Sunday, 11 July 2010
-
My Concerns with Open Theism
A better name for open theism would be open-futurism, because it actually isn't a view of God at all. Open theists believe, along with classical theists, that God knows all there is to know. That is, God does not know nonsense. When you ask God, "What color will the number four be eight weeks ago," God has no answer, because there is nothing to know. So open theists and classical theists both affirm God's omniscience. The unique perspective of open theism is that the future (at least, much of the future) is also "not there" to be known. Put simply, open theism is the belief that the future is not written yet.
So whatever conclusions we draw about open theism, we should state from the outset that it is not heresy.
I have referred to myself on and off as an open theist for the past five years or so. It might be fairer to say that I'm sympathetic to the open theist reading of scripture. (Open theism is a perspective that could only arise among conservative evangelicals; it is too biblicist to arise anywhere else.) I find many aspects of the open theist reading to be compelling, but I am left with some concerns as well.
- Bias. Open theists very rightly observe that classical theists read scripture through a biased, "Hellenized" perspective. The classical perspective relies on imported notions of what must constitute divinity, for example. Open theists argue that this is what drives classical theists to disregard those passages of scripture which present God as changing his mind or discovering new things. The classical theologians have a philosophical (more or less Platonic) position that directs their interpretation of scripture. I think this is a valid observation. But open theism makes a concerning move at this point in the discussion. The open theists then say that we must come to the text without any philosophical assumptions and simply read it for what it says. While is it refreshingly postliberal to hear evangelicals encourage us to actually allow the text to guide our imagination and interpretation, this strikes me as somewhat naive in practice.
- Freedom. Open theism purports to be the only theology that accounts for human freedom. It takes the Arminian understanding of human freedom for granted, and then critiques Arminianism itself as being unable to account for such a notion. It seems to be working, as the recently published Why I Am Not A Calvinist by two professors from Asbury Theological Seminary points overwhelmingly at open theism as the most plausible form of Arminian theology, and the sharpest critique of Reformed thought. They may be right. But open theism is concerning exactly to the degree that it assumes a libertarian understanding of human freedom. That is, freedom is understood as freedom from outside interference or restraint. But should human freedom be understood this way? Augustine saw the possibility of a libertarian freedom, but deemed it insufficient next to a "positive" form of freedom: "I am free insofar as I am able to achieve the good." In this view, freedom isn't the ability to choose (that's just undirected bondage), but the ability to choose well and choose rightly. What is important isn't independence at all, but dependence upon and participation in God. Perhaps open theists read scripture in such a way as to idealize a form of freedom that is actually inimical to friendship with God. Perhaps open theism (like modern liberalism) makes an idol of human autonomy.
- Apology. I have found no account of open theism that was not presented in apologetic terms. Open theism, it seems, is only stumbled upon in the pastoral search for an answer to the question of suffering and evil. Greg Boyd even provides an appendix in God of the Possible for applying open theism in pastoral counseling scenarios. But isn't it possible that our need to provide satisfactory answers to this question simply replaces the aforementioned philosophical commitments, and becomes the bias through which we read scripture? Stanley Hauerwas has long argued that "when Christianity is assumed to be an 'answer' that makes the world intelligible, it reflects an accommodated church committed to assuring Christians that the way things are is the way things have to be." Such answers, according to Hauerwas, turn Christianity into an explanation, when it should rather be an adventure, teaching us how to go on without knowing the answers. The concern is that open theism is a way of piecing the Bible together specifically to let God off the hook - rather than letting us take up Christ's cross.
- Politics. It is difficult not to read the open theism controversy in light of the broader usage of the term 'freedom.' James K. A. Smith observes that freedom formed the theological backbone of George Bush's second inaugural address. It "harnessed the language of freedom as the guiding principle of America's democratic missionary calling, and regularly linked this to a theological principle that freedom is the 'gift of the Almighty' to every human being." Again, this rhetoric relies on a negative understanding of freedom, as freedom from external restraint. There is no concern for the freedom "to worship the right God rightly," as Augustine has it in City of God. It is concerning to me that open theism seems to be bulwarked along the same party lines as modern liberalism. As Smith, again, argues, "such a reduction of freedom plays right into the hands of capitalism's valuing of choice for its own sake, with no concern for telos or choosing well."
In summary, my concern is that open theism has rejected antique metaphysical assumptions, only to take up modern liberal ones. Where Plato skewed our reading of scripture four hundred years ago, Locke and Rousseau skew it today. Perhaps it is no accident that Greg Boyd articulates open theism alongside his radical pietism that says, "Vote however you want, just don't call it Christian." They both fit perfectly with the agenda of liberalism, reducing Christian practice to interior, apolitical faith.
