Books for Recovering Fundamentalists

Growing up in American evangelicalism, we are not taught multiple ways of looking at the Bible. "The Bible says it, that settles it," is the motto. Of course, there are silent, unspoken presuppositions and interpretations that dictate how one sees Scriptural passages, but that's another story. For young adults like myself who came out of this environment, being subjected to the rest of the world can be daunting and ground-shaking. Finding many weaknesses in the faith that we were surrounded by growing up, it's easy to want to drop Christianity altogether, and many do. But for those of you who have experienced this but still find something in Christianity worth holding onto, I recommend the following books. But even if you haven't had that experience, these are some great books.

The Historical Christ and the Theological Jesus by Dale Allison

I just finished this recently and it's incredible. You may have to supplement it with some other historical Jesus reading, but as it stands it's a fantastic book from a leading historical Jesus scholar on the reconciliation of faith with biblical criticism. Allison offers some pretty uncomfortable conclusions for the common evangelical. It's a book I wrestled with, but ultimately one I found freeing and profound. I actually threw the book across the room at one point!

Love Wins and Velvet Elvis by Rob Bell

Bell is a must-read for recovering fundamentalists. He's an easy read, but a challenging one. He offers a lot of great insights, and even more great questions. If you're a recovering fundamentalist, I would start with Bell.

Is God to Blame? by Greg Boyd

This is a book for those who wrestle with theological issues like the problem of evil. I haven't read anyone stronger than Boyd on this topic. He tears apart the "blueprint worldview" that attributes everything that happens in life to the work of God, and offers a "warfare worldview" in which pervasive evil and suffering are the results of free agents who so often choose evil over good. Boyd gives you a lot of comfort and a lot to think about.

The Prophetic Imagination by Walter Brueggemann

While this isn't specifically a book for recovering fundies, it is a must-read for all Christians, and I think young progressive Christians will get a lot from it. Every new person I have read it comes to me with the same reaction: "This book blew my mind!" Brueggemann uses the Bible in a way that I never heard used growing up. He talks about the Bible's teaching on social justice, and the countercultural message it presents to society. This book is gold.

The Bible Tells Me So and The Evolution of Adam by Peter Enns

Enns is incredible. Like Bell, he is a perfect person for ex-fundies to read. His books are challenging, but also liberating. I would read The Bible Tells Me So first, and then The Evolution of Adam if you want a good intro to Genesis as mythic poetry instead of a historical book that describes the literal origin of the universe. If you haven't been subjected to his ideas before, you will never look at the Bible the same after reading him.

If the Church were Christian by Philip Gulley

This one is so good because it's so subversive. Gulley is a heretic, straight up. There's something so interesting about reading what a heretical pastor has to say and what his experiences are. Whatever your beliefs about Christianity are, Gulley will challenge at least some of them. I don't endorse everything he says, I think he's wrong about several things and the book has weaknesses, but it's a very thought-provoking read. Whether you're cheering him on or making this face O_o, you will get a lot out of this book.

The God-Shaped Brain by Timothy Jennings

This one is not as controversial as the others. It's coming at Christianity from a psychology perspective, and what a perspective! Jennings provides a new angle from which to think about the implications of our Christian beliefs. Although he gets a little evangelical-y at times, so much of what he says is so beautiful.

In the Name of Jesus by Henri Nouwen 

Really, anything by Nouwen is excellent. I have never read another devotional author more consistently edifying. His theology carries such beauty, and the way it transfers from mind to heart and practice is compelling and inspiring. It is a tiny book that can easily be read in one or two sittings, but it's gold, pure gold!

Sacred Word, Broken Word by Kenton Sparks

If you wrestle with the problems of Scripture while maintaining a desire to recognize its authority, Sparks is essential, along with Enns. He makes the case that the same dilemma we face with the problem of evil, we face with the problem of Scripture; that is, Scripture, like creation, is corrupted by human evil, even if it is thoroughly a work of God. The book is insightful and challenging.

What else should be added to this list?

Why I am No Longer a Christian Anarchist

A couple years ago, I read Greg Boyd's Myth of a Christian Nation. I had been developing a political consciousness through my study of Jesus and the prophets, as well as through conversations with my dad, who often critiqued the widespread desire to "take America back for God" and "re-"establish a "Christian Nation." Precisely two years ago--May 15th, 2012--I wrote my first blog on Christianity and politics (read it, here), in which I said, "Our nation needs more than legislature imposing Christian moral values on all people" and "We need to change this nation from the inside out, not from the outside in." Soon after that, I read Boyd's book, which reflected the same exact understanding. I was instantly a follower.

Boyd advocates Christian Anarchy. Although, given the chaotic connotations of "anarchy," he eventually laid aside that title, preferring "Christ-Archy." I prefer Christianarchy. Whichever label one prefers, the idea is that Christians are called to cultivate a mustard-seed kingdom, a community of other-focused love in which Christians seek to emulate Christ. Such a community would not seek political power in order to impose moral laws on the whole country, but would seek to transform the world by being an inviting, love-filled people who grow and grow. It is the Christ-like, counter-cultural alternative to the systems of power implemented by the empire.

I still firmly believe in such a community, and I still firmly believe that the church is called (dare I say, demanded) by God to be such a community.

That being said, I no longer consider myself a Christianarchist. This is because Boyd and others like him who seek to revive the Anabaptist tradition claim that Christians should not engage in politics. All social change should be embodied practical change and not coercive governmental change. I sympathize with this view, but I can no longer accept it. I have come to see that there are many practical steps that the government can take to bring about positive social change, and I think we Christians should seek Christ-like social change in whatever way we can.

I am now registered to vote, and I plan to vote every time I see a candidate who represents Christ-like ideals for social change, especially if he/she is running against someone who I think has it all wrong. This includes voting in non-presidential elections.

I used to object to voting because you can never trust a politician. You can't tell whether or not the person for whom you're voting is a wolf in sheep's clothing. And since power corrupts, I felt justified assuming that all politicians are wolves in sheep's clothing. That very well may be the case. Voting is risky business. However, wolf in sheep's clothing or not, a politician has deciding power, and deciding power means the ability to influence legislature, and legislature can bring about positive, Christ-like changes, or it can cause our country to take a turn for the worse. I have come to see that voting is worth the risk.

I recently sent a letter to Virginia senator Mark Warner asking him to vote in favor of the Minimum Wage Fairness Act. He responded, informing me that he did vote in favor of it as he thinks the minimum wage is too low (the motion to proceed to the bill ended up failing 54 to 42). I realized through this experience that I can seek the kingdom of God through political means, even in the midst of a corrupt system. The mustard-seed can be planted in the government. Positive change can happen.

Wall Street banks borrow money from the government at interest rates of less than 1%. They then take the borrowed money and use it to give their top execs multi-million dollar bonuses, even while laying off workers. Government students loan interest rates, on the other hand, range from 3-7%. These student loans don't enable students to live lavish lives, they enslave them (see Prov. 22:7), and the education that was meant to make them successful becomes a lifetime burden. Raising interest rates for Wall Street banks borrowing from the government and including stipulations on how government loans can be used, while simultaneously lowering interest rates on students so it is less burdensome to go to college and become successful, are practical steps the government can take to make our society better. Such changes would be moves in a Christian direction, and so I think they should be sought after. 

