Open Theism
2008 September 11
I’m looking forward to Greg Boyd’s upcoming book The Myth of the Blueprint. You can read about it here.
- – - -
Last Sunday I preached on these two words from Luke 2: “Jesus grew.” They still amaze me. He didn’t arrive as a full-grown man. He had to grow — physically and in every other way. He had to learn the multiplication tables; he had to study the Torah; he had to be taught how to build a table.
The implications of this are staggering.
No wonder so many people prefer to think of a Jesus who was, despite all credal confessions, really just pretending to be a human being.
Stack on top of that the witness of Hebrews 4, in which we find that Jesus “LEARNED obedience from the things that he suffered;” so, according to [author], he did not enter the world with a complete and mature understanding of what it means to obey God.
The more time qb spends with that whole idea, the more “staggering” it becomes.
Incarnation, indeed.
qb
Sort of leaves us with little excuse, doesn’t it?
as far as I know the word incarnation is not to be found in the bible.
but it is strange that Christians believe in incarnation, but you say reincarnation and they faint.
Preachermike, I intended to ask you, what does this imply to you? that maybe Jesus is just what the bible says he is, now wouldn’t that be a kick.
A number of our forebears liked the Scottish Common Sense view of philosophy. Wonder how they would understand Boyd’s comments.
Baron: Thanks for your comment regarding Boyd: “As for Boyd, open theism strikes me as a sort of neo-Arminianism, which should fit well with the CofC.” — Do you think it might some form of Pelagianism rather than Arminiainism. That seems more in keeping with CofC tradition.
Here and elsewhere I’ve gone on record stating that Boyd’s work is deeply problematic. His theological system takes libertarian notions of free will as axiomatic and non-problematic. For instance, his theodicy boils down to a simple proposition: Satan has free will. This is a theodicy that tries to answer the most painful experience of humanity (the problem of suffering) by speculating about the volitional capacities of malevolent angelic beings. The quality and sophistication of this answer is offensive in the face of events like Auschwitz or Katrina.
Boyd also bases his theology of Open Theism upon a similar stance: Humans have free will. The problems with this starting place are too numerous to get into here, but the debate quickly gets into issues like Laplace’s demon, quantum mechanics, brain science, Cartesian dualism, and on and on. The point being you can’t naively deploy “free will” as Boyd does without quickly embroiling a church wanting to use Boyd’s thinking in massively complicated and speculative debates. Boyd replaces one mystery (Does God know the future?) with speculative philosophical controversies. That’s not progress.
But to say something constructive, let me echo qb’s point above. Open Theism, to be biblical (and not speculatively philosophical like Boyd), needs to rest upon the event of the Incarnation and its effects upon the Life of God. The problem isn’t the ontological status of the future, free will, foreknowledge, or prediction. The issue, as the book of Hebrews has it, really boils down to empathy. The crux of the matter isn’t if God foreknows, but does God empathize? The bible seems to suggest that, prior to Jesus, there was an empathy disjoint between God and Man. Now, with a more perfect High Priest interceding for us, God’s empathy for humanity has improved. The issue isn’t about the openness of the future but the openness of God to human suffering.
If I give my grandchildren the choice to go either to the doctor’s office or Six Flags on Monday, I know they will of their own free will choose Six Flags. My knowledge of them (though imperfect) in no way invalidates their free will. (This is an extreme example but illustrates the point)
Peter, in ! Peter chapter one adresses the readers as “elect according to the forknowledge of God..” And Paul in Romans 8:29,30 echos the same idea.
“Whosoever will” may come, but since God perfectly knows who will and who will not, He is alone able to declare it to be so, even if it happens many centuries in the future.
I an no theologian but the Reformed position is closer to truth than open theism in my view. Although I do not agree with the Reformed position on every point as I have illustrated.
Royce
Richard, you wrote:
—–
The point being you can’t naively deploy “free will” as Boyd does without quickly embroiling a church wanting to use Boyd’s thinking in massively complicated and speculative debates. Boyd replaces one mystery (Does God know the future?) with speculative philosophical controversies. That’s not progress.
