 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > Correct Theology | Forum Quick Jump
|
 | 
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 6/12/2004 4:10 AM (GMT -6) |   | Well here we go. I went and spent some time up in Hamilton this past Sunday and worshipped with Clark Pinnock at his church called, "Little Bethel Community Church." They call it that because there is another "Bethel" church in Hamilton which is larger.
www.littlebethel.ca/default.aspx
It was a nice little church but with some powerful preaching and teaching. Plus Communion, in which Clark and his wife Dorothy served and prayed over me. They have a fellowship time between the singing and the preaching and so I was able to meet my brothers and sisters in Christ. Yeah, I enjoy theology, but man participating in the sacraments of the bread and wine was such a blessing! I think it is an excellent way to do church. Many get to use their gift and so the pastor doesn't hog it all. 
Anyhoo, Clark gave me "Searching for an Adequate God" which is excellent (I highly recommend it if you want to understand Iconoclast). We discussed politics (he is not for gay marriage and will be voting "New Conservative" in the next election) Mormonism (if you don't talk or dialogue with them, then simply put, you don't love your neighbour. How can you say you love your neighbour and not talk to them?) and "maverickism" (my own made up word but one that describes what many Christians think of him). 
So, I did tell him to send me a copy of his paper on Mormonism which he spoke on at "The Temple." Once again I asked for his permission and the man said, it was coo. It is quite long, but without further ado I present to you...
March, 2004
Contemporary movements in theology
with Mormon responses
Open and Relational Theologies
Clark H. Pinnock
For all of us God is a great mystery and a major challenge to speak about. Therefore, a humble spirit is required if we wish to attempt it, which (of course) we do, because we must talk about God, who is the first and principal topic of Christian doctrine, and must do it with humility. Augustine sets the tone for any inquiry into the mystery of God when he begins a tract entitled, “On the Holy Trinity,” by asking readers to keep him company when they are in agreement, to dialogue with him when they are hesitant, and to call him back when they think he is in error. Augustine hopes that such practices will ensure that we will advance together toward God. He also adds that there is no inquiry more labourious, where error is more dangerous, but also none where the discovery of truth is more profitable. (1)
When I refer to open and relational theologies, I have in mind a cluster of models of the divine (sisterly models) which strive to bring out the personal nature of God and want in their own distinctive ways to lift up the conviction that God is “open” and existing in a significant relationships with the creature. They envisage a situation where there is genuine interaction, where God enters into reciprocal give-and-take relations, and where God responds to what creatures do, willingly (sometimes necessarily) accepts a degree of conditionality and risk taking. Although theological traditionalists have not allowed such moves before, many theologians are making them today. They are keen to recover such relational themes as God loving, God risking, God suffering, God changing, etc.
The desire to formulate a more relational model widespread among theologians across the spectrum of Christian thought. As for myself, I have worked with a model we have named “the openness of God’ sometimes called free will theism and have done so in the evangelical context. (2) But it is by no means limited to a few. Relational non-determinist theology is as old as Christianity itself. One finds it in the Eastern church, in Justin, Wesley, and Barth, among contemporary Roman Catholics like Walter Kasper and Norris Clarke, and Reformed thinkers like Vincent Brummer, Adrio Konig, and Nicholas Wolterstorff. One sees it consistently in the Wesleyan/Arminian and Methodist traditions, in Boston personalism and process thought (which come out of Methodism), in the recent trinitarian theologies, in liberation theologies, in scientists like John Polkinghorne, in philosophers like Richard Swinburne, and last, but not least, in Mormon thought. Although I am a relational theist who swims in the streams of tradition flowing from Wesley, there are different ways to come at it and we need to be in touch with one another and conversing. Who knows - we may learn something from the methodologies of others and from the discoveries which they have made. The fact is that we know the things of God only “in part” which should make us open to insight from whatever direction (1 Cor 13:12). (3)
From my standpoint, I perceive several “sisterly” relational models which develop these ideas in slightly different ways. And since this is a book where Mormons are finding a voice and a chapter where they are part of what is being presented, I can give it a relevant spin. It gives me an opportunity not possible in most of the other chapters to include LDS in my presentation and invite them to clarify what they believe for a wide spectrum of readers. I am not presenting something alien to LDS (like the chapter on Roman Catholic theology, etc) but something familiar and agreeable to them. In this book the LDS are finding their voice and I can help to draw it out by being conscious of them throughout. I will put them in the center of my exposition not leave them cheering from the sidelines. I am confidant in thinking that progress can be made in the theological development of us all.
Let me admit it - relational theists have a lot in common with LDS which should lead to fruitful interaction. Social trinitarianism is one such example. Another is my own personal openness to considering the idea of a divine embodiment, taboo in traditional theology, but central to LDS thinking. Then there is a mutual dissatisfaction with classical theism, the espousal of libertarian freedom, the denial that God has a monopoly on power, the belief that God experiences pathos in interaction with creatures, the belief that God prefers to exercise persuasive rather than coercive power, and there may be more. And of course there will be divergencies alongside the convergencies. (4)
As a non-Mormon but not an anti-Mormon, I am not as familiar as I ought to be with LDS thinking but I have enjoyed researching it and will my best to be fair in my interaction. I have been helped by perusing The Encyclopedia of Mormonism (five volumes), by dipping into the work of FARMS and BYU Studies, and by reading Blake T. Ostler’s Exploring Mormon Thought: The Attributes of God (Salt Lake City: Greg Koffard Books, 2001) which was written for non-Mormons like me who are interested in comparing Mormon thought with traditional Christian theology. In this connection, David Paulsen eased my mind when he admitted (in the preface to Ostler’s book) that “LDS insights as to the nature of God remain one of the world’s best kept secrets, at least in scholarly circles.” (xvi) Well then perhaps I will not be judged too harshly on errors that I make and perhaps this situation will begin to change for the better.(5)
So, what I will do in this chapter, as I present open and relational theologies is to call attention to possible points of contact with Mormon thought and open up lines of communication. As a non-Mormon, who is not an anti-Mormon, I am genuinely interested both in hearing and learning from what you have to say and am hopeful that the interaction will be enriching. Beyond that, I cherish the hope that the Holy Spirit will open doors to dialogue between Mormons and traditional Christian believers. Obviously there will be differences and limits to agreement at this stage but there may be areas promising of growth also. I know that Mormons debate with each other as to what ideas are necessary beliefs in their faith. I know that they do not now accept some concepts which were believed by Mormon leaders in the 19th century (eg the well known aphorism of Lorenzo Snow: “As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.” Or, such a popular idea as Jesus being conceived by God having intercourse with Mary.) Mormon thinking does not stand still and we should impute to them things which they do not now hold. I will give the respondent to my chapter the opportunity to clarify things that puzzle me.
In this conversation, of course, we are coming from very different places. The LDS will be appealing to the broad canon of the Mormon scriptures and standard works and to the restoration gospel contained there in and I will not be. But I think the simple fact that we both accept the Holy Bible completely means that there will also be a lot in common. On the subject of canon, let me add this: I freely grant that, were there to have been, a restoration of Christianity through Joseph Smith, that there would have been found fresh scriptures to bear witness to it. Scriptures arise in such contexts. I find this to be consistent and entertain no dogma of a closed canon which would say this could not be. (6) As for a restoration, this is a familiar theme in American church history. One thinks of the Anabaptists, the Campbellites, and the Pentecostals, who even rival the LDS in world outreach. But they all think of themselves in these terms and it seems to this Canadian that the Americans have a flair for restoring, rectifying, and renewing religion!
