Well, I haven’t written much for a while! We’ve been so busy adjusting to the Georgia lifestyle, that I’ve found it difficult to think about one thing long enough to put together a blog entry. That being said, I’ve finally developed a few thoughts on—you guessed it—Open Theism. My favorite topic and hobby horse.
Unquestionably, no other theological concept has been as profoundly influencing as my move to the Openness of God position. It has shaped nearly every idea I have of God, Christ, and humans. In fact, it is so fundamental to my thinking now, that I’m really thinking of it less and working out more of the implications of that theology in my own practice and preaching.
As a preacher, I haven’t done any sermons directly on God’s openness. Really, I doubt I will for this reason: most people pretty much already operate on the assumption that the future is open and that God is responding to us actively, not as if he has eternally known all events. They may pay lip service to eternal foreknowledge, but few are really operating under that system.
I do, however, hear it from pulpits. One of my favorite preachers, Alistair Begg, recently did a few lesson sets on his podcast called “The Benefits of Expository Preaching” and “The Basics of Expository Preaching.” (See “Theo’s Podcasts” to the left to download.) Both sets were excellent and well balanced. However, within these he reemphasized his own Calvinist background under the assumption that, in expository preaching, you don’t begin with Calvinism, but if you teach the Bible, you’ll get around to it. One experiences moments of despair when one realizes just how many people do not hold to one’s own position. But I don’t have to convince anyone do I? Why pressure myself to do so? That having been said, I find that few methods for developing a blog entry are as prolific as listening to someone say something and working out a response to it. Recently, there are two events inspiring this entry: one is a statement made by a local minister, the other an investigation of a few area ministers.
The Statement:
A theological statement made recently has led me to dub a new term: Theological Fatalism. I have coined this term to describe the position, whether Calvinistic or Arminian (what’s the difference any more?), that God’s foreknowledge of our suffering somehow works into his master plan for the human race. The statement I heard was something like this:
“So and so is dealing with cancer again. We don’t know why God is allowing her to experience this. But we can bet that God has been preparing her throughout her entire life to deal with this tragedy.”
Personally, one of the weaknesses of the Calvinistic and Arminian views of foreknowledge is that it requires Christians to develop theodicies explaining why God would allow them or why we shouldn’t ask why. In this case, the classic “soul making theodicy” is appealed to: God knew it would happen, decided to use it for a certain purpose, and went about preparing this person (presumably through other hardship or trials?) to deal with it. I think it begs a few questions:
QUESTION: If God knows the event is going to happen, how much sense does it make to say that God is “preparing” someone to experience it, or planning to “use” it?
EXPLANATION: If God has KNOWLEDGE of an upcoming event, then we must understand that he KNOWS the event is going to happen. It seems ridiculous and repetitive, but it is necessary to point this out. What Arminian Christians seem to misunderstand is that foreknowledge (the knowledge that something will happen) NECESSITATES that no other event CAN happen. In other words—if God eternally knows an event will happen, NO OTHER EVENT CAN HAPPEN. If another event happens, then God didn’t really know it would happen. He can’t change that event, because the event he knew would happen has to happen. So the idea that God “knows” an event will happen and works around it within time is really nonsense. Here is why: for any one event which happens, there are millions—perhaps billions—of events within time which lead up to that event and which are necessary for that event to happen. The holocaust, for example, did not happen suddenly and with no warning! A very specific set of events happened which led to the Nazis taking power and Hitler’s regime.
Let’s say God KNEW with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY that the holocaust would happen. If this is the case, he knew exactly what every person in the world would do—who would try to stop it and fail and who would not do anything about it until after it began. He knew who would die, who would suffer, who would react. He knew every event in time. Hence, we can see that if God pre-knows with certainty that one single event will happen within time, he has to know EVERY single event which will ever happen in time which leads up to that event. He has to KNOW everything.
If he knows everything that will happen, how can he “prepare” any of us for anything? If he knows what will happen, all that can happen is what he knows will happen—and if he interacts, he changes what he knew would happen to what he wants to happen. What happens then is not what he knew would happen—so he couldn’t have KNOWN it, he could only have “thought” it. What he “knew” wasn’t what was going to happen—his “knowledge” wasn’t knowledge, but “belief.” And his belief was wrong.