—–
Of course, that’s not uniquely true of free will or open theism; it’s true of just about every mysterious aspect of God, and it’s true of just about every attempt to get our minds around those mysteries. Our inductive attempts to understand him require taking what [human authors report] has been revealed and working backward to a divine character that is at least consistent with those revelations, if not explanatory of them.
The continuing experience of unmitigated suffering in a world that we suppose to be known and loved by an historically incarnate God is a rich sediment of data from which we can continue to draw to refine our models (ugh! perhaps better to say “understanding”) of God. At the same time, we have opposing data emerging from places like Ghana (cf. Mike’s sister et al.) that point to an essential goodness latent in the heart of men. Overall, though, the human picture does not appear to be changing, so these “rich sediments of new observational data” calcify into theologies to which man’s free will seems to have to be a presuppositional given, a premise. That’s why qb is an open theist; not because he is certain that it’s true, but rather because the continuing experience of mankind shows no sign of changing the picture much.
qb is an open theist, although he is not a dogmatic one. But the criticism you set forth of Boyd really doesn’t appear to distinguish him at a fundamental level from others whose models of God have their own, philosophical or logical Achilles’ heels.
So qb comes down squarely right here: “All models are wrong, but some are useful.” One might reply, “useful for WHAT, then?” And qb has no coherent answer except to fall back on, “helping us to become more Christlike.” To borrow a charming, winsome dodge from Dallas Willard: “the extent to which that is or is not painfully circular I leave for the reader to decide.”
Richard, I am neither well schooled nor widely read in these matters, so I eagerly invite your critique if you’re interested; if not, this is just qb’s $0.02. Worth every penny, no doubt.
qb
We do not have to spend much time trying to worry about or even try to explain with great profound explanations concerning God’s sovereign will , His nature and free will. Do they all exist ? I think so . And all I have to do is believe in all and trust in God to fulfill His will and that He will get the glory. There is God who is all-knowing and there is free will. Believe, trust and obey.
qb,
Let me begin by saying that I’m no theologian so we may just end up pooling our ignorance here.
I agree with the thrust of your comment. Our minds spin like a truck stuck in mud when we try to contemplate God. But here’s the problem with Boyd. Boyd’s theological structure isn’t theocentric, it’s anthropocentric. That is, Boyd’s analysis isn’t an analysis of how God is but how we are constructed. The argument runs roughly like this: Given that humans are so constituted (e.g., have free will) then God cannot know the future. The argument rests on a claim about us, with resultant constricting implications for God. I’m fine with Boyd positing mysteries about God, but he’s really just talking about us. (Or he’s talking about time. Either way, the crux of his argument isn’t about God.)
I think the better move here is the one made by John Sanders in The God Who Risks. By focusing on providence rather than free will Sanders (in contrast to Boyd) keeps his argument focused on God.
“..he had to be taught how to build a table”
Having been around plenty of construction workers, and hearing them call out to Jesus when they hit their thumb (at least I think that’s what their doing), the thought hit me the other day: I wonder what Jesus said when he hit his thumb?
grammar correction: (at least I think that’s what THEY’RE doing). sorry.
Hmmm. Maybe I’m not reading Boyd correctly, but it seems to me that his analysis hinges not on how humans are constituted, but on how God’s creation is constituted, which is to say, how reality works. If the future (which is to say, the universe that God has in fact created) has a future that can be known with certainty, then humans do not have free will, and we have no business speaking as if we did. It starts, in other words, with what sort of reality God has created, not with humans’ status per se. Our nature derives *from* the nature of the created order, which derives from the design of God.
I may be missing an important link in my own syllogism (such as it is, anyway).
But if it’s true that Boyd begins with human free will as the most basic premise, then I certainly agree with you that his argument doesn’t stand up. Mine may not either, for that matter. I’m just working these things out myself.
I normally phrase my “open theism” position this way: God’s foreknowledge is limited to those things he actively undertakes to control, either by deterministic design (e. g., astrophysics) or by divine fiat (e. g., overriding the human will). That probably has some holes, too.
qb
BTW, Richard, I’m intrigued by the distinction you make between “claims about God” vs. “claims about us.”