Relational Theology in General
A distinguishing feature in the doctrine of God today is the debate surrounding classical theism and the absolutist tradition, a model which was developed in the ancient and medieval periods of church history and which is very inclined to employ abstract and deterministic categories for understanding the nature of God and God’s relation to the world. Many theologians today, including some who think of themselves as classical theists, are critical of this approach. A great many find themselves tending to emphasise the perfections of a personal God, who engages in give-and-take relationships with creatures. There is a trend in contemporary theology toward relational theism and a shift in doctrine toward more dynamic categories and away from the more static categories. Open theists think (and I believe that the LDS agree) that this does greater justice to the revelation of God in Jesus Christ who is not an apathetic and immobile God but a compassionate, loving, and responsive person(s).
Donald G. Bloesch, a leading evangelical theologian, expresses this strongly when he writes: “A compelling case can be made that the history of Christian thought shows the unmistakable imprint of a biblical-classical synthesis in which the ontological categories of Greco-Roman philosophy have been united with the personal-dramatic categories of the biblical faith. The attempt at synthesis began with the early apologists who sought to vindicate the claims of Christianity to the pagan culture of their time. The hellenising of the faith was particularly apparent in Clement and Origen who introduced elements of religious speculation and intellectualistic spirituality belonging to a world altogether different from that of the gospel.” (7)
The God of biblical faith interacts with people in the drama of history, whereas the God of the hellenistic ethos is a self-contained absolute, characterised by imperturbability and impassibility. But believers do not want a cold, immutable, and philosophical kind of God. They want a God who reveals himself, listens to prayer, and can (to some extent) be grasped in human terms. Shay Cohen writes: “The God of the Hebrew Bible is for the most part an anthropomorphic and anthropopathic being who has the form and emotions of humans. He walks and talks, has arms and legs, becomes happy, angry, or sad, changes his mind, speaks to humans and is addressed by them and closely supervises the affairs of the world. The God of the philosophers (perhaps we should add, of certain philosophers) is a different sort of being altogether: abstract, immutable, and relatively unconcerned with the affairs of humanity. The tension between these rival conceptions of deity is evident in the work of Philo, who is able to find a philosophically respectable God in the Torah only through allegorical exegesis. Philo is particularly careful to sanitize the anthropomorphic and anthropopathic passages.” (8)
This kind of criticism is made by many. It is make by liberals like Adolph Von Harnack, by Reformed scholars like Vincent Brummer, by open theists like John Sanders in The Openness of God (ch 2), and by Mormon theologians like Stephen Robinson in How Wide the Divide? and by others. Robinson writes: “There isn’t a single verse of the Bible that I do not personally accept and believe, although I do reject the interpretive framework imposed on the Bible by the hellenized church after the apostles passed from the scene.” Thus Robinson accepts the Bible, but not what he calls the theological and philosophical “add ons” of tradition. (9) Here is a clear convergence with the other varieties of relational theology. Belief in some kind of mistake by certain theologians of absolutism is not limited to LDS, although they see it very radically. But even here we need not exaggerate the difference. Robinson writes: “Informed LDS do not argue that historic Christianity lost all truth or became completely corrupt. The orthodox churches may have lost the fullness of the gospel but they did not lose all of it, nor even most of it.” (10) This is a remarkable concession and conciliatory tone which is seldom heard among the evangelical critics of Mormon thought who can be vicious at times. At the same time, as in so many matters, there may be a difference of opinion on this point, given the fact that Joseph Smith expressed strongly negative opinions about traditional Christianity in the first vision of 1820. Robinson (however) warns against our misinterpreting his intent and Benjamin Huff warns that Mormons ought to be careful how they see the precise nature of the apostasy and not distort things. (11)
Open theism, which also associates itself with the “evangelical” movement in North America belongs to this family of relational approaches. Sharing themes with others, we too are in pursuit of a personal God, who is dynamically related to the world. We hold that God by grace has granted humans significant freedom to cooperate with or work against God’s will for us and enters into dynamic give and take relationships with us. We also espouse the belief that the future is not settled in every respect and that God knows both what will be and what might be. Open theism is a biblical theology rather than a metaphysical construct, though we are not averse or disinterested in its philosophical, scientific, and existential credibility. In its effort to do biblical theology, the LDS are closer to open theism than they are (say) to process thought and like us are something of a via media between classical and process theism, howbeit, tending more to process in some matters (eg when it comes to creation out of nothing).
The openness version of the relational models has been marketed under that “openness” logo to the evangelicals because since that is who we are and since there are a lot of them. We present it as a biblical theology and one that is in sync with our relational piety. In spite of opposition, mostly from the paleo-Calvinist strongholds in the movement, the message has been getting out. (Indeed their vociferousness in criticism has given us a great deal of free publicity as well as sympathy.) Whatever the disadvantages in doing so (eg having new theological thoughts however biblical which challenge tradition can be suspect in such circles), we also have a few advantages: eg it’s hard to find an evangelical who doesn’t believe in a relational God who, when it comes to prayer, does not respond freely. Sowing the seed among evangelicals can be challenging - it can sometimes feel like sowing the word among thorns. But, strategically, the conditions are often favourable. Young people, for example, gravitate toward open theism because it encourages them to believe that they can make a difference as to the future which is not altogether settled. In terms of publicity again, putting open theism out onto evangelical turf has resulted in it being much more widely noticed than it would have been if it were just circulating in the mainline/oldline/sideline church contexts. Do you think the Washington Post would have picked up the story if we (for example) had tossed it onto the floor of the annual conference of the Presbyterian Church, USA instead? There it would have gotten ecclipsed by something else like the debate over gay marriage. Sowing the seed among evangelicals then has been strategically effective because these people profess to care and (I think) do care about the Bible says.
Of course, open theism is a little controversial because it challenges tradition in the way it appeals to Scripture which can cause some conservative Christians to balk. But ought we not to place Scripture above tradition and ought we not to welcome new light that shines forth from God’s holy word? We are critical (for example) of traditionalism which seems to be conditioning evangelicals not to grow as hearers of the word of God. At the same time, we do not want to dismiss all catholic traditions and do not actually consider open theism to be a major innovation. Critics exaggerate the degree of innovation in order to stir up passions against us but we do not see it as highly untraditional. We see open theism as a not-so-large and not-too-large a modification of Wesleyan/ Arminian thinking. (12) Of course, if one’s view is that any adjustments to tradition are verboten, then it is radical. But that is an extreme position - the best theologians accept the need of (at least) some theological re-tuning and re-defining of concepts, which is what we too are trying to accomplish in the company of others.
Open Theism in Particular
What we have named “the open view of God” is a particular flowering of relational theism. We gave it this name because it expressed our vision and because it was not already in use and thus was available. We wanted evangelicals in particular to encounter relational theism as a scriptural paradigm, unencumbered by any existing and possibly tired-out labels. Eventually of course critical examination will locate it in the flow of tradition, likely as a development of Wesleyan thinking. Meanwhile one way (not the only way) to get a perspective on it is to see it as a mediating position, a via media, between classical theism on the one hand and process theism on the other. This gives us three explanatory models to compare which offer us well rounded explanations of God’s nature and God’s relation to the world. (13)
To start with, classical theism is an absolutist understanding of the nature of God in which God has no need of the world and is not internally related to it. God’s joy is not increased by the world’s beauty or diminished by its pain. God’s being is perfect and fully actualised apart from the world. Any alteration would only decrease it In this understanding, God is immutable in a static sense, essentially unrelated to the world and unaffected by what happens in it and to it. Strong concepts of absoluteness and impassibility are seen as basic attributes of God and determine how the revelation of God in Christ are understood. This model has dominated Christian thinking through most of church history and defines the God which atheists love to hate. One wonders how many people have rejected faith in God because of such a definition of God. It presents God as, in the words of Dallas Willard, “an unblinking cosmic stare.” (14)
At the other extreme stands process theology. Here God and the world are co-eternal, reciprocally related, and interdependent. God created the world and the world creates God. He is evolving along with the universe. and dependent on the world for the content of his life experience. The creature continually adds value to the divine experience. The world is immanent in the life of the world and the world is immanent in the life of God. In effect, as the saying goes, God proposes, man disposes. Not at all distant and aloof, God is always involved in the world. There are possibilities for change and improvement. God has a physical pole and is thereby thoroughly passable. God cares about us all and is always trying to lure us toward what is best for us. Being mutable and involved n the process of becoming, his knowledge is finite and undergoes changes. He cannot know the future exhaustively. He knows all possibilities not which possibility will become actual. God and the world are ultimate. Creativity is everlasting. God is always with us and cares about us deeply. He never gives up on us. Ultimately all entities receive their life from God. and return their life to God. God is the power which inspires the creative becoming of all things through tender persuasion and who treasures their achieved values in his own everlasting life.
