My friend Bryan and I are heading up to Seattle to pick up Steve tonight, and then we’re off to Bellingham where we’re staying the night at Steve’s brother, Jessie’s house. Then we’re all off in the morning for a hike somewhere in the Northern Cascades. We’ll hike tomorrow and hang out, camp, etc., and then be back on Sunday. I’m sure I’ll have some pictures to share when we get back.
But until then, a few questions:
- What does anyone know about open theism? (A friend of mine said it was pretty much process theology, but in Gregory Boyd’s book God of the Possible, he’s pretty quick to point out that it is the furthest thing from process thought/theology…interesting)
- It’s seems in Scripture that God changes God’s mind, that there are times when God doesn’t *exactly* know how everything is going to pan out…can we be okay with that?
- What if God didn’t know everything……? Is that the worst possible thing?
{ 2 trackbacks }
{ 14 comments… read them below or add one }
i think that the possibility of God not knowing everything and being along with us in the journey of life should at least be considered. (and I dont just mean the position that God chooses to limit God’s knowledge of the future)…
It is interesting to think we may be staking our lives down in a story that we really dont know the end too. What does that do to our idea of hope?
While it may be somewhat of an extreme position, it is helpful correction to the extreme deterministic models..As always, the answer is prob somewhere in the “tension” (seminary word that must be used in every paper #34)…
mark
Open theism is interesting as an exercise, but it seems to me to be process theology in another wrapping.
Call me old fashioned, but any God that doesn’t know the future isn’t God at all and is no better than us. I think that trying to second-guess what God might do, or asking does He change his mind is achievable if we can sit God down as we can our (human) best friend. But we can’t! I guess open theism would then suggest a limited God, but I prefer the omnipotent mysterious God. One tries to square the equation (and open theism fails and misses the point), the other says ‘there are some things I don’t know. Wow, God is bigger than I thought’.
Openness of god theology is very, very different from process theology. Process theology has difficulty distinguishing itself from pantheism. Openness theology doesn’t have that problem at all. I’m not sold on the idea, mostly because I think that time itself is such a problematic notion philosophically, that I think building a theology on a metaphysics of time is a mistake.
But what I really appreciate about Boyd is how central the problem of evil (theodicy) is in his thought. Many theologies don’t take the problem of evil seriously at all, and Boyd is refreshing here. I think his openness position is highly motivated by the desire to deal with the problem of evil.
Boyd argues that God knows all of the multiple choices we could make and can respond accordingly. He doesn’t know which choice we’re going to make until we make it.
His position is closely argued from the biblical text. Objections to his view as outlined above will be covered in his books. He has 2 titles with IVP that are academic in nature. Check him out on Amazon
Oh, and I think you can have everything you want that process theology gives you, and still retain god’s foreknowledge, by saying that god, in general (with notable exceptions) god chooses to providentially govern the universe *as if* god didn’t know our future actions, in order to permit a robust form of human agency. You can do violence to another person’s will by manipulating events in relation to what you know they will do, and God chooses not to do violence to our will in that manner.
Ooops, I meant openness theology, not process, in my prior post.
One last remark: Jurgen Moltmann’s eschatological books, esp. Theology of Hope, I think provide an interesting challenge to openness theology too. Moltmann’s idea here is that God resides in the future, and is present in the present as the power of the future. I’m a Moltmann fan, so this gives me further reason to stay out of the Openness camp, although I respect Boyd a great deal.
From http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2001/003/3.42.html I perceive that the vast majority of this debate is within the Baptist General Convention (and other closely aligned inerrantist, evangelical conservatives).
It appears that anything that includes a notion of God that doesn’t fit neatly inside the box they’ve built is fair game for both barrels.
Is Open Theism the answer to anything? Maybe, maybe not. At least it makes you think.
If anything, the notion that we people can somehow grasp the entire essence of God is laughable, never mind write it down and define it in a few words.
But then this seems like a debate firmly destined to remain within the confines of theology colleges. In other words, just a variation on the debate of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
In the book of genesis or possibly exodus, the people of Israel sinned against God (surprise, surprise). When Moses went to God, God informed Moses that he was going to destroy the whole lot of them. Long story short, Moses appealed to God on behalf of the people, and God relented. Or in some versions, he changed his mind. Now, I think that the fact that God changed his mind reflects everything that we know God is. God’s decision to not destroy his people demonstrates his grace, love, and compassion: things that never change about God. I’m glad God changed his mind, and is compassionate. Where would we be without God’s grace and love?
Ah, but the sworn enemies of process theology/open theism would just say that God knew that God was going to change God’s mind because God knew Moses would ask etc., etc.
From there it’s just one short step to the Monty Python argument sketch.
Exodus 32
1When the people saw that Moses delayed to come down from the mountain, the people gathered themselves together to Aaron and said to him, “Up, make us gods who shall go before us. As for this Moses, the man who brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him.” 2So Aaron said to them, “Take off the rings of gold that are in the ears of your wives, your sons, and your daughters, and bring them to me.” 3So all the people took off the rings of gold that were in their ears and brought them to Aaron. 4And he received the gold from their hand and fashioned it with a graving tool and made a golden calf. And they said, “These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt!” 5When Aaron saw this, he built an altar before it. And Aaron made proclamation and said, “Tomorrow shall be a feast to the LORD.” 6And they rose up early the next day and offered burnt offerings and brought peace offerings. And the people sat down to eat and drink and rose up to play.
Isaiah 46
5″To whom will you liken me and make me equal,
and compare me, that we may be alike?
6Those who lavish gold from the purse,
and weigh out silver in the scales,
hire a goldsmith, and he makes it into a god;
then they fall down and worship!
7They lift it to their shoulders, they carry it,
they set it in its place, and it stands there;
it cannot move from its place.
If one cries to it, it does not answer
or save him from his trouble.
8″Remember this and stand firm,
recall it to mind, you transgressors,
9remember the former things of old;
for I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is none like me,
10declaring the end from the beginning
and from ancient times things not yet done,
saying, ‘My counsel shall stand,
and I will accomplish all my purpose,’
11calling a bird of prey from the east,
the man of my counsel from a far country.
I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass;
I have purposed, and I will do it.
12″Listen to me, you stubborn of heart,
you who are far from righteousness:
13I bring near my righteousness; it is not far off,
and my salvation will not delay;
I will put salvation in Zion,
for Israel my glory.”
And your point is….
i discovered openness of god theology along with process theology when i started exploring evolution and the theological implications of that. (john haught is the guru for that one). that whole journey has really complemented my understanding of the kingdom of god, especially moltmann’s notion that god is calling from the future. it’s made me more sensitive to suffering and the imperative of working for justice in the world. also, it has made god both more powerful and more vulnerable for me, in ways that deeply convince me that god is much more loving than i ever imagined.
whether it’s “true” or not, who knows, but it has been a great lens for me to look through. more on my blog for you.
Process and openness theology both seem to be attempts to preserve the notion of free will by presenting a god who hasn‚Äôt determined or decided upon a certain future. In the former view, god usually doesn‚Äôt know what is going to happen–this god, like the rest of us, is along for the ride (although he may work a bit harder). In the latter view, god only decides what is going to happen in general. (Worried about the details of your love life, your job, your health, your kids‚Äô lives? Good, because this god has got bigger things to take care of.) In both views, no one is holding onto the wooden spoon, at least not very firmly. The originality of Moltmann, a panentheist, deserves its own category: here we have a universe that is part of a god who is not quite fully developed.