Open Theology - A Response to Dr. Thomas Oord

Posted by Felter David J. on March 1st, 2010 filed in IdeaBridges Post

Thomas Jay Oord writes frequently in his blog about process philosophy, process theology, and open theology. (www.thomasjayoord.com) Recently, he wrote a treatise on open theology and the Church of the Nazarene. In my blog, I will provide my response to his initiative.

Dr. Oord writes, “Open theology has gained wide attention since the 1990s. It enjoys growing influence in the Church of the Nazarene.

Reduced to its bare bones, Open theology affirms that 1) love is uniquely exemplified by God, 2) love is the human ethical imperative, 3) God and creatures enjoy free and mutually-influencing relations, 4) and the future is open and not settled.”

It is apparent from this point forward, that Tom’s bias is clear. Indeed, one gets the feeling that he is strongly advocating this theology. It is my intent to offer comments on selected passages of Tom’s paper. While it would be possible to critique every point, I have selected only those I believe are most obvious in terms of their challenging properties. Dr. Thomas Jay Oord is a wonderful individual and expresses many of the characteristics of a Spirit-filled brother in the Lord. It is my intention to simply point out disagreements between traditional Christian thought and open theology.
__________________________________________________

“The Church of the Nazarene takes the Bible as its primary source for issues pertaining to salvation. The denomination is part of a theological tradition that affirms central biblical affirmations about God as the almighty Lover who seeks, saves, and sanctifies. It emphasizes that God calls Christians to love God and others as themselves. The holiness message is rooted in love: God’s love for the world and God’s call for creatures to love.”

Response:

Dr. Oord says, “The holiness message is rooted in love: God’s love for the world and God’s call for creatures to love.”

While there is little disagreement with this statement, some Nazarene believers would suggest that it does not say enough. The holiness message is indeed rooted in love: Loving God with all one’s heart, soul, mind, and strength, and loving one’s neighbor as oneself is the heart of the holiness message. Nothing in that statement counters Dr. Oord’s statement, however, I believe that we must stick to the statements of Scripture in order base holiness doctrine on a sure foundation.

Oord: “If my people who are called by my name will humble themselves, pray, seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways, then … I will forgive their sins and heal their land…. But if you turn aside and forsake my statues and my commandments that I have set before you, and go and serve other gods and worship them, then I will pluck you up from the land that I have given you…”(2 Chron. 7:14, 19-20a).

God apparently does not know what Solomon and the people of Israel will do when presented with these options. This passage loses significance if God already knows all future choices.”

Response:

Divinely-presented options do not mean that God does not know what we will do when given the opportunity to choose. I believe it may be better said that we do not know, but God does know. Further, Dr. Oord fails to support his claim concerning God’s apparent lack of foreknowledge. Is this an assumption he makes? It would appear that the basis for Dr. Oord’s claim is derived from his own presuppositions, not Scriptural evidence. In the discussion that follows below, it would seem that by Oord’s inclusion of the reference to Jesus and his advance knowledge of Peter’s denial, he undermines his earlier assumption regarding the absence of God’s foreknowledge.

There are many ramifications behind the assumption that, “God apparently does not know what Solomon and the people of Israel will do when presented with these options.” God has stated in the Scripture that he has plans for his people (Jer. 29:11). If God does not know what we will ultimately do, then of what value are his plans for us since there might be the strong possibility that those plans will be dismissed by us? And, if these plans are dismissed, can we really call them “plans?”

I am not arguing here for determinism. I am convinced, however, that when we align our lives with God and his purpose and plan for our lives, he will intercede in our behalf just as it is described in Romans 8:28: “And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.”

To suggest, as does Dr. Oord, that, “This passage loses significance if God already knows all future choices” seems unfounded. After all, God is indeed God. He states, “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is, and who was, and who is to com, the Almighty.”(Rev. 1:8) Open theology insists that God is co-temporal in and with time. Traditional theologians using passages like the above preserve both God’s immanence and his transcendence, refusing to lock him into the contingent-ness of time’s continuum. Thus the choices that will be made, including those out in the future can be known by God and his foreknowledge of them does not diminish his message to us in any way.

Oord: “Both advocates and critics of Open theology sometimes cite the same biblical passage to support their different views. For instance, both claim the passage, “’I know the plans I have for you,’ says the Lord, ‘plans to prosper you and not harm you, plans to give you hope and a future’” (Jer. 29:11), supports their view of God’s knowledge.

Critics of Open theology cite the passage to support their view that God knows in advance all of the details of what will happen in our future. For them, God talking about such plans implies the future is settled.”