Our most consequential forms of knowledge – the ones that reach the farthest – are the ones we arrive at via induction. To the extent we can get any general understanding about God at all, it comes in the form of either revelation – filtered by the human reporter who receives it – or by induction from the revelations we have available to us. Either way, there is a human agent involved. Isn’t it therefore probable that all claims about God’s nature are essentially claims about us? Is there any other way?
I’ve never pondered that before, so be gentle. I have a lot of blind spots.
qb
Hi qb,
I’m very happy to chat about this. But, then again, I’m a nerd.
Regarding your first comment:
I think you are reading Boyd correctly, and that more expansive view is how he is framing the issue (i.e., God created the world a certain way and intrinsic to this creative act God left the future indeterminate via open-ended human agency). I am, by contrast, trying to boil Boyd’s argument down to critical propositions that might determine the ultimate fate of his system. My narrow focus is, I think, important to evaluate the critical movements of his argument but I am at risk at misreading him or creating a straw man. I’m willing to be corrected on that.
That said, free will seems central to his argument. More than central, foundational. And that’s the rub for me. For Boyd’s theology to be workable humans have to turn out a certain way (i.e., have free will). Maybe we have free will, maybe we don’t. Regardless, Boyd has effectively handed the keys to the car to other drivers: Psychology, neuroscience, neurophilosophy, behavioral genetics, etc. As these players debate the anthropological issues, theology (and the church along with her) is sidelined to watch. Of course, theology could and should feel free to enter these debates. But again, these are anthropological debates. Further, should theology enter the debates it must assume (to be fair and critically minded) that free will is an open question. And if that is assumed then Boyd’s project is effectively shelved as those conversations work themselves out.
Now, in all honesty, I doubt the free will debates will ever be resolved. So we face two options. 1) Refuse to resort to philosophical and scientific controversies in the life of the church (my preferred option). Or, 2) Use philosophical and scientific controversies in the life of the church hoping that they never do resolve themselves (or if they do resolve themselves that they break in our favor). Basically, bet against a philosophical or scientific consensus ever forming. Yes, you might win that bet but you’ve just traded one controversy for a different one. Worse, you’ve traded in a theological mystery for an anthropological mystery; effectively embroiling the church is discursive debates. In my church I’d much rather discuss the mysteries of God than the mysteries of determinism and free will.
Regarding your second comment:
I wholly agree. I don’t think any God talk can escape anthropomorphism. But I don’t think that is at issue in what we’ve been discussing. I don’t think we’ve been saying “Because humans are X, so God must be X.” In fact, we’ve been saying the opposite: We don’t know how humans are.
But anthropomorphism is an issue, one that needs to be monitored and constantly attended to. This is why I think the CoC needs to discover apophatic theology. To date, CoC theology has been cataphatic and, thus, unbalanced. We need to come to understand that all positive claims about God are more false than true. When I say “God is a father” I’m expressing a truth but I’m also distorting the truth at the same time. In fact, the phrase “God is a father” is probably more false than true. If we could reclaim the dialectic between cataphatic and apophatic theology then I think conversation within the CoC would change dramatically. We would be able to make strong assertions about God while at the same time pulling those assertions off the table as tentative and misleading if left to stand as linguistic idols. Think how such a change would affect dialogue on this blog!
Beautifully wrought. [I think] I follow you. Plus, I learned a couple of terms in the -phatic class.
It’s odd for this CoC product to be viewing so many conclusions as contingent these days. Sometimes recently I find myself sympathizing with Pilate: What is truth?
I know what will help: homemade guac with no extenders.
qb
Donald Rumsfield once said something like this in a press conference about Irag. “There are things that we know. There are things that we don’t know. There are things that we know we don’t know, and there are things that we don’t know that we don’t know.” Seems to fit here.
When I hear people say Jesus was baptized as an example (for what we should do), I point to the fact that Jesus grew, studied, and learned obedience. It seems to me that Jesus felt saw baptism as necessary not just to fulfill scripture, but to fulfill his ministry. Perhaps the humanity of Jesus required that he receive the Holy Spirit at baptism to begin his ministry. For instance, why are there only examples of Jesus performing miracles after his baptism and not before.