Open theism, a via media, takes a middle position between these two extremes and (I think) that Mormon thought does also. It appeals to those who like aspects of process theism and cannot accept classical theism but who want a more mediating corrective. One might say that they want a neo-classical not a non-classical view. Openness thinking has affinities to both models plus real differences. We embrace the one God, maker of heaven and earth, who at the same time self-limits to make room for significant creatures. In sovereign freedom, the triune God chooses to create. In particular, he makes a world capable of receiving and returning love and grants the kind of freedom necessary for this. God too decides to make some of his actions contingent on us, on our prayers and actions. He lets himself be affected by what we do and he responds to what we do. God does not tightly control everything that happens but gives space for us to operate and cooperate in. God is also creative and resourceful in how he works with us. As Sanders puts it, “God has goals with open routes.”(15) We reject the blueprint world view. History is not a scripted play in which our decisions are simply what God has decided. Controversially, we also say that God knows all that it is possible to know. That God knows what will be but also what might be. He knows what he has decided to bring about but he also knows the possibilities which he has left open. Graciously God invites us to collaborate with him in bringing the as-yet-open part of the future into being. Open theists do not want a God as impotent and finite as the process God so they posit omnipotence but they see God choosing not to use his full power often out of respect for libertarian freedom. I realise that this exposes a point of vulnerability for me in that a God who can self-limit can also un-self-limit but I can live with it. (16) As a via media, open theism wants to preserve the classical emphasis on the greatness of God, while at the same time highlighting the relational aspects.
Being a pilgrim in theology, I have experienced changes in my thinking over the years and one such lies in this area. Over a period of thirty years, I have moved away from the paleo-Calvinist system typified by the canons of Dordt to a post-conservative, evangelical Wesleyan standpoint. In terms of the doctrine of God, I moved from thinking of God as “an unmoved mover” to thinking of him as “a most moved mover.” And it has taken effort over a lifetime to work out the implications of this one thing: what does it mean to believe in a relational God of unbounded love? (17)
Belief in a loving triune God took centre stage in my thinking and I began to see God, not as a solitary God, but as a communion of love which is marked by overflowing life. I got the sense of a totally shared life at the heart of the universe. Not of God the monarch, ruling from isolated splendour, but God the perfect sociality which embodies the qualities of mutuality, cooperation, and reciprocity - a unity with genuine diversity. (18) I began to see that relationality is central to who God is, in that ours is a personal God, carrying out a project and acting for the sake of others. God is the maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible, and the source of everything, but God is also one who limits himself in ways that preserve his eternal nature while relating to us. God takes a stance of openness toward the world. He chooses to be God for the world and allows himself to be affected by it and opens himself up even to vulnerability. God sovereignly restricts his power and risks the pain of rejection. God is not exclusively unilateral in his dealings with us - there is reciprocity as well. The relationship is a two way street. Humans can choose for or against God’s love and their decisions genuinely affect him. Thus we gather that God must to some extent be limiting the exercise of his power to give us space to act in. (19)
Thus God, though unchangeable in his qualities, is open to change in other ways. Who God is does not change but what God experiences does change. So too, God is not impassible as the tradition has mostly insisted. The God who loves us is open to experiencing delight as well as anguish. God does not experience fickle emotions or suffer inappropriately as we do. But there is pathos and suffering in God. Similarly, God is not timeless since he accompanies us in time as we act and God responds. Such interaction reveals that God experiences sequence. God is not in time as we are but his experience is sequential like ours. As a result of thinking through the truth of the love of God, I was led to the open view of God.
A dozen years ago five colleagues put together a multi-authored book, written in understandable terms which would make a case for open theism. We knew that some people already held it (especially some of the Christian philosophers) but that far more people were unaware of it, at least formally. So we became a team which would cover the bases, following methodologically the Wesleyan quadrilateral. (20) We asked ourselves questions like what do the scriptures say? (Richard Rice, an Adventist). How well have we done theologically? (Sanders and Pinnock) What perspective might philosophy contribute? (William Hasker) Are there practical implications? (David Basinger) Now to be more specific and to bring to the surface issues of interest both to openness and LDS thought, let us scout out the territory which they mapped out and (at the same time) interact with the Mormon doctrine of God. I will share what open theists found and open the door to critical feedback. Is it possible that we are dealing with two different ways of interpreting a common scripture (we are familiar with that) and is it even possible that, as friends, we may agree and/or disagree amicably? (21)
First, and foremost, open theists appeal to the Bible, which is for us a basic commitment and one which motivates us to be respectful of its truth and be wary of alien assumptions. Our primary commitment is (after all) to the scriptures rather than tradition, reason, or experience. And, in our appeal to scripture, we have brought neglected truth to light and offered a plausible mode of its interpretation. We give particular weight to the narrative quality of the Bible and to the language of personal relations. The sacred story involves real drama and bears witness powerfully to the interactivity of God. We accept diversity in the biblical witnesses too and recognise the dialogical character of the text. The Bible does not speak with a single voice but fosters dialogue between different voices. The writings contain a long and complex search for the mind of God. We listen to the Bible as we would listen to a conversation between testimony and counter-testimony, aware of the fact that Scripture is inexhaustibly rich and ,when approached prayerfully with good questions, will yield ever new insights. (22)
Open and relational theists find in the Bible a witness to a triune personal God, who seeks relationships of love with creatures. He enters into partnerships, he self limits, he experiences vulnerability, he undertakes risks, he enters into conflict, he participates in a real drama, etc. Here is the self-disclosure of a personal God in the history of Israel and in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. We try not to burden the text with our presuppositions but learn from God’s self-revelation. We do not presume the absolutist hermeneutic but listen to the Scriptures when they tell us that God changes for our sake and even suffers on our behalf. They lead us to speak of God as one who humbles himself and who shows his perfection by changing, as well as by not changing. We celebrate God’s compassionate, suffering, and victorious love. We think that Augustine was wrong to have said that God does not grieve over suffering in the world; that Anselm was wrong to have said that God does not experience compassion; and that Calvin was wrong to have said that the biblical metaphors are merely accommodations to our finite understanding. For much too long pagan assumptions about the divine nature have skewed our exegetical reflection. (23)
Thus we note in the text such things as God’s testing of Abraham (and many such texts of testing) as God’s way of knowing what is in man’s heart. God says “Now I know.” (Gen 22:12). By testing Abraham, God learned what kind of fellow he was. On one occasion, God had decided to set aside the people of Israel and try some other approach but in response to Moses’ prayer he chose not to. The text says, “The Lord changed his mind about the disaster that he planned to bring upon his people.” (Exod 32:14) Jeremiah visited a potter’s house and noted how the potter would rework the clay when it did not suit him. God says it is thus with the nations. God will bring judgement or not, depending on the circumstances. What God will do or not do will depend in part on what his people do or do not do (Jer 18:4-10). Isaiah the prophet likens Israel to a vineyard which God planted, one in which he worked hard but it still disappointed him. He had expected good grapes but received only wild grapes. God asks rhetorically why it yielded a bad harvest? (Isaiah 5:1-5). It was not what he had expected and not what he had wanted. In a word to Hosea, God speaks of his compassion, despite Israel’s ingratitude, and even describes his inner feelings: “My heart recoils within me; my compassion grows warm and tender.” (Hos 11:8) We find many texts which seem to support an openness rather than a classical hermeneutic.