I wish if someone asked me where I stand politically, I could simply say, "I'm a Christian." That would seriously be the best way to describe it. Every issue for which I take action, and every candidate for whom I vote, I will always have the teachings and an example of Jesus Christ at heart, influencing my every stance.

Unfortunately, if I simply said, "I'm a Christian," people would probably assume I'm a Republican seeking to take America back for God (Kenneth in 30 Rock says, "I don't vote because I think choosing is a sin, so I just put in the Lord's name," and Jack Donaghy responds, "That's Republican. We count those"), or they'll think I have no political opinion whatsoever and I say "Christian" as a cop-out. The truth is quite different.

I still agree with 19-year-old John Daniel that "Our nation needs more than legislature imposing Christian moral values on all people." I still agree with him that "The people in our nation need a thorough reform of the soul. They need God to change them from the inside out." While I still embrace the pursuit of a counter-cultural alternative community of other-focused love that embodies the teachings of Jesus, I would explain to my past self the need for the pursuit of social change through politics. 

Evidence Demands a Verdict: On Generalizations and Presuppositions

Many Christians frequently dismiss evidence by pointing to a flaw or flaws in the ideological framework of the ones presenting the evidence. This is often accomplished by reductionism and over-generalization. For example, a friend of mine rejects evolution because the scientists who advocate it have materialist presuppositions. Believing already that reality is made up of the natural, material world that we perceive and nothing more, they exalt science and reject all theology. Thus, they get evolution. This would be a good reason to reject evolution, if it were true. But it's not true. While I agree we should reject materialism (see my blogs on materialism, here), this reasoning fails to recognize that there are plenty of scientists who embrace evolution but do not embrace scientific naturalism, and plenty who are theists, and plenty who are Christians.

Similarly, many Christians like to dismiss evidence in Scriptural study because of the supposed presuppositions of the discoverers. An archeologist will tell them that there is no archeological support for the fall of Jericho story, and that the evidence actually points against such a story, rendering it virtually impossible to possess genuine historicity. A Christian might say that such evidence can be rejected because those who analyze and study it are liberal academics who reject the authority of Scripture, and so seek to find ways of debunking it. This is such a terribly false generalization that many Christian biblical scholars would find offensive.

Side note: This does not represent all of conservative Christianity's responses to such evidence; there are conservative biblical scholars who engage in a positivist mindset about the historicity of many of the Bible's stories--whether or not their arguments hold any water is a completely different discussion.

My last example comes from Greg Boyd's testimony. When he was a teenager, he found out about several of the Bible's contradictions, and they gravely disturbed him. He highlighted all of them that he could find and brought them to his Pentecostal pastor. "What do I do with these?!" he asked, "How can the Bible have contradictions?!" His pastor paused and frankly asked him, "Greg, did you have sex out of wedlock?"

This pastor refused to engage a discussion about Bible contradictions, and chose to label Greg as a rebellious sinner, and therefore, able to be ignored. Forget the evidence, forget the fact that I'm staring contradictions in the face; if I can find out that they're coming from a sinful, rebellious teenager, I don't have to deal with them. Such a blatant rejection of evidence reveals a lack of any desire to find out what truth actually is, and instead reveals a mind that only wants to blindly accept an ignorant bliss.

Now, I'm a child of postmodernism, so I do realize our subjectivity and our presuppositions, and that all reality is interpreted reality, all facts are interpreted. However, this does not mean I just embrace whatever presuppositions I have as true, and judge reality based only on weighing presupposition against presupposition. If I am interested in what is true, I will try to rise above my presuppositions, even though I will never do so fully. If I am interested in what is true, I will listen to evidence and let that evidence inform my thinking.

The church wanted to silence Galileo because he discovered heliocentrism. The Bible seems to suggest that the earth is the center of the universe, and the sun revolves around it; so they rejected Galileo's claim that the earth revolves around the sun--something we all know to be true today.

Don't make sweeping generalizations about presuppositions to silence evidence. Let the evidence inform your worldview.

Petitionary Prayer: What is it Good for?

Prayer is often thought to be something that doesn't affect what will actually turn out. Because God already knows what he is going to do, so it is said, prayer is for our benefit, our own change, rather than changing what will occur.

Prayer is also often treated like a vending machine; insert a prayer, out comes a blessing. God is a genie in a bottle, to whom we can go to with any request for him to fill.

With these construals of prayer, it is widely taken for granted or trivialized. I often get the feeling in prayer groups that we're all praying for stuff to happen but we don't actually think anything is going to come from it.

Prayer has become a ritual to which we ascribe power on a surface level, but we don't use it in such a way that we take seriously the power it has.

A problem I think we have is that we pray without acknowledging any limits to our prayers, resulting in unrealistic prayers. Treating God like a genie in a bottle who can do anything for us trivializes prayer, because it doesn't ring true. We don't experience prayer that way. I do not experience the effectiveness of my prayers the same way I experience the effectiveness of a dollar when I use it to buy a Coke from a vending machine. Because of the dissonance between idea and experience--between what is thought about prayer and what the reality is--the power of prayer is demeaned, and prayer becomes just something that we do. Ask for it in prayer because that's what Christians do, but don't expect anything.

I think this trivialization could be changed if we thought about prayer more realistically. In an attempt to do so, I would like to highlight a couple of major limitations on prayer that we seldom acknowledge.

Disclaimer: Talk of what God can or cannot do must not be taken to mean I am questioning God's actual ability. I assume God's omnipotence. However, there are certain things God cannot do within the framework which he himself has set--that is, within the boundaries he set on himself and the natural order. There's a difference between the power God possesses and the power he exercises.

1. God cannot violate the free will of human beings

By saying 'Yes' to free will for humans, God inevitably said 'No' to absolute control; he chose to give humans quite a bit of control over what occurs. Thus, when we pray, we must take into account that God cannot just do anything we ask of him. Consider David Basinger's words:

God so values the inherent integrity of significant human freedom . . . that he will not as a general rule force his created moral agents to perform actions that they do not freely desire to perform. . . . [I] doubt that he would override the freedom of one individual primarily because he was freely asked to do so by another.(1)

For example, if a friend of mine is going into a job interview, I cannot realistically pray that God will simply have the employer hire him/her, as if God is going to overrule the employer's free will and give my friend a job. Put yourself in the employer's position; would God override your freedom and control your actions to accomplish a certain end?

We do not see God doing this in Scripture. Consider these examples:

All day long I have held out my hands to an obstinate people, who walk in ways not good, pursuing their own imaginations. Isaiah 65:2

I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, people of Israel?' Ezekiel 33:11

Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing. Matthew 23:37

The Pharisees and the experts in the law rejected God's purpose for themselves. Luke 7:30

You stiff-necked people! Your hearts and ears are still uncircumcised. You are just like your ancestors: You always resist the Holy Spirit! Acts 7:51

These verses point to the reality of human freedom, and how often that freedom can oppose the will of God; and if God wants people to have freedom, there's only so much he can do in a particular situation.

