Open Theism discussed

I've stumbled across another interesting discussion on Open Theism at The Sign of Jonah blog. The original blogger is critiquing Open Theism (although I didn't feel he was particularly successful in this. He seems a little confused about distinction between OT and the problem of evil/suffering, which although connected is not really the same question) and provokes some excellent (although very lengthy) discussion in the comments. I was particularly impressed by the contribution of a commenter called Wesley Brainard who is generally articulate and intelligent in his arguments for Open Theism - although I'm not sure I agree with everything he says about the way God has limited himself (e.g. spacially).

Here's a couple of examples of things which got me thinking:

...This began to take shape around the discussion of God’s freedom. Jim B admitted that God was free to create or not to create. If He was free to choose, then there was a time when God hadn’t yet foreknown. This demonstrates that foreknowledge is not eternal or essential. God is still God without exhaustive foreknowledge.

The open view says that God was free to create the kind of world you propose he created. Does the CV allow that God could have created a world with freedoms like His as the open view suggests?

Keith: I feel like you really ducked the issue with Cyrus. Your basic answer was, "I don’t know how God predicted Cyrus but I’m absolutely sure that it wasn’t through exhaustive foreknowledge". In all candor I think that’s pretty weak.

Wesley: Straw dummy... My argument was that what you offered does not prove exhaustive foreknowledge. I thought Will D.’s post was especially good on this point. If we use your argument for proving exhaustive foreknowledge, my wife would certainly qualify since she knows what I’m going to do or not do before I do or don’t do it. Knowing something does not prove that He knows everything. ...

Openness and Prayer

Blogger TC Robinson has been investigating open theism on his blog and starting various interesting discussions along the way. I recently commented (hopefully gently!) on his post about prayer:

I've always understood prayer to be pretty effective - not just in my personal relationship with God, but also for affecting what happens in the world. I agree there's definitely the sense in the Gospels of Jesus taking time out in prayer to learn his Father's will (as Duane and others have mentioned above) but surely the overwhelming teaching of Jesus is that God responds to prayer and our prayers therefore have real consequences in the world, e.g. Luke 21.36, Matt 7.11 'how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him', Luke 10.2 'ask for workers', Luke 22.32 (in verse 31 it sounds like Satan is also able to pray!)... and I haven't even mentioned some of the most famous verses about prayer!

What I understand from what Boyd and others teach is that because God is relational he has chosen to mediate his authority through free agents such as ourselves and angels etc.* Although the plan was for us to rule 'under authority' (c.f. Luke 7.8), we have real delegated responsibility. To this end God has chosen to limit his influence and authority in the world according to our direction and desire. The really challenging thing about this view is that it makes prayer absolutely critical. God's involvement - to a certain extent - depends on us asking for it! When we pray 'your will be done' we're apparently - in a really odd way - actually giving God 'permission' to act to bring about his will. Sounds crazy, doesn't it?

I actually think this view has a lot to recommend it, as it makes sense of Jesus' instructions about prayer and the importance Paul obviously gives to prayer (e.g. 1 Thess 3.10). God is genuinely responsive to our prayers, relational even in the exercise of his sovereign authority. That sounds like a truly dynamic relationship! It's also interesting to note the way Paul talks about being coworkers with God.

[*At the beginning humankind is given dominion over the earth (Gen 1.26-28) but unfortunately it seems we surrendered our authority to Satan, who is now the 'prince of this world' (John 12.41). But Daniel 7 indicates that part of our final destiny is to finally reclaim this authority in the kingdom of Jesus.]

Comments?

GREG BOYD on what it looks like when God reigns

Last week at camp I finally got hold of my own copy of Greg Boyd's talks on the Kingdom of God from Revive! 2005. I've listened to them before but these are such fantastic talks that I wanted my own copies to listen to and lend out!

