What are the Issues?
Posted by Felter David J. on December 4th, 2009 filed in IdeaBridges PostEvery so often, I get inquiries from people wondering if the Nazarene church is experiencing theological division that could have serious consequences. Let me ask you–how would you answer that question?
It seems “normal” that in the kind of times in which we are living, one sign of a healthy, growing church would be vibrant diversity that would challenge the status quo. Clearly, the culture in which the church exists, has moved beyond automatic acceptance of tradition. Change is the order of the day. And, while change is the order of the day, depending your location on the age spectrum, such change is either the anticipated order of the day, or it is painfully difficult.
I think we’re observing a major shift that will have long term impact on the church. Here’s what I see:
1. The locus of authority is shifting from the Bible to philosophy.
Few voices are saying it out loud right now, but there appears to be a growing segment in the church who have cheerfully discarded both inerrancy and the infallibility of Scripture. There is a growing segment of people who believe the Bible is inspired but not necessarily infallible. In fact some reject even the argument that the claims for the infallibility of the original autographs, that such an argument proves nothing. Others are intent on dispelling any confusion that might suggest we (the Nazarenes) are remotely fundamentalist in our thinking.
So what does God say about his word? Is his word truly accurate, trustworthy, reliable, and infallible, or is it tentative, contingent, and subject to changing preferences? What did Jesus imply regarding both God’s word and written Scripture?
We need to understand that God’s last word is none other than Jesus Christ, his son and our Messiah.(See Hebrews 1:1-4) The Scriptures (the written word) attest to the living word of God through their accurate and inspired description of him, his ministry and his message. Beyond that, the written word of Scripture reveals the character and compassion of God as well as the creation of human community and God’s initiatives to relate, redeem, and restore his creation to its intended purpose.
Most Christians would accept all I’ve said to this point. The rub comes when we begin to look specifically at the nature of the written word, Scripture. I have noticed that many people are willing to grant “authority” to the written word, Scripture. What I am not clear on, is how they define what they mean by “authority.”
Open theism is defined by Thomas Jay Oord in the following manner:
**God’s primary characteristic is love.
**Theology involves humble speculation about who God truly is and what God really does.
**Creatures – at least humans – are genuinely free to make choices pertaining to their salvation.
**God experiences others in some way analogous to how creatures experience others.
**Both creatures and God are relational beings, which means that both God and creatures are affected by others in give-and-take relationships.
**God’s experience changes, yet God’s nature or essence is unchanging.
**God created all nondivine things.
**God takes calculated risks, because God is not all-controlling.
**Creatures are called to act in loving ways that please God and make the world a better place.
**The future is open; it is not predetermined or fully known by God.
**God’s expectations about the future are often partly dependent upon creaturely actions.
**Although everlasting, God experiences time in a way analogous to how creatures experience time.
If one listens carefully, one will discover that these philosophical categories are used by many Nazarenes to describe their faith. Granted, the rank-and-file are still quite conservative and believe that God does indeed know and understand the future. They also believe that he transcends time which in no way impairs his ability to understand the creaturely experience of time. Additionally, many rank-and-file Nazarenes, while acknowledging the necessity for humility when it comes to theological speculation, readily admit their belief that what we can know for sure about God is and has been revealed in the Scriptures.
What seems clear to me is the migration away from our dependence on Scripture as the bedrock of both authority and infallible source for crafting beliefs, theological statements, and doctrines. The description Dr. Oord presents is clearly one-sided. No mention of God’s holiness or his wrath is mentioned. God is posited as a being whose only nature is loving. If this is the extent of one’s perception of God, it will be revealed in other issues, e.g. the challenge of gay and lesbian behavior, same-sex marriage and/or unions, and abortion.
More topics next time!
The prophet once said, “To the law and to the testimony!” (Isaiah 8:20) These are not good times in which to minimize the importance, reliability, and trustworthiness of the Scripture. “Faint praise” of the Scriptures quietly erodes their authority just as much as those who blatantly chuck them from the shelves of libraries. Will the church awaken to tragedy only to find it has lost its message and can no longer speak prophetically to the world?
December 4th, 2009 at 8:11 pm
David,
Thanks for this post!
One of the things that Open theists argue is that their view is MORE biblical than the alternatives.
They argue that the idea that God is outside of time is LESS biblically supported than the idea that God experiences time in some way analogous to creatures. In fact, the idea that God “transcends time” derives more from Greek philosophy than the Bible.
And Open theists rarely if ever link their theology to liberal social issues. I can’t think of any Open theist who supports gay marriage, and I know virtually all of the major thinkers.
In sum, Open theists think they can appeal to the BIble for greater support than others can. And they claim that the rank and file Christian has been implicitly influenced more by philosophy than the Bible.
All of this is open to debate, of course. But I think it’s important to say that Open theists aren’t choosing to emphasize philosophy more than the Bible — although they won’t deny the value of philosophy.