Scriptures say the spirit descended and remained on him. Did Jesus in fact receive the Holy Spirit at baptism?
Richard, you make my head hurt, but I love what you said about God’s empathy.
Richard – I think you’re wrong, buddy.
Boyd isn’t talking about US. He’s talking about how the story goes. It’s about God. In God’s sovereignty, he decided that the story (reality) would unfold in a certain way. He could have made the story a pretend one — where everyone thinks they’re making decisions but they’re really not. Or he could have — and did, according to Boyd (which I believe is right) — made us real participants in the story and how it unfolded.
Really bright Christ-followers have been thinking through this for centuries. People like Erasmus and Luther thought something big was at stake. I seriously doubt that The God Who Risks is so profound and ground-breaking that it makes all those discussions irrelevant and off-base.
It really does matter whether humans have free will or not.
Free will isn’t where my theology begins. Rather, it begins in the God of creation and redemption. However, it’s a part of the unveiling of that mysterious God’s story.
I like these words from Philip Yancey: “The more I get to know Jesus, the more impressed I am by what Ivan Karamazov called ‘the miracle of restraint.’ The miracles Satan suggested, the signs and wonders the Pharisees demanded, the final proofs I yearn for — these would offer no serious obstacle to an omnipotent God. More amazing is his refusal to perform and to overwhelm. God’s terrible insistence on human freedom is so absolute that he granted us the power to live as though he did not exist, to spit in his face, to crucify him. . . . I believe God insists on such restraint because no pyrotechnic displays of omnipotence will achieve the response he desires. Although power can force obedience, only love can summon a response of love, which is the one thing God wants from us and the reason he created us.”
It really does matter whether humans have free will or not.
Mike,
You know you and I are going to go round and round about this until we both turn blue in the face. But since I’m a stubborn jerk a few points:
First, free will doesn’t “really matter” to everyone. You can’t claim the whole Erasmus/Luther debate. Only half of it. Free will only “really matters” to Arminians and Plegians. Free will is a niche doctrine.
Second, you’ve stepped in the problem I’ve been highlighting: You’ve made an anthropological claim “really matter,” theologically speaking. That’s fine, but we’ve seen this before. Once, a geocentric universe “really mattered.” Once, a 6,000 year old earth “really mattered.” Now, a supernatural claim about human psychology “really matters.” I, personally, don’t want to play any more God of the gaps games with theology.
Third, I think I AM reading Boyd right. His whole mechanism of open theism relies upon a notion of free will. Do I have that right? If so, then just about every legitimate philosopher of mind would reject that view of free will as nonsensical. Take, for example, this observation from William James:
“If a ‘free’ act be a sheer novelty, that comes not from me, the previous me, but ex nihilo, and simply tacks itself on to me, how can I, the previous I, be responsible? How can I have any permanent character that will stand still long enough for praise or blame to be awarded?”
In short, if you win the free will argument you gut virtue, character, and moral responsibility.
Finally, in contrast to the view that free will “really matters” let me quote John Dewey:
“What men have esteemed and fought for in the name of liberty is varied and complex–but certainly it has never been metaphysical freedom of the will.”
First, free will doesn’t “really matter” to everyone. You can’t claim the whole Erasmus/Luther debate. Only half of it. Free will only “really matters” to Arminians and Plegians. Free will is a niche doctrine.
I believe I said it really matters whether we have it or not. So why can I only claim half the debate? One side said it really matters that we do have free will; the other side argued that it really matters that we don’t. But both sides recognized how vital it is.
You gut virtue, character, and moral responsibility when you reduce a human being to a creature that doesn’t have a choice. Free will is the way of sustaining the value of character. That’s why, isn’t it, the long prophetic imagination of scripture invites us to choose wisely — to choose to act justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with our God.
Hi Mike,
On your 7:27 comment:
Point taken. But if you mean that the free will debate really matters (and not any particular outcome), then I’m fine with that. As it kind of makes my point. If Luther and Erasmus couldn’t get it figured out (or Mike and Richard) it seems odd for Boyd (or any other theologian) to put so much theological weight on “free will.” Why build a positive theological product upon a perennial and wildly controversial debate? Isn’t that a rather odd thing to do?