2. God cannot violate the free will of spiritual beings

This one is often overlooked by Christians, but it's a big one. Walter Wink says,

Prayer involves not just God and people, but God and people and the Powers. What God is able to do in the world is hindered, to a considerable extent, by the rebelliousness, resistance, and self-interest of the Powers exercising their freedom under God.(2)

A striking example of this is found in Daniel 10, in which an angel comes to Daniel in a vision and says:

Do not be afraid, Daniel. Since the first day that you set your mind to gain understanding and to humble yourself before your God, your words were heard, and I have come in response to them. But the prince of the Persian kingdom resisted me twenty-one days. Then Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, because I was detained there with the king of Persia. vv.12-13

This passage tells us that, when Daniel prayed, an angel was dispatched to meet his need, but was held up by an evil being! And it was so bad that had to call in for back-up. This, he says, is why it took so long for Daniel's prayer to be addressed.

Have you ever heard that passage talked about in a sermon on prayer? It gives us an incredibly different picture of the power of prayer than the one we so often engage. Prayer is not simply asking God for things. Prayer is spiritual warfare! Our prayers are spiritual contributions to the victory of the kingdom of God over evil. With prayer, we add oil to the Kingdom fire.

An Alternative View of Prayer

God is always doing everything he can to bring good out of every situation (Rom. 8:28). Terence Fretheim notes that to say God intervenes is a mistake, because it implies, "that God is not normally present but intervenes now and then with a goody or a baddy."(3) Subjectively, it may seem like God intervenes, but in such cases, our eyes are being opened to what God is always doing, or trying to do. As Greg Boyd says, "God sovereignly influences the whole process, working to bring about as much good and to prevent as much evil as possible."(4) William Hasker describes several ways God does this:

There are circumstances which God is able to arrange. There are the influences coming from other persons who are in tune with God's purposes in a situation. And above all, there is the 'internal operation of the Holy Spirit,' working within a person's mind and will in ways we only dimly understand. God respects us, but he does not 'leave us alone' to make our decision in isolation from his loving concern for us.(5)

Given this framework, our prayers create opportunity through which God can work; they create possibilities that were not possible before we prayed. As Boyd says,

By God's own design, [prayer] functions as a crucial constituent in the 'givens' of any particular situation that makes it possible for God more intensely to steer a situation to his desired end.(6)

Or, in Fretheim's words, "prayers make available to God some new ingredients . . . with which to work the divine will into a situation."(7) Put another way, Clark Pinnock says that prayer "expands God's effective presence in the world."(8) This is what we provide as vessels of the Holy Spirit.

Challenge

When you pray, think about how you are praying. Consider the fact that your prayer actually has power to affect what happens, and let that acknowledgement inspire you to pray realistically, taking the free wills of others into account.

This may sound like it limits prayer, but I think if we begin to pray realistically, we will start to pray more fervently and effectively, because it will teach us to pray for things in such a way that we acknowledge our prayer can affect what happens, instead of merely praying ritualistically.

Acknowledging parameters on how we pray will keep us from taking prayer for granted or trivializing it, and will expand our understanding of the power of prayer.

For further reading:
Gregory A. Boyd, "Praying in the Whirlwind," in Satan and the Problem of Evil (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2001), 209-241.
Terence Fretheim, "Divine Dependence on the Human: An Old Testament Perspective." Ex Auditu 13 (1997): 1-13.
Vincent Brümmer, "Praying for Things to Happen," in What Are We Doing When We Pray? rev. ed. (Burlington, Ashgate, 2008), 33-81.

Notes:
(1) David Basinger, "Practical Implications," in The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1994), 160-161.
(2) Walter Wink, Engaging the Powers: Discernment and Resistance in a World of Domination (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), 311.
(3) This was said in a presentation Terence Fretheim gave called "Divine-Human Relationship," which can be found on Itunes U. 
(4) Gregory A. Boyd, Satan and the Problem of Evil (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2001), 237.
(5) William Hasker, Providence, Evil and the Openness of God (New York: Routledge, 2004), 224.
(6) Boyd, 231.
(7) Terence Fretheim, "Divine Dependence on the Human: An Old Testament Perspective." Ex Auditu 13 (1997), 2.
(8) Clark Pinnock, Most Moved Mover: A Theology of God's Openness (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001), 173.

Calvinism in Acts of the Apostles

I continue my blog series taking a look at passages in the Bible typically used to support Calvinism. So far, I have covered Romans 9 (here) and Ephesians 1 (here). Now, I'm going to deal with a few verses in the book of Acts that seem to support the theology: those are 2:23; 4:28; 13:48; 16:14; and 18:10. I contend that the most valid reading of these verses does not support Calvinist interpretations at all.

Acts 2:23 and 4:28 can be responded to together because they both refer to the same idea. 2:23 says that Jesus was “handed over to [Jews] according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God” and was “crucified and killed by the hands of those outside the law.” Similarly, 4:28 says that Herod and Pontius Pilate gathered together “to do whatever [God’s] hand and [his] plan had predestined to take place.” Both verses allude to the idea that the crucifixion was God’s definite, predestined plan.

Ajith Fernando claims that we see here “the paradox between divine providence and human responsibility.”(1) This response is typical of Calvinists. However, it is not a paradox at all, but can be reasonably explained. Gregory Boyd observes that “Both texts speak of the event of the crucifixion being preordained and foreknown. But neither speak of Herod or Pilate being preordained or foreknown to carry out this event.”(2) Of course the crucifixion was the definite plan predestined by God!(3) But, as Boyd says, these verses do not say that the actions of the Jews, those outside the law, Herod, and Pilate were included in the predestined plan of God.

John Sanders states that hōrismenē boulē (definite plan) in 2:23 denotes “a boundary-setting will.”(4) Here, the crucifixion is the “boundary,” meaning God decided beforehand that Christ would be crucified, and established, based on his precise foreknowledge, the perfect time for this to occur.

Furthermore, it cannot be said from these verses that people cannot resist God’s will. Luke himself is aware of the fact that people can and always have resisted God’s will. Luke 7:30 says that “by refusing to be baptized by [John the Baptist], the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected God’s purpose for themselves” (emphasis mine). In Acts 7:51, before Stephen was martyred, he exclaims, “You men who are stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears are always resisting the Holy Spirit; you are doing just as your fathers did” (emphasis mine).

The other verse in Acts Calvinists use to support their theology is 13:48: when Paul and Barnabas announced to a large crowd of people that the salvation offering had come to the Gentiles, the Gentiles rejoiced and “as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.”(5)

C. K. Barrett says that this verse remains “as unqualified a statement of absolute predestination as is found anywhere in the NT.”(6) Indeed, the verse seems to be that, not only because of its wording, but also because it is reminiscent of the idea that names are written into the book of life.(7) But the verse only seems to point to a Calvinist theology of individual predestination when taken at face value. Paton Gloag voices that here, “Luke merely mentions a historical fact—that those who believed were appointed to eternal life.”(8) This translation is more likely. The word ἐπίστευσαν (believed) precedes the rest of the statement ὅσοι ἦσαν τεταγμένοι εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον (all who were appointed to eternal life). Thus, the text could very easily be read, “all who believed were appointed to eternal life.”

In this case, there is no problem at all; the wording no longer suggests that the appointing came before the believing, and the similarity to the references of the book of life is more natural, for none of those references state that specific names were written in the book of life before the foundations of the earth—only that the names of those who believe are included.

This translation fits better within the context as well. Verse 46 says that the Jews rejected the word of God and did not consider themselves worthy of eternal life (meaning they were not appointed to eternal life because they rejected the Gospel). So then, Paul and Barnabas turned to the Gentiles, and all who believed were found worthy of eternal life.

