unless he first moved in a proactive fashion. From there, in the midst of established relationship, God invites our involvement in the world. That’s not weakness. It’s grace. As his beloved, our involvement affirms our importance to the God of the universe. Don’t think this is a good idea? Ask any married person what they think of a spouse who refuses to involve them in shared life. To expect the relationship, but provide nothing with which to nurture that relationship, is to sabotage the whole affair.

7. and 8. In open theism, God makes mistakes…God can and does make errors in judgment which later require re-evaluation…When God realizes He has made an error in judgment or that things did not unfold as He supposed, He can change His mind. 

I take issue with anyone who speaks of God so irreverently for the sake of vilifying a theological position. Tim does this to create outrage in the reader anticipating that they well reject open theism. God does not make mistakes or errors, get caught in his stupidity, and “re-evaluate” where he went wrong. What’s the missing ingredient in Tim’s recipe? Hope. God has hope that even in the most dire of circumstances, humanity will choose “life” over “death.” God bets against the odds in every scenario where the least sliver of optimism still remains. With God having full knowledge of one’s heart, he is not the least bit “surprised” or duped by the decisions of humans to serve their own interests. But part of love is to “keep no record of wrong.” Therefore, God will forever choose to believe the best of those he loves. Openness to the failures of others, does not require the ignorance of the posibility that good will still be done in the end. Bible passages that explain God’s grief are not describing a grief of ignorance, but the grief of a broken heart that sees us make wrong choices. That’s like saying a father who expresses grief over a child who becomes a drug addict had no idea that drugs existed. The grief is for the child, not over shock at the existence of drugs. Tim makes this same mistake when he quotes Boyd and describes God as a ”God who sorrows over decisions He has made as He is genuinely saddened by the results of His poor decision.” God is not grieving over his own stupidity. He’s grieving over “the destruction of his own creation” – exactly as Boyd says.

After dealing with his main concerns, Tim gives us his summary thoughts. My responses follow each point:

“Needless to say, I find this doctrine wholly incompatible with our knowledge of God as presented in His Word.”

See part 1. I think this one is still up for debate.

 “While open theism contradicts the understanding of God in every Judeo-Christian tradition, it is most completely at-odds with the Reformed understanding, which teaches the highest view of God’s foreknowledge and sovereignty.” 

Trust me - from a church history guy, this isn’t the case. Every century of church history has included well-known ministers, philosophers, and theologians that have held an “open view.” Open theists have compiled lists of adherents for you to review in their books and on their websites. At-odds with the Reformed understanding? Absolutely. But the belief that Reformed theology takes the “highest” view of foreknowledge and sovereignty is also open to debate. Many would say that open theism’s view of sovereignty is stronger and more informed (see posts 2 and 3).

“ This doctrine undermines our confidence in God and erodes our trust in His promises that He always has our best interests in mind. It is a dangerous, pernicious doctrine.”

Ahhh, Tim. Such hostility. Others feel differently. Though Tim encourages you to read Bruce Ware, an opponent of the open view, my studies have taught me that to understand a particular view of any sort, it’s best to go to the sources themselves. Within open theists’ own words, you can hear their struggle to overcome the persecution of peers and see their belief that they are doing something good for Christianity. I’ve seen similar resolve in the writings of Luther, Tertullian, Bernard of Clairvaux, Calvin, Wesley, Bonhoeffer, Schaeffer, and others. Maybe we’ll be saying the same thing about open theists one say.

Confessions of an Open Theist, Part 3: Science

If you’ve actually read these posts and the comments that followed, you have probably noticed two things: 1) you may be quite tired and 2) we keep bumping into a cosmological “frame” that informs our view of what God can and cannot do based on our modern understanding of how the world works. So, in order to explore this more fully, we have to enter the arena of science. I will tell you up front: science is not my strong suit. I rarely use Boyle’s law in my line of work. But I can shed some light on how the history of science has recently changed the paradigm of the Western world. For open theism, this is a great opportunity. I’ll explain more after a very brief look at the classical scientific worldview.