At this point, I wish to put on the table specific “items” which will foster conversation between open and Mormon theists. Item: in the course of searching out the truth of scripture, I stumbled onto what was to me an unfamiliar and not very congenial idea (though not unfamiliar or uncongenial to LDS thinking or the patristic sources), namely, evidence of divine embodiment. (24) This has not been something which, even open theists, much less than other evangelicals, have been comfortable with. Thus it happened that, as one who was wanting to take biblical imagery seriously, I run across something which I had not anticipated and thus found myself having to reckon on the possibility of God having, or at least assuming, in the case of Jesus, embodied ways. (25) (What a good illustration this is of how influential on the results of our interpretations is the community in which the texts are read.) So I had to ask myself why I had just let this lie before and had never pursued it? It was not as if some of the early fathers of the church like Tertullian had not taken it seriously - he did so and strongly. Nevertheless, the idea that God is not embodied has been a stock in trade of orthodoxy for centuries. (26) John Macquarrie observes: “That God is a purely spiritually being, immaterial, invisible, intangible, is assumed to be a basic truth by the great majority of those who believe in God. To suggest that God might have a body would seem absurd to virtually all of these believers.” (27) But it cannot be ruled out so long as (at the same time) one is prepared to elucidate the idea responsibly, which is what Jantzen was trying to do with the suggestion the universe itself is somehow God’s body. (In this regard I think that relational theists can accommodate it under our belief in God’s omnipresence.)
After I regained my bearing, I remembered a wise question of C. S. Lewis’s (somewhere, I don’t remember where) who asked :“Has any soul perished for thinking that God has a beard?” In other words, maybe it’s a funny idea to you ( that is, incorporeality) and not one that you can entertain, but why rule it out when it has scriptural backing and when it forms no boundary issue for Christianity? Christians are entitled to peculiar beliefs without it robbing them of saalvation, aren’t they? More substantially I also remembered how Donald G. Bloesch makes room for the idea of divine embodiment, when he writes: “God stands infinitely beyond materiality but has his own divine nature, his own supernatural body.” Again he writes: “God is not a material being but can assume a material form and has done so in the incarnation of his Son.” (28) This is extraordinary - here we have the premier evangelical systematic theologian speaking of divine embodiment! Granted, Mormonism is not his likely source but LDS are entitled to a bit of “we told you so” to more traditional Christians. Then add to this these comments of Richard Swinburne, a world class Christian philosopher and open theist, when he says: “By saying that God is essentially bodiless, I mean that, although he may sometimes have a body, he is not dependant on his body in any way.” In other words, while we need our bodies in order to exist, God does not, though he has one (29)
Whatever we make of this, I think we have to say that it is God as personal, not God as spiritual, which dominates biblical thinking. The writers did not worry as much as we do about approximating God too closely to the human. The tradition has wanted to emphasis the spirituality of God but in doing so has obscure the personal nature of God. So a corrective is needed, but carefully (I would say), because there are dangers. Surely God is not subject to human limitations like needing to sleep or going to the toilet. (30) In this area, I was helped by something Stephen Robinson said: “We affirm that the Father has a body, not that his body has him.” (31) And I also appreciated Blake Ostler’s writing that “the sense in which the Father’s body is like a human body must be qualified.” (32) We have to remember that a glorified body would be very different from what we know of bodies (see Phil 3:21 and 1 Cor 15:50). The idea does not have to be taken in a crude way - there may be ways of understanding it that are intellectually viability. (33) Also, it is easier to understand how the Son acquired a body now in glory (we all celebrate that fact) than to understand how the Father acquired a body (if he did) or how the Spirit will if he or she does. So there are issues to work on.here. Meanwhile, the LDS have raised an issue for Christian theology and philosophy at large which should not be swept under the rug any more. Are we traditionalists willing to give them a little credit for that? Can we not let them come in out of the cold?
Item: a similar example of an unexpected result of exegesis among open theists and of interest to LDS crops up in the work of Gregory A. Boyd. While examining the motif of spiritual warfare in the Bible, he says he is comfortable with biblical references to other gods existing alongside Yahweh. (34) Boyd does not think that these other gods can successfully challenge the creator, since their power is “on loan” but he does think that they have significant power to thwart God’s will and can inflict suffering on others. This is a different “take” on monotheism, where God is the only “god” out there. Boyd sees other “gods” as created but fallen beings and comes close (I think) to the Mormon idea of subordinate gods. The Bible does not take the view that there are no gods apart from Yahweh. It presents a more practical kind of monotheism. The nations have their “gods” (the Bible says) but Yahweh is the only God one needs to deal with if you are an Israelite (or a Christian) . We believers are unimpressed by rival deities - for us, the Lord not Baal is God. The other gods are subject to God who is surrounded by powers who praise and serve him. The psalmist says: “God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment.” (Psalm 82:1) (35) In this whole area, Western theology tends to think of God and the world but neglects to consider the celestial middle world, that is, the powers in-between heaven and earth. This cannot be said about churches in the third world nor about the LDS. (36) I am unsure whether Mormons also develop, as Boyd does, a scenario of spiritual warfare which may contribute to a relational theodicy, helping to explain why the world often has the appearance of a battlefield. It is a battlefield!
Item: yet another exegetical surprise, also in the realm of “the gods,” arose in the idea of “theosis” drawn from Eastern Orthodox thinking to which both Mormons and open theists appeal. This is the idea that believers will share the glory of God and become partakers of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4). Evangelicals accept this notion too and indeed are thrilled by it but have not taken “theosis” so literally so as to call it deification. We have thought of it as believers sharing the glory of God without ceasing to be creatures. (37) We have not felt comfortable saying that humans “become gods,” even though we know that early Christians did speak of our human destiny in such terms. For example, Irenaeus writes: “Christ became what we are so that we might become what he is.” (preface, Adversus Haereses 5) and Athanasius writes: “He became man that we might become divine.” (De Incarnatione 54) I wonder whether the Greek theologians thought of it quite in LDS terms. Bridging the gap a little, Ostler makes the point that these “gods” are not to be identified with the supreme God. Lesser deities can partake of the divine nature but cannot surpass God who is ruler of the universe and the God of gods. (38) Robinson too writes: “LDS do not, or at least should not, believe that they will ever be independent in all eternity from their Father in heaven or from their Saviour Jesus Christ or from the Holy Spirit - they will always be subordinate to the Godhead. (39) This narrows the gap between us. With these comments in mind, how far apart are we really? (I suspect that the exponents of theosis in the early church and even in modern exponents like C. S. Lewis would have held onto a gap remaining between the uncreated God and a created humanity even in this blessed condition.) (40)
Item: when it comes to God’s omniscience, there is a discussion among Mormons, much as there is among evangelicals, with some holding to exhaustive definite foreknowledge and others holding to present knowledge, that is, to a foreknowledge which considers the future as not completely settled and (therefore) as not completely fore- known with certainty, even by God. (40) Belief in libertarian freedom beckons both groups to move in this direction. In the case of open theists, they hold to a self-limitation on God’s part, one aspect of which involves making a world with a future that would not be fore-knowable in its entirety. It takes self-limitation one step further than classical Arminians, an important step but not a huge one. It sounds to me as if in this matter the two communities are in just about the same place.