All of that being said, this interpretation has not been used by most Bible translations. As Esther Yue Ng suggests, ἦσαν τεταγμένοι (were appointed) in this passage “implies an action that precedes the Gentiles’ believing” and contends that the verse is “one among a number of biblical passages that comports better with the Calvinist/Reformed understanding of divine election.”(9) Though I disagree, even if one does not accept Gloag’s interpretation, the Calvinist theological conclusion of the verse is still not the conclusion that should be drawn. Boyd observes that “the verse does not tell us when these people were destined. . . . Calvinists assume that this destiny was given to the elect before the world began by sheer divine fiat, but the text simply does not say this.”(10) Rather, Boyd continues, the text

only requires us to accept that the Spirit of God had been preparing receptive hearts to accept the preaching that was soon coming their way. . . . Those Gentiles who didn’t resist the Spirit’s work in their lives were ‘ripe’ for the message of Paul and Barnabas. In this sense, they were already ‘destined for eternal life,’ and thus they accepted the good news when it was preached to them.(11)

Boyd’s conclusion is quite plausible; definitely more-so than the Calvinist interpretation. This is true also of Acts 18:10 and 16:14. When God says “I have many people in this city” (18:10), he could be referring to those who were “ripe for the message,” as Boyd says. Lydia in 16:14 is an example of such a person. The verse says that God opened her heart to Paul’s message. However, this was not without her will. Lydia is introduced in the verse as “a worshiper of God.” Thus, she had already subjected herself to God’s work. By worshiping God, she yielded to him and, in a sense, let him open her heart to Paul’s teaching.“Whatever be the precise nuance of the words,” says I. Howard Marshall, “there is no suggestion that [the Gentiles] received eternal life independently of their own act of conscious faith.”(12)

We have seen that, when examined closely, all the verses in Acts that seem to support Calvinism actually provide no platform on which Calvinists can base their theology. Any notion of individual predestination must be read into the texts because the verses themselves do not imply the conclusions that Calvinists make of them. Thus, as far as the book of Acts goes, Christians today do not have to fear that they are ignoring “Calvinist verses” and can maintain a love-centered understanding of the character of God.

Notes:
(1) Ajith Fernando, The NIV Application Commentary: Acts (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), 102.
(2) Gregory A. Boyd, “How do you respond to Acts 2:23 and 4:28?” Reknew.org, http://reknew.org/2008/01/how-do-you-respond-to-acts-223-and-428/
(3) It is not applicable to this study, but Acts 2:23 has also been used to refute open theism because of its reference to God’s foreknowledge. In addressing this, we must ask “What is foreknowledge?” Is it knowing exactly every single thing that is ever going to happen? Or could it be knowing all of the possibilities that the future holds? We should ask what Luke’s purpose was in writing these verses in the first place. Was to establish the reality of a theological paradox of God controlling people’s actions yet holding them responsible for them? Robert W. Wall states otherwise, saying that the verses do not “envisage a predestinarian notion of divine providence but Luke’s logical deduction from his idea of Scripture. That is, if the Jesus event and the Spirit’s outpouring both follow the biblical script of God’s salvation, then God must have known about both in advance of their occurrence.” See Robert W. Wall, “The Acts of the Apostles,” in Vol. 10 of The New Interpreter’s Bible, ed. Leander E. Keck (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2002), 66. Indeed, on similar lines, Richard I. Pervo notes that “Because Luke is more a ‘romantic’ than an ‘ironic’ theologian, he concentrates more on the fact and fulfillment of God’s plan than on what it reveals about the human situation.” See Richard I. Pervo, Acts: A Commentary, ed. Harold W. Attridge (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2009), 123, n.30.
(4) John Sanders, The God Who Risks: A Theology of Divine Providence, rev. ed. (Downers Grover: InterVarsity Press, 2007), 167.
(5) There has been a debate as to how the word τεταγμένοι should be translated. I have found that the choices include: “set,” “determined,” “appointed,” “destined,” “enrolled,” and a few others. Whichever you prefer will not affect the following study.
(6) C. K. Barrett, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, Vol. 1 (London: T. & T. Clark, 1994), 658.
(7) F. F. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1988), 267, n.111.
(8) Paton J. Gloag, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, Vol. 2 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1870), 40.
(9) Esther Yue L. Ng, “ἦσαν τεταγμένοι in Acts 13:48: Middle Voice or Passive Voice? Implications for the Doctrine of Divine Election,” CGST Journal, 50 (2011): 192, 186. 
(10) Boyd, “How do you respond to Acts 13:48?”
(11) Gregory A. Boyd, Is God to Blame? (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 190–191. Elsewhere, Boyd elaborates on this concept, saying, “The Father is always looking for people whose hearts may be pliable in his hand (viz. through the Spirit) so he may ‘destine them to eternal life’ by opening up their heart to receive the Gospel.” See Boyd, “How do you respond to Acts 13:48?”
(12) I. Howard Marshall, Acts, Vol. 5 of Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, ed. Leon Morris (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1980), 245.

Predestined in Christ: Ephesians 1 and Calvinism

A couple months ago, I discussed Romans 9 and whether or not it supports Calvinism (here). That was the first of a series of blogs I'm doing about the passages in Scripture typically used to support Calvinism. Here, I am dealing with Ephesians 1:3-14:

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.

In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory. In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.

At face value, this passage seems to support Calvinist ideas of predestination and election: "he chose us . . . before the foundation of the world," "he predestined us for adoption," "[we were] predestined according to the counsel of his will." This sounds like Calvinism, and I sympathize with everyone who reads this passage and either thinks, "See? There it is!" or "Well, I guess it is in Scripture." However, when one analyzes the passage, and considers its historical context, not only is the Calvinist understanding unnecessary, but also unlikely.

ELECTION

Before Christ, Israel was the elect. Such is common knowledge. Israel was the chosen vessel through which salvation would be brought to the world. However, as N.T. Wright observes, the people of Israel were "bound up in the problem instead of being the bringers of the solution."(1) Thus, if salvation was going to spread to the world, it would have to be accomplished through a very different means. Enter Jesus Christ. The story continued with the "Messiah [doing] for the world what Israel was called to do."(2) Christ, then, is the new elect. Paul spells out God's redefinition of election with Christ at its center. As Markus Barth states, "God administers and carries out election through Jesus Christ."(3) Likewise, Ralph P. Martin states, "Election is . . . universalized to include all who are in Christ."(4)

It then follows that, since Christ is the elect, Wright says, "those who hear the gospel and respond to it in faith are then declared to be [God's] people, his elect."(5) This can be seen quite clearly in our passage: "God . . . blessed us in Christ . . . [and] chose us in him. . . . he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ. . . . he blessed in the Beloved. In him we have redemption through his blood. . . . he set forth [the mystery of his will and purpose] in Christ . . . to unite all things in him. In him we have obtained an inheritance. . . . In him, you also . . . were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit."

It is clear in this passage that the elect ones are what they are only in Christ. This may seem like a simple, commonsensical statement, but we have to stop and think about how this completely redefines election: election is no longer a chosen people group, nor is it made up of specific individuals who are chosen; rather, it is Christ who is chosen, the elect, and, subsequently, all those who are in Christ. Those who accept the gospel and believe in Christ become in him, they become elect: "when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, [you] were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit" (v.13).