The reason I am concerned is that I love Greg Boyd, heart and mind, and I do find the open theist reading of scripture quite compelling. I am only concerned what may lay behind it.
What do you think? Are these valid concerns? At what points have open theists already addressed the ideas presented here? What concerns do you have with open (or classical) theism?
-NDSR
-
recommend
- recs 4
-
email
- sent 0
- like
Related Posts
Post a Comment
- Back to SirNickDon's Xanga Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in SirNickDon's local time zone: GMT -06:00 (Central Standard - US, Canada)
Comments (42)
I think what Calvinism and open theism dispute is whether humans have free will, precisely in the sense of "undirected bondage," as opposed to the (positive) nature of Christian freedom, the details of which may be independent of free will. Both would agree, I think, that the biblical evidence suggests that outside of Christ there exists only slavery. In other words, I don't think an open theist necessarily believes that the best kind of freedom is undirected bondage (as does a mere libertarian), although she would insist that all humans possess it. Does this make any sense? (I'm having trouble clearly connecting these thoughts. I apologize for leaving the onus upon the reader.)
I've "defended" open theism, but--like any good post-modern--I acknowledged that it is largely an attempt to exculpate the Almighty.
My greatest concern with classical theism is that which you've mentioned in paragraph 1. If God knows everything, then God must know the future.
It seems that all of these arguments only serve to discuss the limits of omnipotence. The fact of the matter is that omnipotence, at its core, gives all power of limitation to the omnipotent one. The omnipotent one forms its own omnipotence and is not molded by omnipotence. I fear that saying anything more will encroach upon this.
Omnipotence is therefore quite illogical. However, it does not stop G-d from creating logic, and it prevents G-d from being bound to logic through anything but G-d's own will.
Too many times in debates, people falsely narrow the choices to an either/or. They limit the possibilities to A or B instead of accepting that maybe there's a C or D possibility. I believe we can have freewill, God can know the future, AND God can change his mind. Of course he knew beforehand that he would change his mind in certain instances but that is in response to allowing us to also make freewill decisions. But in the end, God's will is still accomplished. Think of a chess game where a Grandmaster who represents God, is playing a novice who represents us. We are free to make any move we choose but the Grandmaster, God, will always win the game. (His will and purposes will always be done.) So even if we make a freewill choice, and God changes his mind, his will is still done. He knew beforehand this would happen and uses it for his will.
We see this with Jonah and Ninevah. God said his will was to destroy Ninevah but they repented and he changed his mind. God knew Ninevah would repent and he allowed them to repent, even though his will was to destroy them if they didn't repent. Yes that was his will to destroy them, but he also foreknew that they would repent and he wouldn't have to destroy them.
@musterion99 -
i hear ya -- my thinking is sort of along these lines.
NickDon,I think my concern is similar to how you stated here, " perhaps
Open theism makes an idol of human autonomy." i was having a
discussion with someone on something related earlier today and couldnt put it into these words. Nicely written.
Open View of the Future FTW.
@stephenandginny - In Christ is slavery too :)
I think God if he wanted could give a number a color in the past. That didn't have a color. To understand that I guess the 7th seal would have to be opened. I'll search all poss., hold fast to what is fine. If my intellect doesn't connect will God have mercy on me?. Ah the mysteries of God ain't it great. Triggers indepth conversations, only confusses The ones who don't put it in God's hands. This is what leads those without God to the nashing of the teeth. Im gonna put all controversy in God's hands, if he wants me to know he'll give me the answer.
@musterion99 - I can't help but see the chess analogy as an open theist one. Because when a grandmaster plays a novice, the grandmaster can quite confidently state, "I will have checkmate in five moves," even though he doesn't know what particular moves his opponent will make; he only knows the possibilities and his own ability. This is precisely how Greg Boyd explains God's omnipotence.
@TheGreatBout - That's kind of the point I tried (unsuccessfully) to make. In the Augustinian view, there is either slavery to your "self" or slavery to Christ. We accept that, but most Christians today probably don't, and instead see humans as free agents who then make a free choice to freely embrace Christ's salvation, while remaining free. The rhetoric of open theism (if not the actual exegesis) seems to go along with that. That's my concern, better stated.
@TheGreatBout - This is true.
Yea, I think God knew we would eat from the tree of knowledge.