Item: a delicate point and a point of divergence concerns God and gender. If God is personal, even embodied, one might conclude that God would have to be a “he” or a “she”. And, since God is our “Father,” God is presumably a “he.” And, if God is male and begets offspring, there must be a goddess, a Mrs God, somewhere. (Unless God were a “he” and a “she,” since humankind, male and female, was made in God’s image.) So what (if any) sexual characteristics apply to God? Open theists assume that none literally do, except in sociological ways. That is, we have taken the term “Father” to be indicating, not a sexual being so much as a patriarch, which points to qualities in God of leadership, headship, and transcendence. We have not and do not think of God as having a consort. True, Jesus is the “only begotten” of the Father but we have not thought of this in sexual terms either. I have always thought of the Father/Son relation not as physical patriarchy but in terms of intimacy and mutual fidelity. We think of God as male-like in depiction but also as female-like - that is, as representing feminine qualities too like nurturing and tenderness (eg God’s feeling the pangs of child birth on behalf of his people in Isaiah 42:14. Similarly, activities of the Holy Spirit are taught with the use of feminine images - like comforting, encouraging, yearning, and birthing. Some prefer the masculine traits in God which bring out ideas of initiating, commanding, and establishing. But open theists, along with many others are drawn in the direction of balancing both male and female traits in God.
As for God being literally a male deity, I wonder why we hear practically nothing of Mrs God. Is she everlasting too? Can she be prayed to? Do LDS speak of goddesses? Is there procreation? Evangelicals have great difficulty imagining God in this way. We have heard of such things in the religions of the ancient near east, where gods are begotten and come into being, but we have not seen it in the Bible. Might it be that, as classical theism was influenced by hellenism (as we agree) that Mormon theism runs the risk of buying into a different kind of paganism, a paganism not from Athens now but more from Ugarit this time? I mean where a pagan semitic kind of influence is exercising undue influence. (42)
Second, how about tradition and the role it plays? Given an openness hermeneutic, certain theological revisions are needing to be done. (Given a Mormon hermeneutic, even more may be needed.) For open theism, certain of the divine attributes need to be re-defined so as to bring out the perfections of a personal God. We need to introduce such categories as God’s changeable faithfulness, God’s self-limitation, God’s relationality, divine temporality, the divine pathos, the divine temporality, the divine foreknowledge, the divine wisdom and resourcefulness. (43) New categories need to come into play and some may need to be retired or (if not retired) at least reworked. For example, there is no love without openness to rejection, suffering, and loss. To believe in the triune God is to believe in a God who shares our suffering, a suffering which is not a sign of impotence but of strength and leads to final victory. God’s unity is not a mathematical oneness but a living unity with diversity. God’s steadfastness is not a dead immutability but a dynamic constancy of character and purpose which includes movement and change. Here is a power which is not raw omnipotence but the sovereignty of love which is strong even in weakness. Here is an omniscience which is not a trivial know-it-allness but a wisdom which includes the foolishness of the cross. An openness hermeneutic requires revision in the ways we think about and define some of the divine attributes. It requires subtle changes across the spectrum of the attributes, if they are to be the perfections of a personal God. (44)
Item: so what about tradition and the influence it exercises upon our interpretations? The two groups see themselves differently. Open theists see themselves as belonging to the “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church” whatever the differences. They want to be in continuity with history and the community, even though we recognise that there are reforms to be undertaken. (45) Thus we will speak of “great tradition,” of the Vincentian canon (what has been believed by everyone, everywhere, at all times”, and even of “mere Christianity,” as referred to by C. S. Lewis. (46) Admittedly, the great tradition is a nebulous concept which we do not take it uncritically, though we receive respectfully. It serves as a kind of a subordinate third testament and map to the terrain, a canon outside the canon and a way to identify error. It is a norma normata (a norm that is itself normed by Scripture) which directs but does not control us. (47) Open theists differ from LDS in holding to God’s promise not to let the gates of hell prevail against the church. We take it as a promise to help her to remain in the truth and not to fall into irremedial ruin. We do not find the New Testament warning us of a ruinous apostasy.
In contrast, LDS do speak of an apostasy and of a restoration, similar in some ways to a reformation, but much more radical, being the source also of some really new ways of thinking. This restoration supplies what Robinson calls “a different ontological framework or view of the nature of the universe” in which Mormons place “the basic gospel of Christ.” This would include the literal fatherhood of God, God and humans belonging to the same species of being, and God’s having spiritual offspring in a pre-mortal existence. (48) Reading the Bible in this context is bound to take interpretation in a certain direction, just as respect for the “great tradition” would in our case. Still there is room for us to relate. Mormon traditions from the early days until now, plus current developments in LDS thinking, and respect for the prophetic office - all of this is likely to produce differently nuanced interpretations over time and open up points of contact, maybe even surprisingly so. Both of us (I think), Mormons and open theists alike, must ask themselves what is really binding in our positions and what is open to re-examination? (49)
Item: remarkably, we both hold to a social trinity. (I say “remarkably” because this is a central tenet of both our positions. Open theists believe in one God and three persons. We see God’s eternal life as personal life in relationship. God exists in community and constitutes a koinonia of persons joined in love. The divine life is social and the basis of community among creatures. (Indeed, our human experience of community is the best clue we have for understanding God’s triune life.) The three persons find their identity in the relationship with one another. They “indwell” each other, they make room for each other, and they are united in a divine dance. But what is the nature of the unity? The trinity seems to be quite unlike anything on earth. It involves a rich and complex oneness and closer to an organic than to a mathematical unity. (50) We have not thought of the trinity as a self-enclosed group of divine beings (like Peter, James, and John in Gregory of Nyssa’s analogy) which smacks of tri-theism. We are dealing with a mysterious symbol of a God who saves us and whose triune nature is something incomprehensible in theory but intimate in relational terms. God is a community of persons knit together in a bond of love and beyond complete understanding. It calls believers to enter the dance and to love without judging.
For Mormons, the trinity is a little differently understood. It consists of three individual personal and separate beings, collectively constituting the object of faith. They are distinct beings with unique personalities. The three are “other” to each other. They are distinct persons and unique personalities. Yet Mormons use the term “God” to refer to the Godhead which the three share and which is close to what we are saying. For them too there is a three in oneness and a plurality of persons who are united by being in relationship with one another. Neither of us really knows exactly how the three are one but it is Mormon doctrine and openness doctrine that they are one. What Mormons do not hold is that the three persons are ontologically one being, as the creed says. Their emphasis is on a functional rather than on an essential trinity. At the same time, I hear Robinson denying polytheism and affirming that the three are only one God. (51) Are we not both trying to retain belief in one God (Deut 6:4) with a trinitarian structure that is faithful to the gospel narrative? On the other hand, the Mormon idea makes membership in the trinity somewhat voluntary and therefore maybe subject to breaking up (eg if Jesus had succumbed to temptation) an unsettling thought which takes God’s risking to a much higher level.