Early forms of science revolved around the goal of simplicity. If something can be stripped of its complexity and understood at a formulaic level, then it can not only be explained but harnessed for technological advancement. Simplicity was the best way to gain clarity – direct, observable, explainable. Many scientists still fall into this category and are called “reductionists.” After the introduction of Cartesian dualism, science began to look at the relationship between cause and effect as a way to explain life’s occurrences. Yet, many theolgians believed God acted in a similar fashion of simplicity, using those same natural laws to govern our world. So like the natural world around us, if God is the center of all life and his existence adequately explains the “effects” we see around us, his activity in the world can be reduced to a simplified level of cause and effect as well. Reduction to a mechanistic view of God would certainly be ontologically sound if his acts could be measured with “equation- like” simplicity. Classical theology has affirmed this view of the world – God is the cause of all and we see his effects in various natural and supernatural ways. What is the scientific “evidence” God has “acted” in the world? Well, in the causal nexus model, all the events of life reinforce the idea that God is at least the “First Cause” of everything. It’s a self- affirming system that goes something like this: “How do I know God is in control? Because a particular event happened. Why did a particular event (good or bad) occur? Because God is in control.” This circular reasoning  requires the underlying assumption that God determines everything we see. For years, “causality” looked like a slam dunk for explaining our world – for science and for theology.

Then something (or in this case, someone) happened: Max Planck. In the early twentieth century, Planck along with Werner Heisenberg came up with something called “quantum mechanics.” In essence, quantum theory forced the scientific community away from “large” explanations of the world to very small ones. Basically those guys said,  “There’s a whole lot of everything, and it’s all very, very small.” When the scientific world “shrunk,” something else happened, too - our ability to empirically measure the infinitesimal parts of the universe became impossible. And that, my friends, caused the classical understanding of a reliable tight-knit nexus of cause and effect to implode.  With it went our understanding of God acting within a predictable, orderly, and “explainable” world. And that doesn’t even include issues like “chaos theory” and “string theory”  – ideas that put the explanation of the world even further out of reach. Scientists like Larry Laudan, David Bohm, Paul Dirac, Thomas Kuhn, and Michael Polyani are coming out of the woodwork explaining the world in a different way. Things are not so tidy in the universe they say.  It’s complexity is overwhelming and scientists are acknowledging the “tacit dimension” of reality that exists beyond naturalism’s ability to measure. Of course, this would have been a huge problem when everyone thought they had the world figured out. But now, in the beginning stages of science’s exploration of infinitesimal complexity, a little help for the “subjective” side of life is not only acceptable – for many, it’s preferable.

Open theism is the only  theological system that gives significant explanation for this complexity by building it into its understanding of our world.  In fact, open theism thrives on it since it uses that complexity to explain prayer, suffering, the ambiguity in life, and a partially undetermined future. Can classical theological systems adapt (since they were created prior to the 20th century)? Sure. But it would be at the cost of losing some of their foundational philosophical (and, as we can see, scientific) assumptions. Right about now, you may be saying, “From what I can see, things look pretty ordered to me!”  Hold on there, Kemosabe – things only look that way. Here are two examples from John Polkinghorne’s Exploring Reality:

Hyperion, one of the moons of Saturn, explains how  life can look ordered when it’s really not. The small moon tumbles chaotically as it orbits Saturn. Polkinghorne says that based on quantum calculations, Hyperion’schaotic motion should cease roughly after a 37 year period. Yet Physicists already know that will not happen. Another influence on the planet makes its perpetual motions look ordered and wipes out quantum physics normal estimation that Hyperion will resolve its chaotic orbit. The moon is immersed in a low frequency radiation that derives partially from the Sun.  This radiation effectively erases any quantum process from affecting  Hyperion’s motion.  This keeps the moon in its perpetual state of seemingly changeless “order.” We see this and say, “Wow. The ‘causal nexus’ of our universe is maintaining order. Isn’t God great?” But the reality is that despite what our paradigm tells us, Hyperion’s orbit is a lesson in chaos masking itself as order. 