Response:

I believe it is important to distinguish between the perspectives of Hyper-Calvinism and Wesleyan-Arminian theologies. For those fearful of divine determinism, even considering the possibility that the future may indeed by foreknown is traumatic. Wesleyan-Arminian believers have long accepted the fact that the future is truly known only to God. Further, we actually do believe there is a future that exists “out there.” We join Christians everywhere as we pray the Lord’s Prayer and say, “your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.” (Matt. 6:10) While we do not believe that humankind is not free, we believe that the future is not capricious, and that our choice-making is real, affecting many dimensions of our future. Thus, we accept a balance between a fixed future, and one that is malleable contingent upon our choices made within the framework of our limited freedom. Finally, we believe that everything is fully known by God in his infinite foreknowledge.

Oord: “Prominent voices in the Christian tradition – e.g., Ireneus, Augustine of Hippo, Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin, Martin Luther – believed that God both foreknows all that will occur and foreordains all that will occur. A sovereign God causes all events, say these theologians.

The doctrine of predestination emerges from this set of beliefs. For these Christians, the idea that God alone determines all events and the idea that God foreknows all that will happen are linked. If God predestines all things, God knows exhaustively and inerrantly what will occur.

Theologians such as James Arminius and John Wesley, however, differ in important ways from prominent Christian voices of yesteryear. They claim to have a stronger biblical basis for their perspective. They champion love as God’s “reigning” or “darling” attribute.”

Response:

Once again, I believe Dr. Oord correctly notes the Scriptural definition offered in 1 John 4:8 and 4:16b: “God is love.” However, we must be balanced in our rehearsal of the attributes of God. The Scriptures indicate that God is light, a consuming fire, etc. To say that God’s attributes are most perfectly expressed in love, however does not diminish the fact that God is also holy and calls his people to holiness.

Oord: “Although Arminius and Wesley were adamant that God did not foreordain creaturely actions, most of their writings suggest that God foreknows creaturely actions. One can find statements here and there implying God does not know the future exhaustively, but the majority of their writings suggest God does foreknow.”[v]

Response:

The paragraph immediately above is an interesting example of how the notion that Wesleyan theology is compatible with open theology can be made. Only by looking for the exception, rather than the rule, may one even remotely think that Wesley may have had the remotest belief in God’s lack of foreknowledge. We concur that Wesleyan-Arminian theology rejects, “foreordaination of creaturely actions.” We cannot see the link, however, between Wesleyan thought and open theology. More on this later.

Oord: “Most early Church of the Nazarene theologians, such as H. Orton Wiley, affirmed divine foreknowledge. For Wiley, God did not predestine. But God foreknew all future actual occurrences.”

Response:

H. Orton Wiley’s conviction that, “God foreknew all future actual occurrences” has been the bedrock of Nazarene belief. One can argue the fine point of whether God can know the unknowable. One can argue what indeed is “knowable.” This is a futile exercise, similar to the theologian in the Middle Ages arguing about how many angels can sit on the head of a pin. We presume much when begin to decide what God cannot know.

Oord: “A good number of 21st century Church of the Nazarene laity, pastors, and professional scholars explicitly deny exhaustive divine foreknowledge. They are Open theists. Their denial that God knows the future exhaustively fits the fundamental Wesleyan belief that humans – and perhaps all creatures – have a degree of freedom.”[viii]

Response:

I agree with Dr. Oord that God the Creator has give us a “degree of freedom.” Our freedom, however, is not absolute. I also believe we must distinguish between the God-given freedom of humankind as a whole, and individual freed at the personal or individual level. Open theists do not seem to engage this difference. There is room for spontaneity and novelty within the parameters of individual freedom. God does indeed, however, know all the ranges of possibility inherent in such spontaneity or novelty possible within the confines of limited human freedoms. Additionally, God knows the terminus and trajectory of every element of his creation.

Oord: “H. Orton Wiley affirmed Calvin’s view on this issue. He said, “[God] stands superior to time, free from the temporal distinctions of past and future, and in whose life there can be no succession.”[ix]

The idea that God is nontemporal, however, does not square well with the broad biblical witness. Biblical authors often suggest or assume that God is a living God. To be living implies that God experiences time in sequential moments. We might say that a living God is in all times – pantemporal – or everlasting.”

Response:

Clearly, God is both immanent and transcendent. To understand God’s relationship to time we begin with the Creation story in Genesis where we recognize God’s approving relationship to the critical elements of time, evening and day. Time is the product of creation. As the planet orbits in the universe, seasons are marked, day and night succeed each other, and we mark time. To say that, “The idea that God is nontemporal, however, does not square well with the broad biblical witness,” is another challenging statement. God knows the future in all its mystery and complexity exactly because he is not the prisoner of time, but rather, transcendent and always in the “now,” just as he identified himself as the “I Am.”