PREDESTINATION

How, you might ask, does this perspective explain the references to predestination in this passage? Doesn't the passage suggest that those who are in Christ were predestined to be so?
Not necessarily.

I think all Christians can agree that the Incarnation, Crucifixion, and Resurrection of Christ, the Son of God, were predestined. But do passages like these suggest that we go a step further and say that all those who would be saved by his sacrifice were also predestined? It is unlikely that Paul was saying that in writing this passage, for one only has to affirm that Christ's saving act was predestined in order to say with Paul that we were predestined for adoption.

God predestined that Christ would be the elect and that he would call all people to salvation. Thus, when one says 'Yes' to Christ through faith, one becomes one of the elect and it can rightfully be said that he/she was predestined for adoption (Eph. 1:4-5, 11; Rom. 8:29-30), because it was predestined that Christ would be the elect for all people, and that all who accept him would then be the elect. I was predestined to for adoption, because it was God's purpose in Christ to adopt all who believe in him, and I chose to believe in him. Consider Greg Boyd's analogy:

Suppose you attend a seminar in which a certain video is shown. You might ask the instructor, 'When was it decided (predestined) that we'd watch this video?' To which the instructor might respond, 'It was decided six months ago that you'd watch this video.' Note that it was not decided six months ago that you individually would watch this video. What was decided was that anyone who took this seminar would watch this video. Now that you have chosen to be part of this seminar, what was predestined for the seminar applies to you. You can now say, 'It was decided six months ago that we would watch this video.'(6)

In the same way, Christ's saving act was predestined; it was predestined that all who would believe in Christ would be the elect. Election is an open invitation to all people, and all who say 'Yes' become the elect, who are predestined for adoption, "according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will" (v.11).

ROMANS 8:29

I believe this is the way we should look at Romans 8:29: 

For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.

If we look at the context, "those whom" does not refer to individual people that God elected for salvation; it refers to "those who love God" and "those who are called." Joseph Fitzmyer suggests that this verse refers to "all who have responded to the divine call."(7) Must we draw from this that the individuals who responded to the divine call were foreknown and predestined?

The Greek word οὓς ('those whom') does not go that far. In Romans 11:2, the word refers to the people of Israel in general. 8:28-30 tells us that God predestined to call people to be conformed to the image of his Son, and that those who love God are justified and glorified. That there would be a group of people--the elect--that would respond to God's call by loving him was indeed predestined and foreknown.

God predestined that he would call people to be conformed to the image of his Son. He foreknew the elect as all who would believe in Christ. Just like the presenter of the seminar in Boyd's analogy foreknew the attendees as all who would arrive for the seminar. The passage does not suggest that God predestined and foreknew the elect as specific individuals chosen for salvation. The passage does provide that God predestined that all who are in Christ would be justified, glorified, and conformed to the image of Christ, but it does not go beyond this. It does not suggest that individuals were foreknown and predestined. To say that would be to go beyond what the text itself provides.

Notes:
(1) N. T. Wright, Paul: In Fresh Perspective (Minneapolis: Fortress press, 2005), 119.
(2) Ibid., 120.
(3) Markus Barth, Ephesians 1–3, Vol. 34 of The Anchor Bible, eds. William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman (Garden City: Doubleday, 1974), 107.
(4) Ralph P. Martin, Ephesians, Colossians, and Philemon, ed. James Luther Mays (Louisville: John Knox Press, 1991), 18.
(5) Wright, 122.
(6) Gregory A. Boyd, God of the Possible (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000), 47.
(7) Joseph Fitzmyer, Romans, Vol. 33 of The Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1964), 524.

Matt Brake and John Daniel Holloway on Open Theism

What is your understanding of Open Theism?

Matt: In layman's terms, a good understanding of Open Theism: the future is not set in stone; God has not set the future in stone; God has delegated free will and choice to the physical universe and, in doing so, that gives free choice teeth; choice is not an illusion, as in double predestination. But, in that, God sees all the possibilities of the future.

John Daniel: David Basinger highlights key factors of Open Theology: a claim about God's power, God's moral nature, God's emotive nature, and God's knowledge. With regard to God's power, it states that at the beginning of time, he gave humanity power to create their futures--free will. With regard to God's moral nature, it says that he is love and perfectly revealed in Christ, who entered into solidarity with the world, experienced time with the world, and suffered to save the world. With regard to his emotive nature, Open Theism denies God's impassibility and says that humanity affects God intimately. He suffers with, for, and because of humanity. With regard to God's knowledge (and this is the most distinct feature), Open Theism denies that God possesses exhaustive foreknowledge of the future. The future does not yet exist, except as possibilities--all of which God knows perfectly.

Why do you think people are afraid of Open Theism?

Matt: Because they're afraid of a God who doesn't know the future. If God doesn't know the future, then he isn't in control--which undermines people's trust in God. They also fear because certain theological gatekeepers have made them afraid of it. People who say, "Open Theists don't worhsip the same God as the Christian God," etc. Even if the idea has its merits, they pressure people into thinking that they're committing idolatry if they give Open Theist ideas any consideration. They may lose their salvation.
(Which begs the question: what defines a true believer? one who believes all the right things, or who is all the right things? )

John Daniel: Open Theology gets vilified. The "guardians" of evangelical theology, when they hear something they think undermines God's glory, turn such a theology into something incredibly "liberal" and paint it as something which goes against all Scripture. Not only does it undermine the glory of God (as they see it) but in their minds it completely ignores Scriptural teaching. They don't accept that the view interprets Scripture a certain way; they consider Open Theists to be rejecting parts of Scripture in order to find a God who makes more sense to them.
People are afraid because they are fed this propaganda.

Matt: I remember talking to a pretty Calvinist dude before I heard of Open Theism. He said he didn't think Clark Pinnock was really a Christian because he was an Open Theist. That's inaccurate; with Open Theism you don't redefine who God is, you redefine what omniscience is.

John Daniel: Well...that's the most unique feature of Open Theology. There are others.

How is Open Theism compatible with the blatant predestination passages in Scripture?

John Daniel: It's a case by case basis. Most of the time there's nothing incongruent with the passages about God predestining events, and God's lack of exhaustive foreknowledge. God can know in the future whatever he decides is going to happen--when he decides that he is going to do something, he makes it happen. He knew that he was going to send Jesus; he could know that because it was his choice. Sometimes he does make executive decisions, but, again, it is a case by case basis depending on the particular Scriptures that mention predestination. Lots of times the text doesn't actually say when he predestined such things. None of those verses require us to think he presdestines all things, or that he has exhaustive foreknowledge of the future.

Matt: So what you're saying is, as opposed to the classical view of omniscence, God's omnipotence causes something to happen rather than the future being set in stone?

John Daniel: Yes. He can make executive decisions because of his omnipotence.

Matt: Not fatalistic? He was planning it, but he made it happen in the moment?

John Daniel: I think God can look into the future as it is--as possibilities--and see a need. He knew that Christ would be a necessity; so, before time began he predestined Christ's coming.

Does Open Theism lead to the rejection of biblical inerrancy?

Matt: Since I don't buy into the concept of inerrancy, this is kind of a non-starter for me. I believe in inspiration; but if we're talking about the Bible being completely historically and scientifically inerrant, then no I do not believe that. When it comes to Scripture, I think Open Thesim, instead of imposing fatalism on the text, allows the Bible to say what it's actually saying. And it allows you to take into account things like genre, historical setting, and what modern science has told us about the world and about time. It makes our understanding of Scripture potentially richer. 