Regarding your 7:30 comment:
Again, point taken. Welcome to the free will problem! I’m not suggesting that I have answers. Far from it. Free will guts virtue and determinism guts meaning. So, yes, it’s a problem. But, again, this makes my point: Don’t go there. Don’t try to use such a snarly and speculative notion in positive theological projects.
Hi Mike,
I don’t like the way I left this. My comments, as I read them now, come across as snarky (although I didn’t intend them in that way). Let me try to explain where I’m coming from and why this is so important to me:
1. I think we can and should shelve the free will vs. determinism conversation. It hasn’t been solved in centuries and I don’t think it ever will. So I say let’s give it a pass.
2. On a related note, I don’t think a meaningful life is rooted in metaphysical free will. Immediately, meaning is related to caring, not volition. My life is meaningful if my projects are endeavors I find intrinsically rewarding. Ultimately, meaning comes from having those projects find culmination in the life of God. This is true regardless of human volitional capabilities. God, not volition, yields meaning.
3. Regardless of the status of a “free” will, I think it beyond dispute that moral luck is in play in human affairs. That is, we all begin life at different “starting places.” Some of us are raised in America, in the Church of Christ, and by loving parents. We lucky few have quite a head start on virtue and salvation. But some of us are born Catholic and are sexually abused by a priest. Some of us were born in Iraq and had our parents and baby sister killed by American soldiers. And on and on.
Now we add to this mix the fact that death is random. Some of us live long lives with plenty of time to contemplate our pains, poor choices, and the appeals of the gospel. Others die by accident and life ends prematurely.
Looking over all these lives I really don’t think the “free will versus determinism debate” is even relevant. The crucial issue is the role of fortune and luck in moral development, even if the human will were “free.”
In short, my sour attitude about free will isn’t because I love determinism or nihilism. No, I’m sour because “free will” glides too easily over the issue of moral luck. In the end, I’ll believe in free will (shoot, I’d believe in unicorns) if the theological system espousing free will directly and justly confronted the issue of moral luck. If the theological system skirts moral luck then I’m just not interested. And I get sour.
Why? Because few people lose their faith due to the determinism versus free will debate. But people do lose their faith over moral luck. They see the vast unfairness in life and can’t worship a God who has nothing to say about this. Nor will they attend churches that systematically ignore the issue. And an appeal to mystery and hope just won’t cut it.
So, in the end Mike, I don’t really give a hoot about free will. But I care deeply about moral luck and what God is doing, will do, or has done about it. That’s the root issue for me. And, to be honest, this is probably not Boyd’s issue. I’m piling my baggage onto his project. But for me, any book about the future’s “blueprint” (or lack thereof) had better deal with moral luck, without sweeping it under the carpet of free will.
If Boyd does that, he’s got my vote.
Richard
I hesitate to jump into the discussion as y’all are so much better read than me. Hoewever, having behaved foolishly too much of my life I suspect a little more won’t hurt.
Mike said “It really does matter whether humans have free will or not.” It is clear that we have a will. We make choices all the time. From a theological stand point it seems that does not will well. Ever since the fall man has willed very poorly, even to the extant every single one of has repeatedly chooses unrighteousness over Godliness. I think this is the reason Jesus became a man, lived without sin and was crucified.
Scripture speaks of man being in bondage to sin. When he comes to faith in Christ he is set free from his bondage to sin to become a slave of Christ – at least people like Peter and Paul described themselves that way.
Scripture describes the natural man as being spiritually blind, deaf, dead and the enemy of God. Perhaps some hyperbole is involved here but the language is still pretty harsh. In Corinthians we are told the natural man cannot understand things of the spirit.
So even though man has a will and exercises it all the time, in what way is his will “free”? He makes choices consistent with his fallen nature i.e. poor/evil choices. As God has enabled me I have begun to make better choices, but I give him the credit for that. It is my desire then he would reign in my heart and control my will as I trust him and not myself. Is this what is meant by “free will”?