I first heard these talks on CD about two and a half years ago and they made a huge impact on me. I'm not sure any sermons, or indeed speaker, have been as influential in my life. I remember listening to them and just going 'yes, yes, yes - that's what it's about!' and being completely moved, even overwhelmed by the truth of it. Faith-growing, brain-stretching, life-giving...

Here's a 3 minute clip of Greg Boyd talking about what the kingdom of God - the "dome (domain) in which God is king" - is like:

'What does it look like when God reigns?'

Link to mp3 if the player's not working for you.

Openness, the future and God's foreknowledge

One of the points that's often misunderstood about the Open Theism that Greg Boyd and others espouse, is that they are not saying that God does not know the future. On the contrary, they affirm that God does indeed have knowledge of everything, including what is still to come. What openness argues against is the idea that God only knows one future, in other words that the cosmos runs along a single timeline of 'ordained' possibility (Boyd calls this the 'blueprint worldview'). Open Theism states that God knows every possible future, an infinity of real possibilities (which exist within certain boundaries, of course). Openness asserts that God has given real freedom to individuals within creation to make choices that actually affect what happens in the world, choices for which they are responsible and will be held accountable. Within this He has set out certain conditions and boundaries - e.g. there will be a time of judgement and new creation etc. And of course God is not a detached observer of these events, but in fact the most active participant, always at work to redeem and restore His creation.

It is worth emphasising in this view that while free agents make real choices about the future, no choice or possible future is outside God's (fore)knowledge. God is never caught unaware! (although Jer 32.35 is interesting!) Every choice you make, every infinite possibility of decision has indeed been known by God since before the creation of the world. And in every single one of those infinite possible timelines God has been working for the good of those who love him. Not only has every  individual ever created been loved by God, but every single timeline has been known and lovingly worked into his glorious purpose.

This infinite, sovereign 'intelligence' is much more difficult for us to grasp than infinite controlling power. We have examples of controlling power that we can 'multiply up', but we have very few analogies for the type of intelligence required to weave together infinite possibilities. Perhaps the nearest model we can think of (although it has some significant flaws), and an example I've heard Boyd use, is that of the Chess Grand Master. If I play a Grand Master at Chess he doesn't have to know for certain every move I will make to predict (with 99.9999999% certainty!) that he will win. In fact probably most of the moves I make will be boringly predictable! Really good chess players see possibilities many moves in advance. But God, to use the same analogy, has seen every single possible move, planned his 'counter-attack' for each one and seen the final endgame before the first move was even made!

There are many other ideas I could talk about that fit alongside openness: for example, what it means for God to be in genuine relationship with us; the understanding that God's will is not always done (thus Jesus teaching us to pray "Your will be done...") and so on, but I think this post is long enough for now!

Altogether I find Boyd, in particular, pretty persuasive on this whole topic. I don't agree with everything he states (he's generally more systematic than I'm comfortable with), but I have a feeling that he - and folks like Prof John Polkinghorne - may be on the right lines. And part of why I find it so compelling is that it seems to match up with what the physical universe is actually like. The argument about the relationship between epistemology (what may be known) and ontology (what actually is) in quantum physics may have a little ways to go (does the limit of what it is possible to know correspond with what actually is?), but most physicists will tell you that at the most fundamental level it makes no sense to talk about certainties (future or present). In the strange universe we live in there seems to be something more 'real' about possibilities. As Polkinghorne says, reality is a lot 'fuzzier' than we'd like to think.

[See also: Ben Witherington's view on the 'script']

What I know

I've been listening to Greg Boyd's recent sermons on prayer - inspiring and thought-provoking, as ever. Hopefully I'll get round to blogging further on my thoughts and response to these. But, listening to his sermon on the variables that affect answers to prayer ('Scorpions, Eggs and Prayer') I've been particularly reflecting on his explanation of what we DON'T know, that is almost everything! He explains that it's profoundly important to know what we don't know and to get comfortable saying 'I don't know'. As he memorably describes it, we "swim in an infinite sea of unknowability" and what we call the 'things we know' is an oasis of pseudo-knowledge floating in a sea of mystery! It is knowing this that keeps us from being sucked into formulas and trite responses.