John Daniel: I agree with Matt. But I will add that I absolutely do not think Open Theism requires a rejection of biblical inerrancy. I suppose it doesn't look good, however, that I also don't buy into the inerrantist view of scripture. But I, like Karl Barth, still treat the Bible as inerrant in its teaching. Though there may be historical things we can't explain, and it's not a book of science or inerrant in its details, and it does include human elements, I think the teachings of Scripture are absolutely inerrant. In that, you could be an inerrantist and an Open Theist because the two beliefs are unrelated. They're two different topics. You dont have to deny inerrancy to say that God faces an open future.

Matt: Michael Saia might confirm. He holds a very conservative view of Scripture, and yet, is in Open Theist.

John Daniel: I'm an Open Theist because of Scripture. When God says "perhaps" and "if," I take it seriously, and I include it in my assesment of God's nature. Thus, there is no denial of biblical inerrancy inherent in Open Theism.

Question from Debbie: My interaction with strict inerrantists has shown me that they read the Psalms with just as much authority as the prophets or the words of Jesus or of Paul. And all throughout the Psalms is language of God's foreknowledge, and basically just language that says a lot about foreknowing and predestining and, so, it kind of refutes Open Theology in general. So, that kind of inerrantist probably would have a problem with Open Theology. Your thoughts?

John Daniel: I don't agree that the Psalms support exhaustive foreknowledge and predestination as you say. Some seem to support it, but they don't require it. When the psalmist says "you know my actions before I do them," the point is not to theologize about God knowing the future. The point is to say how well God knows him. I still think God knows the person so well that he knows what he is most likely to do, and he is not at all surprised at what he does. And I think you can be an inerrantist and look at the Bible in a more realistic way.

Open Theists tend to focus on the love of God, as claimed by both critics and advocates. Is there a place for God's wrath, holiness, and judgment in Open Theism?

John Daniel: Well, obviously there has to be because wrath, holiness, and judgment are in Scripture. So, if we are to have a complete theology from Scripture, we have to include such elements. However, I do not think we have to adopt the popular views of God's wrath, holiness, and judgment. Open Theism is a very Christ-centered theology: God experiences time with us, is affected by us, suffers with us and for us, does not control us, and in love gives us freedom. Open Theology takes seriously the statement that God is love. Thus, we look at God's wrath, holiness, and judgment through the lens of Christ and his love. This does not mean that God's wrath is somehow transformed into lollipops. But, rather than holding up an angry, wrathful image of God and combining that with a love-filled, Christ-like image of God, and by doing so creating a paradox, Open Theology looks at God's wrath, holiness, and judgment in a way that is compatible with his Christ-like nature.

Matt: I don't think Open Theism does away with God's wrath. It does do away with the Calvinist notion of double predestination (i.e. that God predestines some people to Heaven and others to Hell regardless of their will). It takes choice seriously, and it isn't any different from Wesley's prevenient grace, anyway. So I don't know what the fuss is about!

John Daniel: It also does away with the Calvinist understanding of God's wrath. In Open Theology, wrath is not something that brings God glory, but rather is something that breaks his heart.

Does Open Theism make God smaller and less powerful?

Matt: I guess that depends on which Open Theist you listen to. I like Boyd's idea that God sees all of the infinite possibilities--which...put your head around that: ALL of the infinite possibilities--as a opposed to one set plan. However, If your idea of a big God is that of a God who needs to know everything in advance, and you want to continue dealing with the "paradox" of a God who knows the future, possibly causes the future, and yet still gives man free will, and then you want to say, "Well, we'll just never understand God, I guess"--well, then, two things: 1) I smell "cop-out" and 2) good luck...you're probably still going to Heaven.

John Daniel: Quite the contrary. I think a smaller, less powerful God would need to know the future. A smaller, less powerful God would need to control everything and everyone in order to get what he wants. A more awe-inspiring God is one who faces an open future full of possibilities, and through wisdom has to decide the perfect responses--and still get what he wants! First, like Matt said, think about what it would mean to know the trillions of possibilities because of your exhaustive knowledge of the past, present, and all of earth's inhabitants. Then, think about how wise God would have to be to execute the perfect responses to billions of free wills who constantly oppose his will. Then, think about the fact that in the midst of all of this, God still remains "in control" in the sense that we don't give him anything he can't handle, and we don't give him anything he can't use for good. Then, think about the fact that, in the end, God will get what he wants, even after thousands upon thousands of years of opposition to his will--all because he is so wise. I think Open Theology--maybe, ironically--presents a much more awe-inspiring view of God's wisdom than that of the Arminian and Calvinist views.

What do you think?
Feel free to join the conversation in the comment section below.

Why I Am an Open Theist

In case you haven't gotten this in my past blogs, I am an open theist. This entails many things, but the one that is distinct from other Christian views is the belief that, to God, the future is made up of possibilities and not exact certainties. Thus, God does not possess exhaustive foreknowledge (Click here if you want more information). I came to this conclusion about a year and a half ago. Here, I will not discuss all the ins and outs of how I view God's foreknowledge, but I would simply like to share why I came to this conclusion.

Because the Bible Tells Me So

I originally decided on open theism while taking a class on the Prophets. I was writing about the suffering of God in Jeremiah and I picked up Terence Fretheim's book The Suffering of God. In my reading of Jeremiah, I was struck by 26:3: "Perhaps they will listen and everyone will turn from his evil way, that I may repent of the calamity which I am planning to do to them because of the evil of their deeds." I realized that there are many verses just like this, where God says "If" or "Perhaps" in such a way that it suggests that he does not exactly know what the outcome will be. I saw that Fretheim had a chapter on the subject of God's uses of these words, and so I read it. I didn't know then that Fretheim is an open theist (nor did I know what open theism was), but when I read his chapter, I highlighted so much of it because it made so much sense to me.

It is important to note that the deciding factor for me had nothing to do with whether or not God's foreknowledge limits human freedom (which is what it was for most open theists). That idea hadn't even crept into my mind at that point. My decision was solely based on the passages of Scripture in which God doesn't seem to know exactly what is going to happen.

That being said, once I accepted the view, several other elements came into the picture.

The Traditional View Limits God's Freedom

The more I thought about the idea of God's exhaustive foreknowledge, the less I agreed with it. I read Clark Pinnock's chapter about open theism in Predestination & Free Will: Four Views. In it, he supports the idea that if God has exhaustive foreknowledge of the future, then humans do not have free will. At that point, I didn't agree or disagree with that position. I was never bothered by the idea of God's foreknowledge and my free will.

The idea that did bother me was that if God has foreknowledge, then it limits his freedom. Think about it. If God knows exactly how things are going to turn out, then he knows exactly how he is going to interact with the world for the rest of time. Furthermore, since he cannot be wrong in his knowledge of the future, he has to interact with the world in the future the way that he sees it. He can do nothing else but what he sees himself doing in the future. Thus, God's freedom is limited.

God: Past, Present, and Future?

Many would disagree with the last section because they look at the God-time relationship in a completely different manner. Past, present, and future, in their minds, are all present to God in the "eternal now." What we call past, God is experiencing as present; what we call future, God is experiencing as present. Time is a book, or a movie, with a beginning, middle and end. Since God is outside of time, and since he is omnipotent, they believe he is in every page, every moment, all at once. This view assumes that time is already completed--that the future has already been resolved and we are just living out a part of the completed product of time.