Polkinghorne also gives the example of an experiment using electric light bulbs, which only have two states: on and off. Stringing 10,000 light bulbs together, each bulb is correlated with two others somewhere in the matrix. Most people would expect to see a pattern emerge based on the correlation of the lights. But any pattern of simplicity seems like it would be immediately overcome due to the sheer number of lights involved.  In fact, the different states of illumination in this scenario are roughly 10^3,000 - a ridiculously impossible number to fathom. Yet when the experiment was conducted, all 10,000 light bulbs settled into a pattern of about 100 states of illumination. Once again, an incredibly complex model looks more “ordered” than it actually is. So, in the new era of science (and theology), complexity is the normal state of reality, even in cases where order seems observable to the naked eye.

Open theism at least treats the world as it is: a place of innumerable interactions and influences through which God must navigate to advance his will for humanity. In such a partially undetermined scenario, the sovereignty of God in the openness view is actually greater  than the classical understanding of sovereignty. This is the world in which we live…and in which God, in the midst of that complexity, draws us to himself.

Confessions of an Open Theist, Part 2: Pastoral and Practical Implications

To me, the pastoral/practical aspects of open theism are some of its strongest. There is something liberating about the idea that God is affected and responds to his children. I see three main areas where open theism is beneficial for practical Christianity: 1) theodicy, 2) practical living, and 3) prayer.

Open theism deals well with the issue of theodicy: God and the reality of evil in the world. Part of open theism’s strength is in its willingness to refrain from posturing and doing theological “publicity.” Let me explain. Most people when confronted with tragic loss are quickly trapped by a particular style of reasoning that places God off limits to criticism. Traditional Reformed theology not only says that God knew about the tragedy in your life, but that he foreordained it for some purpose relatively indiscernible to the average Christian. Then, they are told that going through hardship and suffering often serves a greater good. Our role is to understand that “God gives and God takes away.” This shields God from direct or indirect accusations of malevolence. The truth is that counsel like that is some of the most degrading and insensitive rhetoric to ever be spoken to Christians desperately trying to make sense of life. It trivializes their pain and merely makes them push their anger at God into the distance to be dealt with some other time (and often in an unhealthy way). Classical Arminians who accept libertarian free will but still believe God has full disclosure of all future events  have a different question to answer: how could a loving God know about tragedy, have the ability to stop it, and still let it occur? Great question. Most will tell you that the answer has to do with infringing upon free will or the whole “greater good” thing again. But that really doesn’t help anyone that much either. And it certainly doesn’t deal with the duplicity such a view creates in the character of a God who sees evil but abstains from responding.

Open theism takes a different route. If the future is partially undetermined, then the tragedies of life are certainly not God’s will. They occur due to the complexities of nature and the intricacies of balancing millions of temporal scenarios with spiritual ones. And sometimes, things still happen that fall far outside of God’s design and will for humanity. Because if this, open theism allows Christians to say, “Sometimes, things happen in the complexity of creation that no one – including God – would ever desire for his children.”  In that scenario, no one has to hear about how their disease, misfortune, suffering, family calamity, or natural disaster has some silver lining. As for the question,  ”Why didn’t God get there in time?” the answer is “I don’t know.” But open theism, wisely not answering questions no one has answers for, quickly affirms that God is affected and deeply feels the pain of those who suffer. And if the slightest possibility within the complexities of life had created a way for God to intercede, he would have. So, though natural loss may happen, the closeness of the Comforter remains.  Why do we feel we need to assign greater good to personal suffering and tragedy? It’s merely a practical diversion to help us cope with loss. In essence, we need God to be in control of everything in order to add value to otherwise senseless and meaningless events in life. We gravitate towards understanding God’s sovereignty in a anthropomorphic way - a way to which we can relate. But that approach is more for us than it is for God. Open theism is more mature than that – it embraces the arbitrariness and complexity of life while withholding the blame from God. No other theological system deals with theodicy in this way. Those I’ve counselled are quick to release God of blame once the origin for that inclination – a view of God as prescient and omnicausal - is removed.