I completely agree with him that the statement 'I don't know' can be enormously powerful in the right context. When faced with the question of suffering, I wonder whether it is indeed the only appropriate answer. It rings true with God's response to Job - there is far more in the Universe than you could possibly know or understand. There is a necessary humility when faced with the question of why a prayer has not been answered. Although it may ease our pain to find someone to blame, any answer cannot help but be simplistic and damaging - either to ourselves or others, or to our relationship with God.

However, while we may have to answer 'I don't know', this cannot be the end of our response. We are called to have compassion - and words may only be a small part of this. And as Christians we also have hope.

There is much we don't know, but one thing I do know: Jesus our Saviour was dead in the grave, and is alive again! Jesus is alive - that is the response of hope.

"I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades."
Revelation 1.18

Happy Easter everyone!

God at War

I've finally finished reading 'God at War' by Greg Boyd and I find I have mixed feelings about it as a book. The overall thrust of his argument is very compelling and his analysis of the warfare motifs in the ministry of Jesus particularly persuasive. I find his reading of the NT as being fundamentally about the Kingdom of God 'at war' with the world/the kingdom of Satan is hard to dispute.

However, attempts to build a coherent 'theory of everything', to systematize the Biblical material, should always be treated with caution. As NT Wright points out, when we come to the Bible "looking for particular answers to particular questions...we have thereby made the Bible into something which it it not" ('How can Scripture be Authoritative?' 1989, see also 'Scripture and the Authority of God'). Systematic theology never sits completely comfortably alongside the Bible taken as a whole - just when you think you've 'got it' an unruly verse turns up to confound the theory.

As with any thesis of this nature, 'God at War' seems a bit 'rough at the edges', where at times the thesis is stretched just that little bit too far. Boyd is an enthusiastic theorist and always interesting, but there were moments in the book when I felt uncomfortable with the extent to which he seemed to be 'trying too hard' to pull in a variety of Biblical material to support the warfare theme. Notable in my mind is his warfare re-interpretation of the Lord's Prayer.

Despite these criticisms, I found 'God at War' a provocative and always-interesting book which I would definitely recommend - if only as a starting point for conversation. Those who know me well will know I am a big fan of Greg Boyd - although more in his preaching and energetic exposition of ideas than in his books - and I came to the book already persuaded by his God-at-war theodicy and understanding of Jesus' ministry.

In my view, Boyd is most challenging and convincing in his teaching on Jesus and the Kingdom of God and I know that he would agree that it is these ideas that are worth paying the most attention to. As I mentioned in a previous post it is his high view of Jesus (as with NT Wright) which I find most compelling. I've often heard him start teaching / preaching with the statement 'God looks like Jesus Christ', from Jesus' statement in John 14.9 "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father." He will then go on to explain how we should always move from the known to the unknown - our understanding of God should start with Jesus, who is "the exact representation of his being" (Heb 1.3). If we want to know what God is like we should start by looking at Jesus (as opposed to philosophy or religion). As Boyd often says, "God looks like a man dying on a cross for those who crucified him."

The strength of this concept is what anchors his theodicy - his starting place in explaining the problem of evil. Since, he argues, the evil in the world around us does not accord with a God who, as Jesus Christ, rebuked sickness (and the wind and waves - Mk 4.39) and battled Satan (e.g Mk 3.23, Lk 13.16) it cannot be God's will. Evil is the result of wills other than God's. This fits with the NT's teaching that Satan is the archon (ruler) of the world (Jn 12.31, 16.11), the "god of this age" (2 Cor 4.4) and the "ruler of the kingdom of the air" (Eph 2.2), who has the whole world under his control (1 Jn 5.19).