God’s “preparing” someone for an event is only possible if God can interact with those of us in time. He must be able to work within our lives to change us and move us. In order to do that, we have to be ABLE to change. If God knows what we are going to do, then he must allow us to do what he already knows we are going to do—we cannot change from what he already knows we will do. He cannot interact with us within time. (At this point, let me reiterate that my position is that the God of the Bible is ALWAYS interacting with those of us in time—the future is open to possibilities, even within the mind of God—see the verse in the upper left hand corner of the page!).
To say that God is “preparing” someone for something can only be understood in one of two theological positions: Calvinism or Openness. The open sense allows God to work within time because God does not know all of the events of the future—they are open possibilities in his mind. In the Calvinist sense, God has decided what will happen to everyone and is just working out the entire system outside of any free-will of humans.
The notion that God will prepare someone for something he knows will happen, or plan to use an event he knows will happen, necessitates that he knows and is planning to use ALL the events of history. In fact, it really necessitates that God is “determining” all of the events of history. In other words, if we assume that God is able to do anything—to act at all—within a system in which he knows the future, then you must abandon any understanding of human freedom because you have become a determinist. ARMINIAN FOREKNOWLEDGE BREAKS DOWN INTO AUGUSTINIAN DETERMINISM when you start talking about God acting or using events he knows will happen. If you combine God’s foreknowledge of an event (which cannot be wrong) and his eternal desire to use that event then there is little else one can turn to other than determinism. Let me explain one more way. If God knows all events are going to happen and decides to use one of them within his plan, then it must be that all the events leading up to that event happen in order for that event to happen in order for God to use it. Nothing else CAN happen other than the event which God wants to happen so that he can use it.
The entire system must be determined if we are going to assume that God is able to act within the system and knows what will happen (i.e.: no human freedom). If the system isn’t determined (i.e.: human freedom), and God knows what will happen, then he is not free to act within it and contradict anything he knows will happen. God is, therefore, limited by his knowledge (which is the point of my entire master’s degree project). Arminian theology really breaks down into determinism or deism. Take your pick.
Another problem with the statement is this: if God is preparing a specific person to experience a specific problem, what does that say about other people who suffer? Perhaps one can speak of God’s use of the suffering of someone battling cancer in their old age. Perhaps God prepared that person to experience that to use it to his glory (in my opinion, it is just happening and God is working within it). But what about a young girl who is molested by her uncle or cousins? Does God prepare young girls when they are toddlers to experience such things and use them for a specific purpose? The soul-making theodicy is VERY, very poor at explaining these things.
Open Theism doesn’t require a theodicy. God does not plan events or plan to use events he knows will happen. He created an open system with a possibility of evil and works within that system. But I don’t have to justify God’s foreknowledge of terrible events! I can concentrate on God’s answer to the problem of pain being the CROSS, not a theodicy.
The Investigation:
No doubt the reader has heard of an investigation of six nationally known religious leaders regarding their personal finances. Two of those being investigated come from the Atlanta area. One is Creflo Dollar, of World Changers. Dollar, according to an article in the Atlanta Journal Constitution on November 14, 2007, is defending his lavish lifestyle based on his belief that his riches are directly proportionate to his faithfulness. It’s straight prosperity theology.
The area I currently live in is a very affluent area. We, personally, are not affluent by the same standards as some of our neighbors (by others we are). However, I’ve noticed a real emphasis on prosperity theology in this area and I’ve come to a conclusion.
Prosperity theology is really only popular in affluent areas! One doesn’t go to the Christians in Haiti and preach that the reason they are in poverty is because they don’t have enough faith! The truth is, in prosperity theology the “faith” has not preceded the wealth, but the other way around. Those who are wealthy have examined their belongings, asked why they have them and concluded, “It must be because we are such faithful Christians!”
It’s idolatry, not Christianity. It seems to me that the promise in the New Testament is that Christians will suffer. And the example of the New Testament is that those with the most faith are showing their faith in suffering, not in riches and glory. Show me a New Testament exception to this rule!