As for practical living, open theism affirms the way people actually live. Christianity is known for subjecting its adherents to heavy doses of fatalism. Those who are bold enough to recognize this throw up their hands and say, “Why even try? If God knows everything a sees fit to make life so difficult, why continue on?” Open theism allows the Christian to take initiative. With the ability to change a situation and affect God with our response, we are given the liberty to appropriately respond to God’s initial response to us in Jesus. There’s also the practical willingness to serve/prefer others in seeing God do the same thing in his Word (see part 1). With this, a fuller revelation of kenotic theology comes into view. Previously only assigned to Jesus’s ultimate revelation of kenosis, God limits himself to the temporality of creation of his own volition. What’s more, open theism helps tremendously with the whole “finding God’s will” circus show (which is notoriously self-confirming and arbitrary). If life is not already “mapped out” for us to figure out, then we have ”breathing room” where decision making is concerned. That creates a deeper level of grace to the Christian walk: we don’t have to be afraid of making “mistakes” when trying to follow the Lord. If we make the wrong decision, God understands and moves us toward his desire for us while taking those “mistakes” into account. To me, this represents a God who is not “freaked out” by our inability to hear his voice. His goals reach their fruition while also including our involvement. Other versions of classical theism seem to be less sovereign (in the true sense that word was intended) by restricting God’s ability, intelligence, and resourcefulness.

Probably the biggest area of importance for open theism is prayer. It affirms the efficacy of prayer more than any other Christian view. If God voluntarily operates within a temporal time frame and responds to our needs, prayer becomes significant and “real-time.” Prayer becomes essential to the Christian walk because it helps determine the future. It becomes something that can make a real difference rather than merely a spiritual exercise. Prayer also becomes outward focused since our prayers dramatically affect the future. Once again, if God has everything “mapped out,” then prayer is self-indulgent and inward focused. I find it hard to believe that God would create hope through prayer and then remove it’s efficacy by already knowing where those prayers will lead. The thought is mortifying and leaves those praying for healing, provision, salvation of loved ones, and the peace of our world lacking the confidence to come to God with their needs. An open future reinvigorates the possibility that God takes prayer seriously as something more than a “quiet time” devotional.  

People who are unnerved by the implications of open theism (I think) have yet to think this one point through: fiercely defending an understanding of God as “outside of time” does nothing to engender practical relationship God. Open theism does that.  The view of God responding to humanity gives an overall foundation of grace and reciprocity to practical Christian living. In a way very different than the stern, deterministic God most people see, open theism lets God be what he has always intended: a God willing to listen and meet your needs. The Jesus that was “moved with compassion” becomes seen in the workings of the Father as well. That willingness to respond opens up the reality of a God who has not already lived life for us (by knowing and determining the future), but one who enjoys living life in us by walking with us each step of the way.

Confessions of an Open Theist, Part 1: The Biblical Text

When I first began to study open theism, I read all the obvious books on the subject: Pinnock, Boyd, Sanders, Rice, etc. But more helpful were the resources these authors drew from. So rather quickly, I began to read the sources behind open theism books:  Dutch Reformed South African Adrio Konig, Lutheran Terence Fretheim, Methodists Lorenzo McCabe and Adam Clarke, Old Testament scholars Walter Brueggemann, John Goldingay, and Samuel Balentine, as well as theistic philosophers like Johannes Wendland, Richard Swinburne and Vincent Brummer. Scientists like John Polkinghorne and Arthur Peacocke affirm the open view as well. What’s more, the Jewish community seemed to already accept this “give-and-take” view of God, as evidenced by the modern writings of Abraham Heschel and David Wolpe, among others (not to mention ancient writings – for example, see Honi the Circle Drawer in the Mishnah). They all seemed to be taking the biblical text seriously in a way I had never seen before. Basing their conclusions on the biblical narrative alone, they all seemed to be just fine with the idea that God acted within at least a partially unknown future and invited involvement of humans in making decisions that ultimately shaped that future.