@YouTOme - Thanks
@SirNickDon - Yes, the Chess analogy is more geared towards God's Sovereignty coexisting with freewill. However God having foreknowledge would still know what moves the novice will make. My main point is that this doesn't have to be an either/or, as some make it out to be.
@SirNickDon - Oh okay. That makes more sense to me now. I'd be weary of that too.
If Open Theism seeks to "let God off the hook" it is only partly successful. Saying that Satan / evil is responsible for the tragedies of life does not explain why God so often allows them to occur. We know that God CAN intervene - He has done so on numerous occasions - yet so often He chooses not to. The questions and the mystery simply shift from "Why did God do this?" to "Why did God allow this?" He still has a lot to answer for ;)
Having said that, there is value and comfort in knowing that God did not ordain the abduction and rape of my child, but that the heinous act was carried out by the free-will forces of Evil. Therein lies the therapeutic value of OT - a right view of God's role (or non-role) in the tragedies of life.
I think Boyd makes a good case that a God who allows real freedom and possibilities is more majestic and praiseworthy than a god who rules by absolute power alone. The Chess Grandmaster analogy highlights the difference between a God who is sovereign by virtue of His superior wisdom and character vs. a god who is sovereign merely because he's the biggest bully on the block.
I also detest that we've let Platonic philosophies define our concept of God to such an extent. You might say I'm inimical toward that approach (*lol* - never saw that word in a sentence before:) Open Theism doesn't answer every question and definitely has its weak points, but I appreciate its emphasis on what the Bible actually says.
@musterion99 - I think the point of the chess match is that a Grandmaster with superior wisdom and skill does not require foreknowledge to defeat a lesser opponent, and so God does not require foreknowledge to bring about His sovereign plan for the universe. He's that good.
@CitizenDon - Having said that, there is value and
comfort in knowing that God did not ordain the abduction and rape of my
child, but that the heinous act was carried out by the free-will forces
of Evil. Therein lies the therapeutic value of OT - a right view of
God's role (or non-role) in the tragedies of life.
You don't need to be an OT to believe that. Again, it's not an either/or.
I think the point of the chess match is that
a Grandmaster with superior wisdom and skill does not require
foreknowledge to defeat a lesser opponent, and so God does not require
foreknowledge to bring about His sovereign plan for the universe. He's that good.
As I said, I believe it answers the question of how God's Sovereignty can coexist with man's freewill.
Very good read! I would add something thought provoking, but I'm not as deep.
Interesting. I guess I'm more classical theist in that I'd always taken God changing his mind or learning new things to be anthropomorphic personifications, akin to God's hands, God's wings, or any other physical or human-like attribute ascribed to God. I'll have to play with this idea of the unwritten future, especially since it seems to be a question about the nature of time. (I'm very much of the Einsteinian idea that time is merely another dimension that we humans happen to be moving through at the rate of one second per second, and that God is outside of time because he is more than a mere four-dimensional being, and thus the future is not only written but in a sense has already happened while in another sense the past is still happening and all of Time is like one big simultaneous eternal moment to God. That would seem to be in direct conflict with the ideas of open theism... hrm...)
You're very right that in rejecting one bias we simply take up another, more modern, one. I would wonder if it is possible to approach Scripture (or anything, really) wholly devoid of bias. If I were to choose a bias, I think I would prefer that of Jesus' culture, if I could get it--anyone know what first-century Judaism thought about the nature of the future?
The idea of prophecy also occurs to me. What is open theism's approach to prophecy? Are these God's promises of what he plans to do, since the future is unwritten?
...
This is nitpicking, and has nothing to do with the content of your post, but I am unsure how to read your second-to-last paragraph's first line. Either I'm just looking at the punctuation wrong or you made an interesting typo... Should it read more like, "The reason I am concerned is that I love Greg--body, heart, and mind--" or more like "The reason I am concerned is that I love Greg Boyd, heart and mind"? My apologies, I'm just fascinated by the two slightly divergent potential interpretations of that line.
Why is it that if God knows the future, this means we do not have free will? God made us, and He made us with the ability to do whatever we choose (within reason and possibility). You can test that right now with anything at all, although I would not suggest anything drastic. I can't see why His knowing what we will choose means that we did not choose it.
My conception of God is that there is nothing He does not know. The way to tell a true prophet of God in the OT was if everything they said always came true. I was thinking about that and then I read @ChrisRusso 's comment on prophecy. If God does not know the future, how can He tell it to us? How can He really be the beginning and ending, the first and last? And as @musterion99 said, He knew He would "change His mind" in certain circumstances. I believe those things happened more for our benefit than His, because of our free will.
