Open Theism as the Antidote to Theistic Fatalism and Prosperity Theology

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?

A Boydian Response to the Bridge Tragedy

In several of my posts, I've discussed the topic of God's will and attempts to: interpret how events fit in God's will, discern what God's will is, and explain why God allows bad events to occur. I have taken the position of an open universe, meaning that God simply created a system in which people (and angels) can choose wrong and events like this can happen. This system means that sometimes tragedies will occur, disease will attack, and accidents will happen. It means God has created a system in which the agents of that system have some control over what happens. It also means that God does not control every event, but interacts with that system dynamically. There is reaction with God--and not every event fits into his cosmic plan. Sometimes what God wants to happen doesn't happen.

On Greg Boyd's blog, Greg posted a response to an Augustinian preacher who attempted to rationalize the bridge collapse in Minnesota in light of God's purpose in the event. As Greg usually does, I think he nailed the response perfectly. Read his blog entry here.

Is it a "God Thing" or Just a Coincidence?

I think it was Arsenio Hall who, years ago, coined the phrase, "It's a black thing, you wouldn't understand." For some time I saw (and occasionally still see) t-shirts flaunting these words at me in my nerdy whiteness. Thankfully, for the most part, in popular discourse that silliness went the way of the Arsenio Hall show and the Dodo bird.

But in recent years the phrase has been baptized and spiritualized into a new phrase, "It's a God thing." I hear, on a fairly regular basis, people attribute all kinds of things to God's activity--all the while speaking with such certainty that you'd guess that their lives had been filled with fiery bushes and doves floating from parted clouds. I'll never forget a new student who came to the college I worked for claiming that God had shown her that this was the school he wanted her to go to. How did she know? She had done a Google search and our school came up. I didn't have the heart to explain to her that our school came up on the search because I paid a dollar per click for that search term. It wasn't God, it was clever advertising--and she realized it later when she decided she didn't really like our school and that God was leading her somewhere else!

Events of the past week have inspired three very interesting conversations with people whom I have a great deal of respect for. Two of these conversations centered around a major life-decision I have made this week which might very well have been one of the least rational and yet vitally important decisions I had ever made. Ironically, I based a lot of my decision on a feeling, a sense that I needed to or should make this particular decision. The third resulted from a really neat moment my wife and I experienced when a young man who works at a Subway restaurant we frequent offered to pay for our lunch. Interestingly, though we were willing to pay, my wife and I are currently broke and really needed the meal.

On the first event, I was choosing between two options and went an option (A) I had initially thought I would not choose. For some very rational reasons, the option I did not choose (B) was a lot better option. But I chose the one I did (A) simply because I felt better about it. I like to think that that in itself may actually have some rational aspects.

The conversations surrounding this were with a man who used to be my minister (and in many ways still is) and a friend of mine who is a minister. Both of these insisted, at least at first, that I should interpret my feelings (or that it was fair to interpret them) as God's leading. Now, I don't have a problem with the notion that God may lead us--even through feeling. What I do have trouble with is making the statement that I know with certainty that he has led me--and that is what our friendly disagreement was about. The truth is, I think my feelings are just too arbitrary and fleeting to be trustworthy enough to interpret with certainty. And that's ok--I'm not demanding certainty; I'm just stating that I have a lack of certainty.

The second event spawned a conversation between me, my wife, and three good friends of ours. After the young man bought our lunch, my wife turned and asked, "Do you think that this was a 'God event'?" In other words, did God cause this to happen in order to bless us? My initial answer was, "I don't know, it could be--it might not be." And I was thankful either way! One of my friends, though, initially insisted that it must have been God--but later admitted that it really isn't possible to know. (I hope I have accurately represented him here, I'll know if he reads this.)

My question is about whether it is possible to have certainty when discerning whether God has acted in everyday life. Before I begin to address it, I want to clarify that I am not a deist. I do not believe that God is out of touch with life in our universe. I believe he interacts and that the Bible records much of his interaction. I believe he still works in and through his people on this earth. But where I differ with many of my friends is in our ability to have certainty when interpreting events.

Even when we assume (rightly) a supernatural being (God) who routinely interacts with the universe, it does not seem possible that we should live on a planet with 6 billion conscious free agents and a universe of nature instinctively and naturally following its programming without the possibility of random coincidence. There is enough randomness in weather patterns, animal life, the feelings and actions of others, and my feelings to merit my assumption that any event (good or bad) which happens may have meaning (in that God or another free agent had a distinct purpose in it) or not (in that the event was caused by coincidence). Allow me to argue from analogy.

Deer instinctively run from danger. A friend I have enjoys hunting for deer and engages in this activity because he freely chooses to. I go to work every morning because I need the money and because I choose to pursue legal methods to acquire it. Now, let's say my friend is hunting and shoots at a deer and misses. We will understand that this frightens the deer. We expect him to follow his instincts and run away from the sound. Now, let's also say my friend was hunting about the same time I was going to work and close enough to the road that the deer ended up running directly in front of me and I hit it, totalling my 96 Oldsmobile Achieva (finally). What are the key factors leading up to this event?

First, there is nature, represented by the deer. Nature is without reason--I mean, the deer was not reasoning about his actions, he was following instinct. Granted, in a theistic paradigm that instinct is planted by God, but it is indistinct. What I mean is that if the deer were put in the exact same situation twice, his instinct would cause him to run both times--but the odds are he would run in two different directions. In fact, any number of random events may affect him. A gentle breeze may waft a scent by him which triggers his instinct to graze somewhere else in the first place, causing the event to never take place. In other words, instinct is general, i.e. deer run when startled. But the specifics of actions in nature are random. Acts of nature are really affected by three things: instinct (in the case of animals--physics and natural law in the case of inanimate objects and the weather), the actions of free agents, other acts of nature, and chance. When dealing with nature (the deer in my analogy) we must make room for random chance. With God in the paradigm we can say that he has built randomness into the system.