I do not view time this way. I view time more like an unfinished painting. God started the painting at the beginning of time, and equipped us with a brush and paint with which we can paint our futures. Yet, we live inside the painting (thus, not the best analogy. But what analogy could properly describe God's relationship with time?). God doesn't live inside the painting, he is beyond it. He transcends it, and yet is immanent in it. Unlike us, he is not bound by the canvas or the frame. That being said, the painting is unfinished, so there is still a past, present, and future of the painting--even to God, precisely because he created it that way.

The idea that the past, present, and future are all present to God is, to me, completely nonsensical. We definitely do not get this concept from Scripture. In Scripture, we see God in time living with his people, experiencing a past and a present and looking at a future. This doesn't mean that God is not also outside of time, but being outside of time doesn't have to me mean what many think it does. Supposing that God is in past, present, and future all at once puts a distance between him and his time-bound people. As 19th century theologian Isaak Dorner states, "the living participation of God in the world, his living communion of love with it, depends in fact upon our positing that God knows continually what is now present and that he does not have to the present simply the relation which he also has to the past and the future, as if these were just as much present for him as the former, since that would lead to a very lifeless and inadequate relation."

Does God's Foreknowledge Limit Human Freedom?

Like I said before, when I first agreed with open theism, it had nothing to do with the idea that God's foreknowledge means we can't have free will. That being said, I have now come to that conclusion.

That I have free will means that, though I chose to write this blog, given the same circumstances 30 minutes ago, I could choose not to write the blog but could go do something else. To have free will means I can choose to do whatever I want, that I am not bound to one choice.

Let us say that God knows that on January 21st, 2048, Robert Smith will go see a movie. Because God's knowledge must be true, that has to happen. When the day comes and Robert is given the choice to either go see a movie or stay home, Robert has to go see a movie. He can do nothing else. His free will is limited to that one option. Thus, though subjectively it may seem that we have free will, we objectively do not have free will because our future choices are bound to God's definite knowledge of them.

This could have (and maybe should have) been longer. I haven't included all the elements of open theism, nor I have explained in detail what my view of God's foreknowledge is, but, like I said at the top, I just wanted to share with you why I came to this conclusion.

If you would like to discuss this topic with me more, we can definitely do that.

What we can learn from A. N. Whitehead about the nature of God

This is the third post that I've written about what we can learn from a liberal theologian (except Karl Barth wasn't actually liberal). I believe it is important for us to read these theologians and learn from them what we can. They will challenge us on a lot of our assumptions and can transform our thinking on several issues as well.

Alfred North Whitehead was a scientist, mathematician, philosopher, and theologian, and followed a natural religion dictated by his own philosophy.(1) Here, I will use Whitehead to challenge Christian thinking on God's impassibility, immutability, and all-controlling sovereignty over human wills.

Rather than believing in an omnipotent, timeless God, Whitehead believed that the world contained God: "the world creates God and God creates the world."(2) He did believe that God was superior to the world, but also that God evolves with the world and becomes more and more superior over time.(3)

Furthermore, Whitehead believed that there are two aspects of God: the primordial and the consequent. The primordial aspect of God represents everything in his character that remains constant, the part of God that does not change. The consequent aspect of God is God's actual experience, which constantly changes and adapts to the world, because Whitehead believed that the world affects God. He also believed that God affects the world, that he is constantly trying to influence and persuade the world with his ideals so that he may accomplish them and "enhance harmony, beauty, and enjoyment."(4)

In this God-world relationship, Whitehead believed that God does not accomplish his ideals through coercion, meaning he does not force his plans into action. He did not believe that God possesses a dominating control over everyone and everything. He believed that everyone has "free will and self-determination and may comply with God's ideal or resist it."(5) Whitehead did believe in evil as well; he held that evil is what happens when humanity resists and rejects God's ideals, and he believed this causes God to suffer, because "God is enriched and impoverished by the world's responses to his persuasive influence."(6)

In order to assess what we can learn from A.N. Whitehead, I will examine his theology of God in regards to popular Christian understandings of God as impassible, immutable, and completely sovereign over all human action.

On these subjects, Gregory Boyd has observed that, "In Western philosophical tradition, emotional vulnerability is a weakness, so we have projected onto God the attribute of 'impassibility' (above suffering). All variability is thought to be an imperfection, so God must be 'immutable' (above any sort of change). Lack of control is also an imperfection, so God meticulously controls everything."(7) These flawed philosophical assumptions are the focus of this blog.

Does God Suffer?

Jürgen Moltmann has stated that, "The one who is capable of love is also capable of suffering, for he also opens himself up to the suffering which is involved in love, and yet remains superior to it by virtue of his love."(8)
 
Anyone who reads the prophets can see that God does indeed suffer. Terence Fretheim has noted that, in the prophets, the "grief of God is as current as the people's sin."(9) Indeed, "God is revealed not as one who remains coolly unaffected by the rejection of the people, but as one who is deeply wounded by the broken relationship."(10) Harold Knight goes as far as to say that God is "the greatest sufferer of all, because He alone . . . experiences the ultimate significance of every turn and phase of [the drama of human history] in the most intimate personal way."(11) This is due to the fact that "God relates at every level with the whole person of each individual."(12) Abraham Joshua Heschel observed in the prophets that God "is personally involved in, even stirred by, the conduct and fate of man. . . . man is a perpetual concern of God . . . a factor in the life of God."(13) 

However, God's grief does not mean that he is in any way pathetic or powerless. Fretheim has added that, "while indicating that God is indeed a vulnerable God, touched and affected in the deepest possible way by what the people have done to the relationship, God's grief does not entail being emotionally overwhelmed or embittered by the barrage of rejection."(14)
 
God's suffering is in his passion. Walter Brueggeman has described this divine passion as "a propensity to suffer with and suffer for, to be in solidarity with Israel in its suffering, and by such solidarity to sustain a relationship that rightfully could be terminated."(15) God's passion is passion to the fullest extent possible: "Is Ephraim My dear son? . . . My heart (mē’eh) yearns (hāmâ) for him" (Jer. 31:20). The Hebrew words here indicate that the deepest part of God has been disturbed by a tremendous, tempestuous heartache brought about by his incomprehensible love, strong compassion, unending care and concern, and boundless empathy. This is the passion and, consequently, the suffering of God. In Jeremiah, God's sorrow over his people's rejection "is beyond healing" (8:18); he is broken for the brokenness of his people (v.21); "dismay has taken hold of [him]" (v.21), to the point where his eyes are a fountain of tears, weeping day and night (9:1).

Thus, Whitehead's understanding of God as one who is affected by the world and suffers when it rejects him is very biblical.

Does God Change?

"I, the LORD, do not change," says Malachi 3:6. And there is also James 1:17, which tells us that "there is no variation or shifting shadow" in the Father of Lights. But there are a multitude of instances in which God changed his mind (Gen. 6:6-7; Ex. 32:14; 1 Sam. 15:11, 35; 2 Sam. 24:16; 1 Kings 21:21-22, 28-29; 1 Chron. 21:15; 2 Chron. 12:5-8; Ps. 106:45; Jer. 7:5-7; 15:6; 18:8-10; 26:3,13,19; 42:10; Ezek. 20:5-22; Hos. 11:5-9; Amos 7:3,6; Jonah 3:9-10; 4:2; Joel 2:13). So his mind can change; But does anything else about him change?