One more point worth noting in light of your post: Open theists affirm God’s holiness and wrath. (See Pinnock’s book, Most Moved Mover) They just think holiness and wrath should not be understood as in conflict with God’s love. I’m guessing you’d agree with them on this issue.
Thanks for engaging these issues!
Tom
December 5th, 2009 at 8:43 am
Tom:
Hello friend! Thank you for your comments. None can deny the important impact Greek philosophy imported to Christian thinking in the first several centuries of the Church’s development. I deeply respect your insights both as a theologian and a philosopher.
I would like to think that many of my positions have been staked out on the foundations laid in the First Testament in which there is a vision of God that in the words of 1st Isaiah in which the prophet saw him as “high and lifted up.”
Secondly, I would admit that there could very well be the distinction between reading the Scriptures devotionally in which the heart transcends the intellect and thereby posits that which seem more supported by external philosophical constructs.
Finally, your point concerning God’s wrath and his holiness as not being in conflict with his love is well taken. I believe, however, that we may be in danger of hearing exclusively of God’s love to the point where we miss the connection between God’s hatred of sin that motivated his compassionate love in his invitation to redemption and transformation.
As always, Tom, it’s great to hear from you. I would encourage everyone to check out your blog at http://thomasjayoord.com.
Blessings!
Dave
December 16th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
I am confused. In your final point to Dr. Oord, you say “I believe, however, that we may be in danger of hearing exclusively of God’s love to the point where we miss the connection between God’s hatred of sin that motivated his compassionate love in his invitation to redemption and transformation.” That, in my non-theologically trained, mind is direct challenge to the scripture. every Sunday School kid in America can tell you that “God so loved the world, that he sent his only Son”. We are never taught that the “invitation to redemption and transformation” is motivated by God’s hatred of sin. Did I sleep through an important Sunday School lesson? I cannot find anywhere in the scripture where it says God’s love is motivated by hatred of sin.
In fact it says God IS love…..(1 John 4:8) “Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love”. 1 John chapter 3 goes into a lot of depth talking about sin and love. I particularly like the part where anyone living in him won’t sin.
December 16th, 2009 at 8:46 pm
Great observation. While I agree that God’s love motivates his grace, the point I was trying to make is that God’s wrath toward sin is real. It goes back to the idea that the orderly realm of God was challenged by a created being who coveted the glory due God alone. That collision of wills created chaos before our history began. In the Garden story, the temptation of the woman and the subsequent disaster that ensued is met by God’s decision to send the first pair out from his presence, “east of Eden.” In the drama that follows God references the enmity that will exist between the seed of the woman and Satan. The sordid history of sin is one challenge of God’s authority after another. To be sure, God is motivated by love for the world, so much so, that he gave us his one and only son. And the story doesn’t end there. St. Paul writes in Rom. 1:18 “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness…”
I did not mean to imply that God’s primary motivation is anger, even his righteous anger against sin. I probably did a poor job of stating my thoughts here. I meant that to fully understand the love of God, we must remember that there is simultaneously both the unconditional love of God for us, while there is also his awesome holiness that is completely at war against that which seeks to usurp his honor and glory. As we proclaim God’s love, it is essential that we also understand that the reason he was so willing to go to the lengths he was to save us, also reflects his wrath against sin which attempts to overthrow him and his glory.
December 25th, 2009 at 9:51 pm
I’m curious as to your reaction to one of the tenets of the Open Theists, i.e. “God takes calculated risks, because God is not all-controlling.” Would not this be a true statement when considered in real time?
It seems to me that we have said in essence that God has limited himself by giving Christians and the church the task of propagating the gospel, evangelizing the lost, etc. Has not God limited himself from all control by making salvation a “love and acceptance” response and not an ultimatum when viewed in current time?
Obviously God is all-controling with regard to eternal destiny. Further, there is a sense in which God is all-controling with regard to divine favor in this life.
December 26th, 2009 at 10:11 pm
God has not limited the Good News to the church alone. Romans 1 talks about nature, etc. It is God Himself and through the work of the Spirit that actually draws men to Himself. It is He who saves them.
God is all controlling but what do you say in response then, that “God answers prayer” (or the “effective prayer of a righteous man availeth much”)? I think it not as a risk of God, but the lavish gift of free will which was necessary because we were made in His image.
“They argue that the idea that God is outside of time is LESS biblically supported than the idea that God experiences time in some way analogous to creatures. In fact, the idea that God “transcends time” derives more from Greek philosophy than the Bible.”
Maybe that comes from the nature of the word eternal. In the Beginning God… the Alpha and Omega, Beginning and the End… I have always understood God existing outside of time, but in grace reaches into it to interact with His creation (in the fullness of time). Eternity itself is outside of time, by sake of its longevity. I’m not “into” philosophy and struggle with some of the concepts; but I also believe God put the imprint of truth in the world from the beginning so that even the Greeks and others worked from a God given template in their understanding that would be fully realized in Jesus and in the age to come.