Most commonly, Old Testament passages dealing with the concept of repentance and limitation caught my attention. Here are some examples. God regretted the direction that creation had taken in the pre-flood world (Gen. 6:6). In Genesis 18:16-33, God actually involved Abraham in deciding whether or not to destroy Sodom. God commented after Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice Isaac: “now I know that you truly fear God” (Gen. 22:12). God also regretted making Saul king, but due to the insistence of the Israelites, he allowed the appointment of a king anyway. He was dismayed over the fact that his original intent was to bless Saul’s family for generations (1 Sam. 13:13, 15:10, 35). Even then, God made a way of blessing for Saul’s family (different from his original intent) through Mephibosheth (2 Sam. 9). Responding to prayer, God extended Hezekiah’s life by fifteen years after he had already decreed his death (2 Kings 20:1-6/Jeremiah 26:19). The entire book of Jonah is about God’s willingness to change his mind concerning the destruction of Nineveh. The humor of the story is found in the fact that Jonah becomes irate when God pardons them - read Jonah 4 and see Jonah rant about God’s “ungodlike” willingness to rescind judgment. 

The prophets are full of examples where God expected one outcome, another occurs, and God adapts his plan of restoration and reconciliation to accommodate the new scenario. With every twist and turn, God had an answer. God discusses his dashed expectations with Israel in Isaiah 5:1-5. Jeremiah 3:6-7, 19-20 relays God’s hopes only to have Israel choose something else instead. Jeremiah also records God expressing shock/surprise over Israel’s sin – so much so that their disobedience “never entered [his] mind” (Jer. 19:5). God uses words like, “perhaps,”  ”might” or ”may” over and over again to show his optimism for future contingencies (Ex. 4:5, Ezek. 12:3, Jer. 26:3).

Then, you’ve also got passages in the New Testament that are based upon conditional/temporal presumptions. In Matthew 26:39, Jesus asks the Father to choose another avenue of human redemption other than the cross “if it is possible.” Either Jesus is not very theologically saavy or he knows something we don’t by asking if another possibility exists. Peter proclaims that Christians can cooperatively determine the time when Jesus returns to earth, “hastening the day of the Lord” (2 Peter 3:12). The apostles often mentioned God’s continual struggle to get humans to believe in his redemptive plan and relay God’s dissapointment if they resist. See Ephesians 4:30, Acts 7:51, and Hebrews 3:8 and 15.

Our preconceived understanding of determinism and omniscience often colors the conventional interpretation of a biblical passage. The potter and the clay passage in Jeremiah 18 is a great example of this. We normally quote verse 6: “O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter does?” declares the LORD. “Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel.” But verses 8-10 show God changing his mind as to how to deal with the Israelites or any other nation for that matter: “[if a] nation renounces its evil ways, I will (relent/reconsider/change my mind) not destroy it as I had (previously) planned. And if…that nation turns to evil and refuses to obey me, I will not bless it as I said I would.” The point (missed so often by those who don’t read the passage fully) is that though God certainly could make creation bend to his divine will, he doesn’t. He chooses to limit that power and, with extreme forbearance, he allows history to be shaped by human decisions by allowing people to freely love him of their own volition. In other words, a passage normally used to bolster classical understandings of God actually favors the “open view” when read fully in its context. 

Open theists take these texts seriously enough to see the future as partially open. Those who hold to classical theism usually say they have the corner market on a “high view” of scripture. And that’s the irony of it all I suppose. Rather than reading particular attributes of God into these passages, open theists merely say, “If God said ‘maybe’ or that he changed his mind, he must have meant it.” What emerges is a very different view of God than the classical one – a God willing to interact with humanity up close and personal. So hermeneutically, rather than some liberal, off-kilter movement with little biblical support, open theism is actually one of the most biblically conservative movements to come along in years – even more so than Neo-orthodoxy. Are there verses that support traditional views of omniscience (by which most actually mean prescience: future knowing)? Sure. But there aren’t as many as you’d think. And, from what I can tell, the above verses (and many others) are conditional – they show an ebb and flow in divine-human relations. Are some historical events “etched in stone”?  Sure there are. But it also appears that there are a whole lot that aren’t.