What about the incarnation? The Word became flesh (John 1:14). Jesus Christ, whose nature was that of God, emptied himself and became a servant whose nature was that of humanity (Phil 2:6-8). Christ became sin (2 Cor. 5:21); he became a curse for us (Gal. 3:13). If that doesn't tell someone God can change, I don't know what will.(16) 

So what do Malachi 3:6 and James 1:17 mean when they say that God does not change? I contend that Whitehead's understanding of the two aspects of God answers that very question. There is the aspect of God that is immutable (or, in Whitehead's terms, the primordial aspect of God). For example, God is love (1 Jn. 4:8). He is and always has been and always will be love. As Boyd says, "The cross reveals the immutability of God’s love."(16) There are many other parts of his nature as well that have never changed and will never change.

However, there is also the aspect of God that adapts to the world (the consequent aspect). We can see throughout the Old and New Testaments that God adapts to the cultures of his people. Though it is safe to say that God does not approve of slavery, he put up with it in order to communicate himself to the cultures that engaged in it. Though it is safe to say that God's ideal for marriage is monogamy, he put up with men who had several wives and concubines. H. Wheeler Robinson observes that in the divine purpose, "we see the unchanging will of God, and in that sense He is the unchanging One." However, he adds that changes "are involved in the working-out of that purpose."(18) It is not that his ideals change or that his nature changes, but he does adapt to humanity in order to communicate himself to us.(19) Is this not what he did in Christ?

Thus, Whitehead's understanding of the primordial and the consequent aspects of God is also quite biblical.

Does God Control Everything?

In 2 Samuel 24, it is written that God's anger drove him to incite David to take a census of Israel and Judah (v.1). In verse 10, David is grief-stricken and convicted because taking the census was apparently a sin, so he begged the Lord to take away his guilt for being so foolish. In 1 Chronicles 21, the same story is recorded. Except, in verse 1, it says that Satan incited David to take the census! And in verse 8 David begs God to take away his guilt for listening to Satan.

I think what we see here is a change of theology. According to Heschel, "Evil was accepted because it came from God. Then people began to wonder whether it was right to hold God responsible for all misfortunes that happen to man."(20) They realized that the evil in the world could not be contributed to God, but that there was a free agent of chaos trying to kill, steal and destroy God's creation. They realized that God does not control everything, because there is evil in this world, of which God in all his goodness is not the source.

We can see throughout Scripture that God clearly does not control everything. One proof of this can be seen in the fact that God experiences opposition with his people. He suffers and is angered by their rejection of him. He often asks his people 'Why?'.

"All day long I have held out my hands to an obstinate people" (Isa. 65:2; Rom. 10:21)

"Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, O house of Israel?" (Ez. 33:11)

"Rid yourselves of all the offenses you have committed, and get a new heart and a new spirit. Why will you die, O house of Israel?" (Ez. 18:31)

"Why then has this people turned away in perpetual backsliding? They hold fast to deceit; they refuse to return." (Jer. 8:5)

"Why have they provoked me to anger with their images, with their worthless foreign idols?" (Jer. 8:19)

If God is controlling everything and everyone, why does he face opposition? Why does he cause people to reject him, only to experience suffering and anger? Why would he ask 'Why?'? If he was in control of everyone's actions, he could make them do whatever he wanted them to do. He would never face opposition or rejection. Furthermore, if God controlled everyone and everything, why would he ask, "Why?"? It simply would not make sense, for he would be asking himself the question. He would not need to ask why if he was the one behind people's actions.

In the New Testament as well, we see people rejecting God and resisting the Holy Spirit.

"Pharisees and experts in the law rejected God's purpose for themselves" (Lk. 7:30)

"You stiff-necked people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You are just like your fathers: You always resist the Holy Spirit!" (Acts 7:51)

And then there are the words of Jesus himself, who said:

Jerusalem . . . how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing. (Matt. 23:37)

If God controlled everyone and everything, there would not be anyone rejecting his purpose for them or resisting his Holy Spirit. If God controlled everything, why on earth would Jesus say "you were not willing," as if the person was not controlled by his Father? If God controlled everything, to say such things would be absolutely absurd!

Thus, it is entirely biblical to believe like Whitehead that God does not coerce anyone because everyone has free will and self-determination; he can only be as persuasive as he possibly can.
Whitehead is also accurate in his depiction of God always trying to influence the world with his ideals. This is basically the mission of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They are forever trying to draw all of humanity to their wonderful embrace. They seek to reconcile the world to themselves so that they can restore all people to the images of God that they were intended to be. They are fighting to restore peace and "enhance harmony, beauty, and enjoyment."

So you can see that there is plenty we can learn from Whitehead's theology of God. Though he did offer some ideas that are not compatible with Scripture (for such was not his concern), he emphasized a lot of ideas that, though are unusual in many Christian circles, are entirely biblical. We have seen yet again that an unorthodox theologian can challenge ideas we have that may not be biblical (and in this case, are not) and can even cause our theology to evolve into a more Scriptural, more reasonable philosophy.

Notes:
(1) See Roger E. Olson, The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition & Reform (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 600-601.
(2) Ibid., 600.
(3) Ibid.
(4) Ibid.
(5) Ibid.
(6) Ibid., 601.
(7) Gregory A. Boyd, Is God to Blame? Beyond Pat Answers to the Problem of Suffering (Grand Rapids: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 36. For a further study on this, see Jürgen Moltmann, "The apatheia of God and the freedom of man," in The Crucified God, trans. R. A. Wilson and John Bowden (New York: Harper & Row, 1974), 267-270.

(8) Moltmann, 230. Also, see H. Wheeler Robinson, Suffering, Human and Divine (London: Student Christian Movement Press, 1940), 176: "Let us wheel and attack the doctrine of divine impassibility by asking what meaning there can be in a love which is not costly to the lover?"

(9) Terence Fretheim, The Suffering of God (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), 111. This is a fabulous work on the subject of God's suffering and passion.
(10) Ibid., 123. 
(11) Harold Knight, The Hebrew Prophetic Consciousness (London: Lutterworth Press, 1947), 138.
(12) Fretheim, 123.
(13) Abraham Joshua Heschel, The Prophets (New York: Perennial Classics, 2001), 289, 292. This is another absolutely essential work on God's passion and suffering. Heschel refers to it as God's pathos.
(14) Fretheim, 111. 
(15) Walter Brueggemann, Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy (Minneapolis, Fortress Press, 1997), 299. 
(16) I owe these insights to Greg Boyd. See Is God to Blame?, 36.
(17) Gregory A. Boyd, Repenting of Religion: Turning from Judgment to the Love of God (Baker Books, 2004), 168.
(18) Robinson, 173. For a fantastic challenge of the Christian understanding of God's immutability and impassibility, see his chapter "The Suffering of God," 158-182.
(19) I would also add that God's omniscience is also adapting with the world. As Nelson Pike states, "God is immutable with respect to His omniscience, but the specific content of God's knowledge might change. It might change as the objects and circumstances that are the objects of His knowledge change." Quoted in Linwood Urban, A Short History of Christian Thought. Rev. ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), 188-189.
(20) Heschel, 376.