Item: the ultimate metaphysical fact - is it God-and-world or is it God - period? For process thought (and Mormon thought), the ultimate metaphysical fact seems to be God-and-world. Without a world, God would have no actuality and no real existence. Thus God needs the world almost as much as the world needs God. So God is inherently limited. For open theists, the situation is different. For us, the ultimate metaphysical fact is not God-and-world but God only. God could exist without creation, even though he chooses not to. Thus, the world owes its existence to God’s free choice, not to any metaphysical necessity. This makes open theism rather neo-classical. God exists and creates the world (we say) freely. We both appeal to the logic of love, but differently. For process theists (and perhaps Mormon thought), the divine love entails a necessary world - God must have creatures to love and care for. For open theists on the other hand, God’s love excludes a necessary world because love must be a voluntary commitment. Love requires a degree of divine independence (we think) and a creation freely chosen. Open theism is thus neo-classical in a certain ways (eg creation by the word of God and not the result of some other power.) God does not begin creation with something pre-existing we think. As Gilkey puts it, “God is the source of all that there is; creatures are dependent but real and good; and God creates in freedom and with purpose.” (52)
The term “creatio ex nihilo” was meant by theologians to lift up the notion of a sovereignly chosen creation. I myself would rather speak of creation “ex amore,” that God in the act of creating acted out of love for creatures. This is the most important point. (53) Still, we are impressed by God’s creating “all things, visible and invisible.” (Col 1:15) We believe that “God calls into existence things that do not exist.” (Rom 4:17) We hold to creation by God’s word such that “what is seen was made from things that are not visible.” (Heb 11:3) The key issue here is whether there is reality that is a given for God and that God is stuck with. We believe that everything is ontologically dependant on God and has not existed everlastingly. At the same time, I have never thought that Genesis chapter one taught “creation out of nothing.” Gen 1:2 seems to describe a situation pre-existing when God begins the six day work. So I do not draw the idea from there and would not even claim that my texts prove “creatio ex nihilo”outright. I would also admit that, even with the “creatio ex nihilo,” God soon finds himself confronted by serious opposition in the world we have to live in. So what difference does it really make in practice?
For LDS there seem to exist several metaphysical factors which in their interaction with each other have helped to produce the present world. It seems as if there is a struggle involving a diversity of ultimate principles. In that case, what do we make of the structurally unified character of the world which makes it an object of knowledge? It does not seem to be something on the verge of breaking up, there being no all-embracing unity which holds it together. The world does not seem to be suffering this defect, because there are (we think) no metaphysical first principles alongside God, having their being from themselves and not from Him. We see creation as God’s decision and the meaningful expression of his will, not the outcome of struggles between gods or primary principles. I am not denying that, at the present moment, real conflict exists between God and the gods, owing to the freedom they have been given which can be used to frustrate God’s will. They do have a certain autonomy without being radically independent from God. They were created by God and are sustained by Him and are gradually being lured, in spite of themselves, to a future which God has planned.
I sense that LDS may feel that, were God to have created the world out of nothing, that would put God far away from us and jeopardise his interactions with us. It’s almost as if God has to be a mortal being in order to relate to mortals. Surely not. God could have created the world by his word alone without being totally beyond it hinmself. God is exactly as far from it and as near to it as he wants to be. He can behold the world from his heavenly glory and (at the same time) enter into its life as fully as he wants to. God decides what the relations with creation will be.
Item: concerning omnipotence, open theists and LDS agree that there are limitations on God’s power, but do not explain it in quite the same way. Open theists use the language of voluntary self limitation, while LDS also think of God’s being limited by uncreated matter and intelligences, which are entities external to himself. (54) Joseph Smith (I gather) saw such inherent limitations as entities co-eternal with God, chaotic matter which God has to deal with, and built in law-like structures. (so Paulsen citing D&C 93:23, 29) But Ostler adds this: “However, God could prevent an intelligence or natural substance from exercising power freely by overpowering it by coercive power.” Which he then qualifies: “God will generally refrain from using such coercive power because it is not consistent with his loving nature.” (55) He seems to be saying that God has obstacles to overcome but that he can overcome them. This would approximate the view of open theism - that God is not so much limited in power so much as he restrains its exercise without giving it up. As in his loving relations with us - he does not force himself on us. We see a restraint of power for the sake of love and I think that Mormons do too.
Three, reason also has a role to play in theology, if we value coherence and intelligibility in our work and if we want the message to be timely and compelling. Philosophers can help us if they have good data to work with. Relational philosophies and theologies are good at relating to the dynamic understanding of reality which is characteristic of our time. It gives us a metaphysics of love and offers a dynamic understanding of the world. It can help us negotiate the shift we are seeing from a static to a more dynamic understanding of reality. The old Newtonian assumption that the world moves forward in a deterministic fashion is being replaced in quantum theory and by an understanding of causation that includes an intrinsic element of indeterminism. The old assumption that the world is a stable, solid, deterministic, thoroughly rational, and utterly predictable system is being replaced by a view of the world as a dynamic process that is to some extent indeterministic and unpredictable. The more it shifts this way the less classical theism will have anything to say and the more relational theism will have to offer.
Item: the issue of theodicy. Open theists think that light is shed on it from the direction of God’s voluntarily, not essentially, limited power. This is in contrast to process (and Mormon) thought which sees the limit on God’s power to be not the result of God’s decision but in the nature of things. This means that there is a limitation on the power of God which is inherent in the structure of the world. In this regard LDS is closer to process theism than it is to us. Discussing the doctrine of “eternal progression,” David Paulsen recognises this similarity and asks whether or not Whitehead, Hartshorne, Cobb, and Griffin may not have impacted LDS understandings of God? He admits it. But I see nothing wrong in that - open theism too is appreciative of aspects of process thought. But LDS goes for something in process thought it that open theism does not go after and it has to do with how we handle the problem of evil. (56)
This is how the LDS see it. If God’s power is inherently and not only voluntarily restrained, then God cannot be blamed for many of the evils that happen because God is already doing the best that he can in the face of stubborn resistance. Open theists (on the other hand) do not solve the problem of evil by making God seemingly powerless so that he cannot be held responsible for what happens in the world because he can’t do much about it. We prefer to say that God does have the power to overturn evil and, on occasion, does so but not often because he values human freedom. (Mormons agree with us that God can do miracles which puts them closer to us than to process.) It seems to us that God has set himself a limit that he will not cross in taking away freedom. God’s problem (If I may speak thus) is that God loves. Love complicates his life, as it does ours. So there is a reason (a creation covenant) why he does not prevent certain evils. Hence there are psalms of lament in the Bible where believers ask God why he is not doing more, on the assumption that he could be. We have to trust God when things do not seem to be lining up in our understanding. In the last analysis though, we agree that God does not cause or will our suffering, that God identifies with our suffering, and works faithfully and everlastingly to transform our suffering into the highest possible good. (57)
Four, relational theologies have tremendous practical appeal. They supply “existential fit” in the way they handle our walk with God. and the life of prayer. They energise us by imputing real “say so” to human beings. (Remember that LDS and open theists are both strongly Arminian.) Relational theology confirms our deepest intuitions that our choices are not predetermined and the future is not altogether settled. Thus it enjoys an “as if not” advantage. That is, we notice that people act “as if” the relational gospel were true even when they do not believe that it is, which is a fine compliment to be paying. It is a theology where our lives really matter and where what we do or do not do makes a real difference. Thus it is a theology for revival and missions which by the way is yet another factor which we share in common, a passion to evangelise the world. I resonate with William James who wondered what difference does divine aseity make or God’s self-love or God’s simplicity, or pure act? How (he wondered) do these ideas connect to our lives? “And, if they severally call for no distinctive adaptations of conduct, what vital difference does it make to a man’s life and religion. It hardly matters whether they are true or false. (58) The pragmatic test for truth may not be everything but it counts for something. Open theism works in the lives of those who espouse it. Here the open and Mormon views seem indistinguishable.