Further explanation I will leave to Boyd as he is much more articulate than I! 'God at War' is the first book in a Trilogy, of which the second is 'Satan and the Problem of Evil' (onto which I shall move) and the last is as yet un-published. I would highly recommend his January 2005 sermon 'Being the Kingdom in a Groaning Creation' - given in the aftermath of the Boxing Day tsunami - as a summary of some of these ideas.


'God at War' concludes with a declaration of hope:

"The hope that the New Testament offers is not the hope that God has a higher, all-encompassing plan that secretly governs every event, including the evil intentions of malicious angelic and human beings, and that somehow renders these evil wills 'good' at a higher level. To my way of thinking, at least, that supposition generates a truly hopeless position... If justice is, on some secret transcendental plane, already being served, what do we have to look forward to? If God is already vindicated because 'the big picture' justies [a victim]'s torment 'for the good of the whole', then we really have no reason to hope that things will fare better for [a victim] or ourselves in the world to come.

"In direct contrast to all this, the ultimate hope that the New Testament offers is eschatological. As sure as the Lord came the first time to defeat his cosmic enemy and our oppressor in principle, just as certainly he shall return again to defeat him in fact. Because sickness, disease, war, death, sorrow and tears are not God's will, and because God is ultimately sovereign, we can have a confident assurance that someday, when his foes are ultimately vanquished, God will end all sorrow, and will wipe away every tear from our eyes (Rev 20:4). Precisely because our present suffering is not God's will - however much he can now use it for our ultimate good - we can have an assurance that it shall not always be this way."

As Boyd likes to say, "we live in a Good Friday world, but Easter Sunday is coming!"

Principles and Rules

Greg Boyd on Principles and Rules (MP3)

From Luke 6.1-11

Rules are made for people, not people for rules.

Be inflexible and uncompromising with the principles – love, mercy, justice, faithfulness – but be flexible with the rules. A least a little…

Sometimes in order to stick to the principles, we have to bend the rules.

Manifest life. Manifest love, mercy, justice, faithfulness.

Love people as they are – they don’t have to adhere to your rules.

Rules can make you stupid, preventing you adjusting to ambiguous circumstances.

Sometimes rules kill. They sometimes take on a life of their own.

Have wisdom: there’s a time to keep the rules and there’s a time to let them go.


(Sermons online at Woodland Hills Church)

The face of God

I've been reading a number of excellent books this holiday as part of my research for an essay on the Kingdom of God. Not least among them for good thinking material has been 'The Challenge of Jesus' by N.T. Wright, as well as his bigger tome 'Jesus and the Victory of God'.

The main thrust of Wright's argument is that Jesus' parables and teaching about the coming of YHWH to Zion, as well as his Temple prophecies (e.g. Mark 13, Luke 19) were primarily intended for his contemporary audience, to be fulfilled in their lifetimes and most centrally in Jesus himself. He argues that Jesus was concerned first of all with revealing God's purposes right now (i.e. in 30 A.D.) and was not principally interested in revealing his 'second coming' - something which would have made no sense to disciples who were still coming to grips with the nature of the 'first'.

Despite his focus on (re)discovering the historical Jesus, I was struck by his high view of Jesus and not only his description of Jesus as God, but his redrawing of God in light of Jesus. I'll let him speak for himself:

“I suggest that we think historically about a young Jew, possessed of a desperately risky, indeed apparently crazy, vocation, riding into Jerusalem in tears, denouncing the Temple, and dying on a Roman cross – and that we somehow allow our meaning for the word ‘god’ to be recentred around this point.” (p.92)

“The portrait [of God] has been redrawn. At its heart, as disclosed in biblical writings, we discover a human face, surrounded by a crown of thorns.” (p.92)

“The Shekinah glory turns out to have a human face.” (p.89)

(All quotes from 'The Challenge of Jesus' by N.T. Wright.)

All of this reminds me of a quote I've been meditating on these last few months from one of my favourite people, Greg Boyd. As he's fond of repeating in sermons, "God looks like Jesus Christ."