Second, there are the choices of free agents--in this case, me and my friend. Now, there may be all kinds of factors--from arbitrary ones to ultimately purposeful ones--but the simple truth is this: I was in my car and my friend was in the woods because we both chose to be. Nothing made us be, we simply chose it. When it comes to free agents, our decisions are basically affected by these things: nature, needs, desires (conscious and subconscious), and the actions of other free agents (which may often enough include God). We take all these into account when making decisions, but we make them consciously just the same, and we could choose not to. In this sense, we are almost like necessary beings. We are necessary to bring about the contingent actions we do. (Of course, we are not exactly like necessary beings because we are definitely caused.)

The thing is, when it comes to events in our lives, we must assume there is some randomness. If I am making free choices and my friend is making free choices, it is only a matter of odds that our paths may eventually cross without our knowledge or planning. Throw into this the fact that there are 6 billion people on this planet making free choices and the randomness of our lives emerges. It always seems silly to me to insist that when two people meet we must assume that God has brought them together. What would have happened if one had chosen something else? The answer is, they would have met someone else. Now, God may act and interact here and there outside of our knowledge, but if he is guiding everyone to meet the way they do--well that's just determinism. And I'm not into that! The odds of meeting one person out of 6 billion are nearly one in 6 billion--yet I meet new people every day! Randomness in life is truly an every day occurrence.

I am not a deist. I am not saying that God is not involved in creation. What I am doing is making a case for randomness and the impossibility of epistemological certainty when approaching "brushes with the metaphysical." It may be that God influenced or led one of us to be in a certain situation. But the problem is, we can't know it with certainty. We can guess it, and we might have good reason to. But we cannot know it. And the truth is, we cannot prove it wasn't coincidence when coincidence must be understood as an element in the system God created.

Why did our friend at Subway buy us lunch? Perhaps God saw our need and gently influenced him to do so by planting the idea in his mind. Perhaps God inhabited his body outside of our friend's free will and caused him to buy us lunch. Perhaps our friend simply responded to us out of love. Perhaps he felt sorry for us. Perhaps someone tipped him off that we were broke and needed help. Maybe he was moved by something we said or did which revealed the work of God in our lives and he freely responded to that. But my answer to the question, "Did God do this for us?" must be, "I don't really know." I like to think he did, and I believe he is taking care of us. Truthfully, I really believe God blessed us with lunch through our friend. But we're talking knowledge here, not belief. Belief requires intellectual agreement, knowledge requires proof (see my appendix at the end of this article). Though I believe it, I cannot rule out the fact that our friend acted freely and could have chosen not to. I cannot rule out the randomness of our encounter--he could very easily have chosen not to come in to work that day. His boss could have scheduled him for a different time. I could have been hit by a meteor on the way in the door but I wasn't, therefore, nature was favorable to the event (I had to work nature in somehow). Many things had to happen in just the right way for this event to occur--which may be evidence for God's activity and it may not. The truth is, if the event hadn't occurred, whatever event did occur would also have needed many events to happen in just the right way in order to occur. And something is going to happen one way or another.

So what, then? Do we give up? I think we can make a few assumptions. First, God does not have every event planned for our lives (see appendix 2). He has listed general instructions (what type of person I should marry, what types of activities are wrong) and has given us a basic purpose (what kind of life I should lead) in his revealed word, the Bible. The specifics (i.e. who I'll marry, where I'll work) he leaves up to us. Second, God does act in the universe. Third, humans are free agents who freely choose to do whatever they want to do, even if those choices are influenced by needs, desires, etc. Fourth, events in nature are determined by instinct, physics, chance, and sometimes the actions of free agents (i.e. global warming and the Genesis flood).

Mix these ingredients together and what do we have? An Open System! (Isn't it predictable that this is my conclusion?) I think God has created a system in which anything can happen, anything is possible. I think God is working within that system to accomplish his purposes. But we are really blind to him. We cannot see clearly what he is doing and why. We cannot always tell the difference between chance, our feelings, and the actions and will of God. Sometimes we are confused. For this reason, we must do the best we can do to follow him and trust that God will take care of the things we cannot see. And we mustn't assume too much that we cannot know. I think there is a danger in assuming that God must have provided my free lunch. It begs the question, why doesn't he do the same for my brothers in Christ who are starving somewhere else? I think the only right answer to questions like, "Is this a God thing?" and "Did God lead me here?" is, "I don't know for certain--it's possible. But I'm going to follow him whether he did or didn't--though he slays me yet will I serve him!"

Is it a God thing? Only God knows.

Appendix: My definition of knowledge is the enlightenment definition. Knowledge is justifed true belief. Of course, by this definition, knowledge of something is only possible if that something can be proven--until it is proven it is only belief. Hence, my wrestling with the question, "Do you know God exists?" I think the answer is, "I have faith that he does, but not knowledge." Yet I acknowledge that there is a biblical definition of knowledge which is quite different. But I have difficulty wrapping my brain around it. I have Michael Polanyi's book, Personal Knowledge, but I have not started it yet. It is my hope that this book will help me make my epistemological shift.

Appendix 2: Does God ever have a specific in mind? Even though I stated that I do not think God has all the details of our lives mapped out, I think it is entirely possible that he knows of occasional specific situations in which he may want one of us to act or live or which he feels are best for us. It is my belief that he may act through "open and closed doors" or through the gentle nudge of a "feeling of leading." But we must be very careful with this. We can't always see all the doors well enough to say we know all the doors were open or closed and we can't always adequately interpret our feelings. For this reason, I think we are almost better off to assume he is not leading us--to just do the best we can and trust he'll fill in our gaps.