Next post: pastoral and practical concerns.

Confessions of an Open Theist, Introduction

I am an open theist. I never meant for this to happen. It just did.

What is open theism, you say? Well, most opponents will tell you that it has to do with denying God’s omniscience where future events are concerned. But to me, that’s just a byproduct of the real issue: stripping Christianity of static attributes of God that would hinder a relational approach to him. God created humans to interact in a give and take relationship. It’s God’s constant love that allows his will to be accomplished in a cooperative style. For many classical theists, God’s power/control is definitive. For open theists, that power is leveraged for the sake of love: God’s central defining attribute.

My first encounter with open theism came in Robert Picirilli’s Grace, Faith and Free Will – an otherwise excellent book. He used vitriolic language like: “deformed, shallow, and careless ” to describe this newfangled heresy lingering in theological shadows converting the beguiled to “neo-Arminian” beliefs. I have since read words like those of Steve Farrar: “Open Theists are people who edit the Bible like it’s a Microsoft Word document.” Any supporting evidence to this claim in Farrar’s popular parenting book? Nope. Just his opinion, dangling out there in self-appointed authority.

Over the next four posts, I’d like to share how I came to embrace open theism. The first post will deal with the biblical text. The second with pastoral/practical reasons for adopting open theism. Thirdly, I’ll deal with changes in the landscape of science and how that affirms the open view. Finally, I’ll interact with Tim Challies’ article on open theism. I chose his for several reasons: 1) he is a noted blogger, 2) his criticisms of the open view are fairly common ones, 3) he assigns particular motives to the writings of open theists, and 4) Tim, though I’m sure he is a nice person, has built his internet presence on providing “discernment” for the curious. This means, of course, if a belief/worldview doesn’t conform to particular set of doctrinal guidelines, Tim’s gonna do you a favor and tell you it’s not good for you. To be sure, I’m not going to attack or debate Tim’s views – he’s welcome to believe whatever draws him closer to Jesus. I will merely use it as a reference when discussing my journey towards open theism.

Now, just a word about “heresy.” Open theism is not “heresy.” I’ve spent the better part of this decade studying the history of mentalities and anyone who uses the term “heresy” to describe open theism has not done their research. That’s also a quick way to get your comments “unapproved.” Open theism is, however, heterodox. Now, that doesn’t mean “wrong.” It means presently outside of full mainstream acceptance. Any evangelical historian worth their salt will tell you that “orthodox” simply means the “majority opinion” – it doesn’t necessarily mean that the majority opinion is “correct,” though it certainly can. So, many of the “orthodox” opinions we hold today were at one time heterodox, until enough people accepted them. No matter what mainstream religious group you belong to, you can thank your original leaders for being persistent in the face of opposition and charges of heresy from the mainstrean religion of the time. Otherwise, your denomination (or Christianity for that matter) would have been stamped out long ago in the name of “sound doctrine.” What people called “deformed, shallow, and careless ” then, we call “normal” now. The same is true with open theism. Questions of omniscience do not send anyone to hell. We are talking about the religion that took several hundred years to hash out Christ’s divine nature, for Pete’s sake!

This series of posts will not be a polemical treatise - they are autobiographical. You are certainly welcome to interact with them (in fact, I encourage discussion), but please understand that the spiritual journey of a brother in Christ resides within them. Heck, I may even change my mind one day. For the record, that’s okay. I also won’t be spending much time discussing philosophical issues (i.e. panentheism, compatibilism, etc.) though I am willing to address those issues in the comment section as necessary. I hope that this series will answer some questions for those who are curious. My goal is to share my journey and encourage you to take your own. Don’t take my word for it, read authors on both sides with an open (no pun intended) spirit…and then, you and the Holy Spirit can make a decision together.