Conclusion
Open theism then is part of a larger movement of relational theologies which includes Mormon theology and which seek to recover the perfections of a personal God and the dynamic relationships into which God enters with his creatures. It is a biblical theology which seeks to bring our definitions of God’s attributes into line with the perfections of a personal God. We celebrate God’s true glory, which is not static perfection, but loving relationships with his creatures and partnerships in which God allows himself to be made vulnerable.
Open theism is being discussed widely and its prospects seem promising. (59) It is scripturally compelling. Its doctrine of God appeals in a context where classical theism can be a hard sell. It promotes intimacy with God and posits a real “say so” to human beings. In the evangelical context, it needs to overcome the paleo-Calvinist charge that it is heretical and the classical Arminian intuition that it goes too far. In terms of connecting with other relational theologies, a beginning has been made in our interaction with process theology - for example John B. Cobb Jr and I issued a dialogue book Searching for an Adequate God which brought process and free will (or open) theists together. And in this chapter we are exploring another relationship - how open theism relates to Mormon thought and vice versa. For many of us, this is new territory. I myself have not had Mormons as dialogue partners before, but I welcome it. I look for ways that we can help one another. Of course, not everyone approves of our talking to Mormons, process theists, and others. They see it as proof positive that we are not evangelical ourselves and perhaps not even Christian. But we do not believe in closing doors which God has opened and do not allow ourselves to be governed by our fears.
I close with this: none of us control the outcomes of our deliberations and God’s providence will see to it that what is valid is sorted out from the invalid and what is significant from the insignificant. As St Paul says: “Now we know in part - then we will know as we are known.” Meanwhile, our work is tentative, though we hope it is worthwhile.
Works cited:
1. Augustine, “On the Trinity” in A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), volume 3, book 1, chapter 3.
2. See the manifesto written by Clark Pinnock, Richard Rice, John Sanders, William Hasker, and David Basinger, The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1994). John Sanders filled out the picture in The God Who Risks: A Theology of Providence (Downers Grove, Ill,: InterVarsity Press, 1998).
3. See Sanders, “Divine Relationality in the Christian Tradition” in The God Who Risks, ch 5.
4. Robinson lists the most important points of agreement and disagreement that were discovered in the dialogue book How Wide the Divide? co-authored with Craig Blomberg (Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press, 1997), 195-96.
5. Let me be frank. When I think about the Mormon church, I think of an indigenous form of Christianity outside the Western orbit, like (for example) in Africa, “The Church of Jesus Christ on Earth by the Prophet Simon Kimbangu.” I also relate it to Montanist movement of the second century with its visions and prophets who helped to renew the church.
6. Stephen Robinson has expressed the wish that some evangelical would say that the Book of Mormon could be inspired by God in Divide p 71. Well, I would say it. Of course it could be. Which does not prove that it is or that therew may not be some explaining to do.
7. Donald G. Bloesch, God the Almighty: Power, Wisdom, Holiness, Love (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 205-6. Curiously, the critics who rail against open theists for talking like this are silent when it comes to criticising this Reformed scholar who says the very same things. Thomas F. Torrance also thinks in these terms and even coined the term “openness of God” long before we took it up: in Space, Time, and Incarnation (New York: Oxford University Press, 1969), 74-75. Notice however that Bloesch wants a relational theism but not quite an open theism (254-60). He complains that we “make the revealed mysteries too transparent.” Like J. I. Packer perhaps, Bloesch would postulate an antinomy in place of an explanation at the point of sovereignty and freedom.
8. Shaye J. D. Cohen, From the Maccabees to the Misnah (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1987), 86-87.
9. Stephen E. Robinson in How Wide the Divide? 59, 138.
10. How Wide the Divide? 61.
11. Robinson in How Wide the Divide, 161-62, 165-66. Huff believes that Richard R. Hopkins is too unnuanced in his book How Greek Philosphy Corrupted the Christian Concept of God (Bountiful, Utah: Horizon, 1998).
12. John Sanders, “Open Theism: Radical Revision or Miniscule Modification of Arminianism?” Wesleyan Theological Journal 38 (2003), pp 69-102. See also Roger Olson, The Mosaic of Christian Belief: Twenty Centuries of Christian Belief (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 192-96.
13. For this format, see John S. Feinberg, No One Like Him: Foundations of Evangelical Theology: The Doctrine of God (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2001), 62-73.
14. Dallas Willard, The Divine Conspiracy (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1998), 244-45. Francis Beckwith and Stephen E. Parish are classical theists and have written about Mormon thought: The Mormon Concept of God: A Philosophical Analysis (Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 1991).
15. Sanders, The God Who Risks, 230-35.
16. Tyron L. Inbody, The Transforming God: An Interpretation of Suffering and Evil Lousville: Westminister John Knox, 1997), 67-78 142-43 148-49.
17. The story is told in my biography by Barry L. Callen and the shift is documented in these writings: see Barry Callen, Clark H. Pinnock: Journey Toward Renewal - An Intellectual Biography (Nappanee, Indiana: Evangel Publishing House, 2000) and in Pinnock “The Need for a Scriptural, and Therefore a Neo-Classical Theism” in Perspectives on Evangelical Theology edited by Kenneth S. Kantzer and Stanley N. Gundry (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), 37-42. See also Pinnock, “God Limits His Knowledge” in Predestination and Free Will: Four Views of Divine Sovereignty and Human Freedom, edited by David and Randall Basinger (Downers Grove, Ill: Inter Varsity Press, 1886), 143-162. “From Augustine to Arminius: A Pilgrimage in Theology” in The Grace of God the Will of Man edited by Clark H. Pinnock (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989), 15-30. “Systematic Theology” in The Openness of God, Pinnock, Sanders, Rice, Hasker, Basinger (Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press, 1994), 101-125.
18. Pinnock, Flame of Love: A Theology of the Holy Spirit (Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press, 1996), ch 1.
19. John Polkinghorne, editor The Work of Love: Creation as Kenosis (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001).
20. For the use in theology of multiple sources, see Donald A. D. Thorson, The Wesleyan Quadrilateral: Scripture, Tradition, Reason and Experience as a Model of Evangelical Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990).
21. From my standpoint, Joseph Smith had stimulating and even prophetic insights which I can appreciate in dialogue with Mormons, even though I do not hail him as the Prophet of the latter days. 22. Walter Brueggmann features the motif of testimony and counter-testimony in his work: see Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997).
23. Pinnock, “Overcoming a Pagan Heritage” Most Moved Mover ch 2.
24. See (example) Terence E. Fretheim, The Suffering of God: An Old Testament Perspective (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), ch 6.
25. See Pinnock, Most Moved Mover: A Theology of God’s Openness (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001), 33-35.
26. Grace Jantzen, God’s World, God’s Body (Philadelphia: Westminister Press, 1984), 21 and David L. Paulsen, “The Doctrine of Divine Embodiment: Restoration, Judeo-Christian, and Philosophical Perspectives” BYU Studies 35 no 4 (1995-96) 7-94.
27. Macquarrie writes in the preface to Grace Jantzen’s book..
28. Bloesch, God Almighty, 50, 89.
29. Richard Swinburne, The Christian God (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), 127.
30. Walther Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament I (London: SCM Press, 1961), 206-220.
31. How Wide the Divide? 88.
32. Ostler, Exploring Mormon Thought, 352.
33. For example, by David Paulsen, “Must God be Incorporeal?” Faith and Philosophy 6 (1989) 76-87.
34. Boyd, God at War (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, (2001), ch 4. I have spoken of them myself: A Wideness in God’s Mercy (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), ch 4.
35. Ostler, Exploring Mormon Thought, 8-9.
36. The Celestial World” in Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament II (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1967), ch 18.
37. Compare Robert V. Rakestraw, “Becoming Like God: An Evangelical Doctrine of Theosis” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 40 (1997) 257-269.