Further, we cannot understand God’s relationship to time without speaking of the incarnation. In God’s son, Our Lord Jesus Christ, God has stepped into time without abandoning his transcendence. Philosophy cannot answer all our questions at this point. We affirm, however, that God remains both immanent (the incarnation of Jesus – Immanuel) and transcendent, unfettered by the temporal with its unrelenting change and decay. The argument below does not succeed in reordering these facts.

Oord: “The question of God’s future knowledge affects some aspects of the Christian life. I will briefly mention several.”

Response:

In the statement above, I believe it should be modified to indicate that all aspects of the Christian life are affected by whether or not God truly knows the future.

Oord: - “Petionary Prayer

Open theists believe their view makes better sense of petitionary prayer. Most Christians truly believe their requests at least sometimes directly affect how God decides to act. Prayer for the sick, for instance, makes a difference in how God chooses to heal.
If God knows the future exhaustively because the future is settled, however, petitionary prayer seems pointless. God already knows the outcomes. Prayers to affect an already settled future are futile.”

Response:

How could petitionary prayer ever seem pointless? What if God really does know the outcome of the future, does that mean that we too share in that knowledge? Absolutely not. We have finite knowledge even of the present, let alone the future. We pray that God’s will may be done because we know that prayer changes us. It prepares us to receive and participate in God’s full disclosure of his perfect will. (See Romans 12:1-2 as an indication of presenting ourselves for the experience of God’s perfect will.

Oord: “Open theists typically point out in response that a) the vast majority of prophetic statements in the Bible are not predictive, b) God can know with absolute certainty some things that God plans to do without foreknowing all future events, and c) sometimes predictive prophets were wrong in their predictions. The issue of predictive prophecy does not undermine Open theology.”

Response:

The assumption that: “the vast majority of prophetic statements in the Bible are not predictive, b) God can know with absolute certainty some things that God plans to do without foreknowing all future events, and c) sometimes predictive prophets were wrong in their predictions” is troubling. While we agree that not all prophecy is predictive in that it is best described as “forth-telling,” it is difficult to see how God could know “with absolute certainty some things that God plans to do without foreknowing all future events.” The last part of that statement is really challenging. If predictive prophets were wrong in their predictions, how could they have any credibility as the servants and spokespersons of God with a divinely inspired message?

Oord: “Open theists say that their view helps Christian gain a sense that their lives really matter. Our lives can really make a difference in a yet to be settled history.
If God knows the future because it is already settled, what we decide and do today ultimately makes no difference. Things will be as they have already been determined to be.”

Response:

I believe the argument of those holding open theology as their primary theological perspective is more with the absolute determinism of hyper Calvinism than with the theology held by most Nazarenes. We do not believe that just because God knows the future in every detail, means that he has fixed all possibilities so that no intervention to change any outcome is possible. If you really examine the heart and soul of open theology, it is a rejection of absolute determinism. Admittedly there are more nuanced themes within its purview, which are beyond the scope of my response here.

Oord: -” We Are Genuinely Free”

Response:

It must continuously be emphasized that we also believe in the genuine freedom of humankind. However, we continue to emphasize the fact that our freedom is not absolute, but conditioned upon the grace of God.

Oord: “We should not be held morally accountable if our future has already been settled prior to any choice we might make. This “choice” does not seem genuinely open.”

Response:

Those who argue for open theology seem interested in developing a theodicy that accommodates the problem of a just God and the presence of evil. By limiting the knowledge of God, and by eliminating a fixed future, the problem of evil seems to have been addressed in a way that leaves the justice of God intact, while not charging him with either the creation of, or complicity with evil.

Once again, we believe that God’s foreknowledge does not make God culpable for evil or its attendant consequences. By drifting away from the heart of the Genesis account, many theologians miss the point that evil is not the product of God’s action or even his failure to act. It is the product of subversion. God’s perfect will was contested by creatures in whom he vested elements of his own nature, e.g. the ability to choose and make decisions.

The idea that a proper theodicy can be constructed on the basis that God does not know the future, is a failure before it even gets out of the gate. The possibility of evil is a reality because God took a risk by investing his creation with elements of his own nature. Our first parents chose to disobey the loving limitations imposed by God and in seeking their own sovereignty they succeeded only in alienating themselves from immediate fellowship with God. In the wake of their rebellion against God, all of creation was marred as well, so that what theologians call the “fall” resulted in every facet of the environment being misaligned with the perfect will of God.