The only explanation that makes sense to me as far as tragedies go is that true love does not force. It does not brainwash or cage. The only way a loving God could be loving, was to create another choice, and allow us this option. His foreknowledge of our choice does not hinder it. And also, it says it is not His will that any perish, but that some do. This would mean we have a choice. And the only way to possibly have a choice is to allow the consequences of those choices, which means sometimes innocent people and animals will suffer. If He constantly intervened, we really would not be free.
And, sometimes, He steps in and changes things. Sometimes He doesn't. Since He knows every possible scenario to every possibility, I trust His judgement.
I always find it interesting that some people think if God existed, He would spoil us, and not have any choice for us. Especially when in every instance we can see, never telling a child no rarely makes for a well rounded, happy adult with a good character.
@mtngirlsouth - Amen
Why do so many people try and make this so difficult. God knows our nature, for we were created in his image. There is no set programing if there was he wouldn't be conducting this experiment. God is weeding us out. We have free will and a choice. He doesn't want robots. He can see our hearts and he knows which way we'll go as we grow. If this was not true there would be no judgement day. By the way judgement day began when Jesus wrote the law in our hearts. God is the beging and the end = the creator and the judge. Those who seek life recieve life and those who seek death recieve death. What do you want love and peace or turmoil?.
I have a lot to say about Open Theism, but the example of Peter denying Jesus is the best example. I've read multiple explanations, including Boyd's, and it baffles me how any of them can be acknowledged as satisfactory. Jesus just happens to be a really good weatherman. The thing is, any declaration of what a free agent will do goes against the grain of Open Theism -- if it realistically will happen no matter what, then there is no practical difference btwn that and him knowing the future; if it may not happen, then how can we trust him?
Regardless of what anyone says, if God says something is going to happen (whether it's because he is going to do something, or any other free agent is going to do it (Judas Iscariot, maybe?)), I'm putting my money on it happening. And if it is committed by an individual, I'm not going to accuse God of forcing his or her hand (whether "sovereignly" or "providentially" stacking the deck to take away any real choice).
Wow it does amaze me how so many prophecies can be so detailed in description, such as peter, the fall of babylon, isaiah descrbing a round eath and Job describing how the Earth is round and hangs in the north from nothing. Wow, but as for pre programed. I'm sorry I'm not buying that. We have free will and a choice. Peter is proof though that God does know which way we will go. He sees our heart.
I was having a discussion with my cousin about Open Theism. I hadn't seen him in ten years and had heard his beliefs had taken a turn for the worse. I was actually trying to feel him out about whether or not he'd gone toward Open Theism. We were both raised Methodist, so it certainly could have happened to either one of us. This guy is one of the smartest people I know. He did his studies toward a PhD in Ancient Near Eastern languages at Chicago University with some of the leading professors in the world, on the subject.
Anyway we were discussing Open Theism, free will, Boyd, and several others. He said the most interesting thing. He said, "Sometimes people get the idea that I believe in Open Theism, but they're wrong." Then he said the most astounding thing, he said, "I don't even believe in free will...I believe in free grace."
@ChrisRusso - I am so glad you noticed that, because I didn't. I did mean, "Greg Boyd, mind and soul..." but clearly there was some weird Freudian slippage going on.
@mtngirlsouth - If God literally knows everything then he knows your future. God must also know all that is true and all that is false about your future (all that can be considered true or false). He knows what your future is like without doubt. He cannot impose a limit on himself and he cannot trick himself because he knows it's a limit, knows it's a trick, and ultimately knows they're not leading him to an accurate view of your future because he already knows the accurate view! So, with this, God can see, say, 10 years down the road for you. He knows exactly what you'll be doing, thinking, speaking, etc... Now, even though God may not actually interviene and "cause" these things to happen, something is. God may be able to see an alternative future for you but he must know this it is not your actual future. Your future therefore cannot differ from God's knowledge of your future whatsoever. It must be exactly as God sees it because he has completely truthful knowledge of your future. This is also the case for every possible moment of time that could be considered "the future" and this is also the case for every person that is capable of having a future.
From my understanding, in order to make any sense, (to me, at least) Open Theism must in some way support the claim that God does not know everything.
Maybe that clears up why some people say that an all-knowing God and free will are incompatable.
@musterion99 - and how does God win every time? Because he knows your every move.
@chipdouglas21089 - Absolutely. I believe in God's foreknowledge but that doesn't equate to us not having freewill. And foreknowledge and predestination are not synonymous as many people mistakenly think they are.