It seems so clear in the New Testament. Why do people not see it? I think that Augustinian determinism has something to do with it. Why would one need to explain one’s financial success theologically? Why can’t a Christian who has a lot of money simply chalk it up to his own financial prowess, hard work, inheritance, luck in the lottery…whatever? Why does God have to be behind that? Well, if God is determining every event which happens, one has to start asking why some people have so much and some people do not!
At any rate, Open Theism seems much better suited to deal with disparity of incomes. God is not deciding every event which happens, but the system is open. People can become millionaires if they are so inclined and able. Some people will suffer in poverty because that is also a possibility. God may work within the system and may promise to take care of his people (provide their needs to a point). But I don’t have to answer the question, “Why does God choose some for riches and some not?”
A lot about a little, I guess! Comments?
11.14.2007
Open Theism as the Antidote to Theistic Fatalism and Prosperity Theology
Posted by Jason at 10:12 PM
Labels: determinism, free will, open system, openness, prosperity theology, will of God
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I agree with almost everything you said. Except....
In as much as a classical understanding of divine epistemic reality (whether Augustinian or Arminian) inevitably end up in theodicy, is not openness guilty of a sort of theodicy by omission?
In other words, if divine life is bound by the same rules of knowledge (cause and effect) as humanity, aren't we "letting God off the hook" as it relates to suffering and evil?
What's more, are we not still trying to read the mind of God in an openness understanding?
I am not sure how one reads the Bible and comes away with the notion of the unchangeably of God; however, does changeability demand openness?
One of my friends at Lincoln Seminary was once criticizing my view on openness and (unfairly, I might add) accused me of just moving to that position because I thought it was an answer to the problem of evil. His accusation was that nothing else about the position was viable. I suppose it depends on why one moves to the position.
I find the Openness of God often accused of being a theodicy explaining the problem of evil and "letting God off the hook." I think it may be that some move to that position for that reason, but I did not. I moved to it because I thought the picture of God that it shows is closer to that of the Bible and that it just makes a lot of sense from a logical perspective--it's view of God and time really makes sense to me.
Perhaps you'll find my answer too convenient, but I've come to the conclusion that the openness position is different from the Arminian and Calvinistic positions in a very important way. The Armininan and Calvinistic positions require the development of a theodicy to maintain theological coherence. One must explain how God can foreknow or predestine all events (including atrocities) and still be a loving God. The open position, however, has a sort of built-in answer and doesn't require a theodicy. As an open theist, I don't feel pressure to explain away the existence of evil, I can concentrate on God's answer to the problem of evil.
So, I suppose one might move to openness AS a theodicy. But my position is that openness, if it's true, contains within itself a natural theodicy (of sorts) which nearly eliminates the problem entirely. In fact, I think if Augustine would have concluded openness rather than predestination, the "problem of evil" likely wouldn't be an issue. Thanks Augustine.
Paul is always saying that I'm trying to "know the mind of God," and I've just never really struggled with that as an objection to the openness viewpoint. I suppose it is because I have interpreted "knowledge" from an enlightenment viewpoint. Because of that, I have pretty much accepted that I can't "know" ANYTHING, much less the mind of God. So, I've never concluded that I'm claiming to "know" the mind of God, but that I'm attempting to come to a coherent theological system which includes a working theory on the mind of God based on logical conclusions which follow from biblical premises. If one reads scripture, doesn't one develop some idea of what's going on in God's mind?
Now, if I became judgmental about it, claiming that anyone who disagrees with my idea about the mind of God is not worshiping the correct God, then I think I could be accused of claiming to "know the mind of God." (Isn't this what so many who criticize openness have done?) But I don't!
Perhaps I'm being too literal in the use of the word "knowledge." But it strikes me that any belief or theory on a motive of God is an attempt to understand the mind of God--no matter what the final conclusion of the believer or theorist. Besides this, aren't some aspects of the mind of God revealed to us in Scripture? Can't we conclude that God is loving, jealous, compassionate, etc.? If we can conclude those things, and we can conclude he is moving and interactive within history, can't we attempt to draw some conclusions about him based on that--if we do it humbly?
I think so.
I also think changeability does demand openness. I don't see how a God eternally knowing all of his own actions can do anything other than what he has eternally done--he would be unchangeable.
Thanks!
Post a Comment