God truly knows the future. He does not will bad things to happen to good people. His will is perfect and because God has stepped into this world, taking upon himself the nature of humankind in the incarnation of his son, Jesus Christ, God has effected redemption from the train wreck of sin. By the transforming power of the Holy Spirit, we too can learn alignment with God’s way and will. Thus petitionary prayer is important to aid us in learning increased conformity to the call, character, and consequence of God’s perfect will.

Oord: “Open theists believe that their view of God makes better sense of relational and covenantal passages of scripture. A God outside time who sees all history in one moment should not be considered responsive to creatures.”

Response:

There is not evidence to support the bald claim that, “A God outside time who sees all history in one moment should not be considered responsive to creatures.” There is strong support through out the Scriptures to infer that God is indeed sovereign and absolute, beyond the temporal grasp of time. Indeed, this is what makes the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ so significant: he entered time and we could say, “Emmanuel: God is with us!”

Oord: “We cannot fathom what a relationship would be like if one party was entirely unresponsive and unmoved. An unaffected being cannot engage in a give-and-receive relationship. ”

Response:

This is a curious argument. Because God is sovereign, is both immanent and transcendent, is beyond the grasp of temporality, yet the eternal incarnate One does not mean he is “unresponsive and unmoved.” Again, we must reiterate that open theology seems preoccupied with arguing against theism and absolute determinism.

Oord: “-God Doesn’t Foreordain or Foreknow All Evil”

Response:

I must continue to affirm that God does indeed foreknow the future. We have confidence because God has acted to redeem us from the consequences of sin and alienation from him. God judges and convicts those who reject his gracious call to salvation. To say that God inhabits eternity is to believe that he is present yesterday, today, and tomorrow. He remains, the eternal “I Am” who has acted for us, and will continue to do so in the future known only to him.

Oord: “Recommendations for the Church of the Nazarene

Given the preceding, it seems wise for leaders of the Church of the Nazarene to allow discussion of and accept diverse views pertaining to God’s knowledge of the future. The discussion is important on biblical and theological grounds.”

Response:

No one has yet demonstrated the importance of any discussion of open theology based on demonstrable evidence from Scripture. A proper theodicy does not depend on limiting the scope and extent of God’s knowledge. A fidelity to Scripture will offer the truth that may not explain every detail in those unfortunate scenarios where bad things happen to the people of God, but will offer us a more reliable perspective. Diminishing the scope and content of God’s knowledge, and making him exclusively co-temporal in time with humankind will not help. A Scriptural precision that acknowledges God’s foreknowledge, with the humility to acknowledge that God has not disclosed to humankind the fullest extent of his majestic ways is sorely needed. The subtle danger of diminishing God in any way is the elevation of man to an unwarranted position.

Open theology may or may not (it depends on whom one is talking to) acknowledge the reality of original sin. Original sin leaves humankind with spiritual and intellectual deficiencies. Humankind has a spiritual dependency that is never eclipsed by its intellectual acumen. Creating the best possible future is most possible when we have supreme confidence in God’s sovereignty, a heart cleansed from the pollution of sin and depravity, and a surrendered obedience to the leadership of the Holy Spirit.

Oord: “The Church of the Nazarene’s Arminian/Wesleyan/Holiness history leads many of its members to being sympathetic to Open theology. At the same time, this history supports the view that God’s exhaustive foreknowledge is compatible with creaturely freedom.”

Response:

Once again, if “history supports the view that God’s exhaustive foreknowledge is compatible with creaturely freedom,” then what is the point of introducing a variant theology that has no compatibility with traditional Wesleyan-holiness theological perspectives? Clearly, this admission must be taken at face value, which in my opinion, seriously undermines the credibility of this discussion.

Concluding response:

Open theology with its insistence on diminishing the scope and content of God’s knowledge really has no support from the Scriptures. Neither does it enjoy support from Nazarene theologian, H. Orton Wiley. Indeed, Dr. Oord suggests that even the late Dr. Mildred Bangs Wynkoop was ambiguous as was her colleague Dr. H. Ray Dunning.

Open theology is a collection of opinions, some of which are alien to Scripture, and at best, represent a revisionism of traditional Wesleyan thought and theology.

One may ask the question, “What would acceptance or the embrace of open theology mean for the Church of the Nazarene?” This discussion may be meaningful for theologians, academicians and those interested in debate. It will do nothing for the thousands of Nazarene lay persons who look to the Scriptures for both their authority and illumination in dealing with the challenges of everyday life.

Finally, if the question, “Does God know the future,” permits answers that, “should not be considered essential for good standing in the Church of the Nazarene,” it may reveal how far we have already drifted from traditional, Wesleyan-holiness theology.

Grace and peace,

Dave Felter