Richard – Several times you’ve referred positively to the book The God Who Risks. To paraphrase “Princess Bride,” I don’t think that book means what you think it means. More on that later.
I, too, believe that “moral luck” demands a central place in the discussion. It’s why Ecclesiastes is in my own personal inner canon. But Ecclesiastes — which is the voice that seems most aware of the unfairnesses — also sees the need for wise choices to be made.
I doubt that I hear you saying what I thought: that since the free will-determinism debate has raged for centuries and since there is no clear winner, we ought to drop the debate. Could it be that the discussion has gone on because it’s important?
My hunch is that the further you press into the bowels of the “losing side” of moral luck the more you’ll find people who are devoted to the idea of free will. Perhaps start with twelve-step meetings.
By the way, Richard. If you keep making snarky comments here, I’ll continue to give your wife all my son’s hand-me-downs for your (much younger) sons to play with. Then my house will be clutter free and yours will be packed with used junk. Then we’ll see who complains about moral luck.
Fair enough. I’m going to put my swords up (for now!). We both have students to teach today. Thanks for the exchange. Have a great week!
I just taught 305 students that they have free will. Now, I’ll send them across campus to you.
In fact, I’ve decided in response to this exchange, that the most important dimension of the kingdom of God is free moral will.
(Smiling . . . and enjoying the exchange.)
An aside to your discussion regarding free will/determinism:
I have always struggled with the notion of time. People tend to get wrapped up in whether God knows the future but that question assumes that God is bound by a dimension (time). However, we never assume that God is bound by any other dimension. Is it possible that time itself is merely a construct of creation. Something that points to this are the typical creation questions of what happened before God created Earth or what is going to happen after the rapture? These may seem somewhat unimportant, but if time is part of creation, then it makes no sense that God’s nature would be ruled by his creation.
“Most fortunately it happens, that since reason is incapable of dispelling these clouds, nature herself suffices to that purpose, and cures me of this philosophical melancholy and delirium, either by relaxing this bent of mind, or by some avocation, and lively impression of my senses, which obliterate all these chimeras. I dine, I play a game of backgammon, I converse, and am merry with my friends; and when after three or four hours’ amusement, I would return to these speculations, they appear so cold, and strained, and ridiculous, that I cannot find in my heart to enter into them any farther.”
–David Hume
If I am not free to make moral choices, the whole Christianity thing is moot, so why bother?
Simplistically,
qb
Scripture teaches we are to make moral choices and we are responsible for the choices we make. We are exhorted, even commanded to do be good, even perfect (mature) as God is. That we are bound to fail is also evident. Every single mere human fails miserably. Has anyone other than Jesus ever been able to keep the greatest and second commandments? Isn’t it evident we cannot do it? Does that make the whole Christianity thing moot? I think not.
It does teach us of our frailty and our deep need to seek righteousness from God … both to will and to work according to His purpose.
Geez, Geez, that wasn’t qb’s piont. But qb takes yers.
This medium ain’t perfect, but short of a Skype conference call every mornin’, it’s all we got.
Peace up from A-town,
qb
The majority of the evangelical theologians have stamped open theism as heresy and here it is ‘openly’ endorsed.
Uh oh.
http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/2001OpenTheism.htm
So, Jack, out of curiosity, what’s yer piont?
The majority of the elders of the captivity came to Ezekiel and said, “peace, peace.”
And the full weight of the Church at the time told Galileo that he and Copernicus were full of the devil.
Wilberforce stood squarely behind his contention that ALL men are created equal before God, much to the chagrin of the entrenched ecclesium.
*****
It’s at least *possible* that today’s heresy is tomorrow’s orthodoxy, if we are sober-minded and wise. Labeling something as heresy is a far cry from subjecting its claims to thoughtful critique and reason. The former is ideological snobbery at best; the latter is the substance of true discipleship, as in, come, let us reason together.
To borrow from Bercot, will the real heretics please stand up?
qb
And this belated thought, Jack: would you prefer that open theism be endorsed in secret?
If so, why? What does truth have to fear from an open dialogue within a loving community of people who, by the way, love Jesus as much as you do?
Perplexed,
qb