Confused about Open Theism?

If anyone reading this has been confused about all this Greg Boyd and open theism-stuff I've been going on about recently, you might find this letter he wrote to another blogger helpful. It's good as a quick overview - and useful to hear what he thinks first hand.

Boyd's also become much talked-about in the States for suggesting that our kingdom is not of this world and the church shouldn't get too cosy with politics. I would recommend this video of Boyd talking on Charlie Rose. He's excellent - lucid, convincing and clearly Kingdom-chasing! I like what he says about getting 'under' people, rather than 'over' them.

Theological highlights from Revive!

Chris Forster - Revelation, not Information
Andrew tells Peter...'Come and meet the man who is the Christ' (John 1)
But it is not until later that Peter truly recognises Jesus: "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God" and Jesus tells him "this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven." (Matt 16:16,17)

Greg Boyd

God looks like Jesus Christ.
(Anything that doesn't look like Jesus Christ is the result of wills other than God's)

"Our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms." (Eph 6:12)
- therefore, no person can be the enemy. If it has flesh and blood, we're not fighting it. On the contrary, people in bondage are those people we're trying to save - this is who we're fighting for, not against!

Regard every sin you see in someone else as a speck of dust, and your own as a two-by-four.

When Jesus was faced with sickness and oppression, he didn't pray 'accepting' prayers...he got angry. He had a theology of revolution, of revolt! In which we lay down our lives...

Faith is the 'substance of things anticipated'. We're rarely certain about anything, but faith is the having enough confidence in order to act on something (e.g. to get on a plane).

All prayer is powerful and effective...you have pushed the world further in a kingdom direction.
No such thing as a wasted prayer.

How you look at something determines what you see...which affects your life.

Freedom and Uncertainty

We were having a discussion last night at dinner about freedom and uncertainty in the universe. I was reflecting on what the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP) implies about the universe as created by God.

For those unfamiliar with Heisenberg’s theory, it’s this:
“The more precisely the position [of a particle, e.g. electron] is determined, the less precisely the momentum is known in this instant, and vice versa.”

In other words, you cannot know both a particle’s position and its movement at the same time. In the quantum world, you must speak in probabilities. For example, as this website helpfully explains:
I can only say that an atom will be at some location with a 99 % probability, and that there will be a 1 % probability it will be somewhere else (in fact, there will be a small but finite probability that it can even be found across the Universe).

Heisenberg was primarily concerned with measurement. His principle implied that previously certain Classical ‘realities’, such as speed, direction, mass, position, were meaningless in the new quantum world and he argued that some aspects come into existence only as they are measured. ("The 'path' comes into existence only when we observe it.") In this way, the uncertainty at the heart of the quantum world is not a result of our poor measurement technique, but an integral part of the universe itself.

This had massive implications, not least for Newton’s idea of causality. In simple terms, the classical view was that if the position and momentum of every particle in the universe could be determined, then you could predict the path of each based on the forces acting on it, i.e. predict the future. Of course, to Newton, only God could possibly have the observational and computational power to accomplish this. But, as Heisenberg pointed out: "In the sharp formulation of the law of causality—‘if we know the present exactly, we can calculate the future’-it is not the conclusion that is wrong but the premise." Essentially, what he’s saying is that it’s impossible to know the present exactly (but the limit is not on the knowing, but on the ‘exactly’).

The question I asked is, since the uncertainty principle seems to be part of the very fabric of the universe and an integral characteristic of quantum particles, is the universe ‘uncertain’ even to God? In the same way as He’s given us freedom, has He built a similar freedom into the physical universe?

Dad is reading Greg Boyd’s ‘Satan and the Problem of Evil’ and was similarly reflecting on what it meant for humans (and angels) to have real freedom, and the necessary uncertainty built into that.

Thoughts anyone?

(Quotes are taken from this website where you can also read more about Heisenberg)