38. Ostler, Exploring Mormon Thought, p. 9-10.
39. How Wide the Divide? 86.
40. This point is discussed in Richard N. Ostling and Joan K. Ostling, Mormon Empire: The Power and the Promise (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1999) ch 18.
41. Ostler, Exploring Mormon Thought, ch 10.
42. Jim Adams puts his finger on this issue in “The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Joseph Smith? God, Creation, in the Old Testament and Mormonism” in The New Mormon Challenge edited by Francis J. Beckwith, Carl Mosser, and Paul Owen (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002), 153-91. This is an informative book but is too negative and unsympathetic to the LDS, not even acknowledging that they are Christians and never granting that they have things to contribute to the theological conversation.
43. Consider Hendrikus Berkhof, Christian Faith: An Introduction to the Study of the Faith (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), ch 18-22.
44. I appreciate Daniel Migliore’s treatment of this: Faith Seeking Understanding : An Introduction to Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991) 72-74.
45. We are part of a living tradition, two thousand years old: see Thomas C. Oden, The Rebirth of Orthodoxy (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2003).
46. I have noticed an appreciation by Mormons of C. S. Lewis and thought to myself what an important factor that might prove to be, if in fact he is a friend to us both. Certainly he is quoted more often by the LDS leadership than any other non-LDS writer. A friend of a friend is a friend of ours. See Nathan Jensen, Restored Gospel according to C. S. Lewis (Springville, Utah: Bonneville Books, 1998).
47. On scripture and tradition, see Roger E. Olson, The Mosaic of Christian Belief: Twenty Centuries of Unity and Diversity (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2002), ch 1-2.
48. How Wide the Divide? 18-19.
49. LDS enjoy the luxury of having living prophets and (therefore) need depend less than evangelicals on written texts. What God said in the past is somewhat secondary to what God is saying now. And who know where that will take them? The evangelical fixation on the past makes it hard for them to change and reform. It happens but it’s undisciplined.
50. On 20th century efforts to understand the trinity, see Roger Olson and Christopher Hall, The Trinity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 22002), 95-115.
51. Divide 131-32.
52. Langdon Gilkey, Maker of Heaven and Earth (New York: Doubleday,1965), ch 3.
53. Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament II 99-106. Consider Paul Copan and William L. Craig, Creation out of Nothing: A Biblical, Philosophical and Scientific Exploration (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004).
54. On divine self-limitation, see Sanders, God Who Risks 224-28.
55. Ostler, Exploring Mormon Thought, 132.
56. See Paulsen, “Joseph Smith and the Problem of Evil” in BYU Studies 30 (2000) 53-65.
57. Blake Ostler presses the critique of openness theodicy: “Evil: A Real Problem for Evangelicals” The FARMS Review 15 (2003) 201-13.
58. See William James, The Varieties of Religious Experience: A Study in Human Nature (Mineola, NY: Dover, 2002), 445.
59. See William C. Davis, “Why Open Theism is Flourishing Now” (some positive points, some negative) in Beyond the Bounds, edited by John Piper, Justin Taylor, and Paul Helseth (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2003), 111-145.
Brandon
"Corporations are simply the kind of structure that rises when hordes of people need to be managed, and after spending some time in a large church, I've found that our spirituality does not exempt us from these inefficient and dehumanizing practices."--Steve Lansingh's review of "The Office" at The Film Form | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 6/12/2004 6:13 AM (GMT -6) | | Brandon-
In footnote 42, Clark criticizes a book by saying it “…is too negative and unsympathetic to the LDS, not even acknowledging that they are Christians and never granting that they have things to contribute to the theological conversation.”
Help me understand. What reasons are there for believing Mormons are Christians? I’m not a LDS expert. But it would seem to me that they can contribute to the theological discussion whether or not they’re Christian. Non-Christian faiths can contribute to theological discussion. So, what does Pinnock mean by “Christian” and why does he think Mormons qualify?
Don’t misunderstand me. I don’t wanna rush in and make a judgment. I’m just wondering why Pinnock feels we need to make the judgment that Mormons ARE Christians. Personally I never use the word to describe myself. I believe it means too many things to be useful any more.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 6/12/2004 7:28 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Brandon-
Good points.
Re: (1), I could squeeze Mormonism into “nominal” Christianity as a heresy of it. If that’s what he means, fine.
Re: (2), it doesn’t seem that having a relational theology makes one a Christian even nominally. Muslim Sufis (mystics) have a very relational theology, but they’re Muslims.
Re: (3), I can appreciate not wanting to deny that God is working in someone’s life. I just wouldn’t use “Christian” do describe all people in whom God is working on some level (as I think God’s working in each life at some level).
My question is, why not just say what his concerns are? Instead of calling Mormons “Christians” for the reasons you described, why not just say, “It’s a good thing that Mormons have a relational approach to God and want to experience him, for God is surely at work in them, wanting to move them to the fullest possible knowledge and experience of himself in Christ”? No what I mean?
Similarly, I try not to make judgment calls on where individual Muslims stand in relation to God. I try to find out what their history with God is (in terms of thoughts, beliefs, experiences, etc.) and then link up with what God is doing (I assume God is working redemptively on some level in every individual’s life) and support it all I can.
Thanks,
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 6/12/2004 9:21 AM (GMT -6) | | I believe our man Clark is being or has been bamboozled. He is both ignorant of Mormon doctrine, as it still stands, and he has bought into the lie that Mormonism isn't what it used to be (if he has any real idea just all that made and makes Mormonism what it is); they look and sound Christian: let's welcome them as slightly different, but Christian nonetheless! And..the lie is finally believed.
I'm not meaning to be mean, but unless one has studied the hard work of folks, starting with Walter Martin (whether you like the guy or not), the apologists after him, and the primary sources for Mormonism, one will almost NEVER see the real behind-the-scenes of what the Mormon church is and why it is.
An excellent site for primary sources can be found at Jerald and Sandra Tanner's site: www.utlm.org. These are former Mormons who have spent the better of thirty years plus providing the hard, cold facts for Mormons to see for themselves. Please, please read the FAQ on this site (http://www.utlm.org/faqs/faqgeneral.htm), particularly the origins of the four major books in Mormonism, starting with the Book of Mormon: http://www.utlm.org/faqs/faqgeneral.htm#5 The main index on the Tanner's site is www.utlm.org/navtopicalindex.htm.
Note this site also:
http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/mormonshopetobecomegods.htm
Mormonism is so far removed from Christianity, it's the difference between light and dark, but you'll never find this out by trying to get the information (and a direct answer) from the Mormon church. (This is not an attack against the everyday Mormon, who probably knows little or nothing about this. It is, however, an attack against the heretical doctrine and establishment of the church.)
Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 6/12/2004 9:50 PM (GMT -6) | | Starkman: ...but you'll never find this out by trying to get the information (and a direct answer) from the Mormon church. (This is not an attack against the everyday Mormon, who probably knows little or nothing about this.)
Tom: I hear ya. But isn't this just the point? If the everyday Mormon knows nothing or next to nothing about these doctrines, then we can't make the judgment you begin with against THEM, can we? If a Mormon isn't even informed about these doctrines, she can't be said to believe them. And if she can't be said to believe them, you can't use them to make a judgment about where she is spiritually, can you?
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 6/13/2004 7:12 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey Tom,
Nice to chat with you again...
Remember, I don't condem or judge the every-day Mormon. He does know the basics, but not to the level I'm talking about. All the basics, however--every male will become a god, this, that and the other, is known, but the old history, which totally destroys the Mormon theology as orthodox, Christian or any similarity, is known by few. Further, when they hear about it, they don't put the effort in to studying it.
No, I'm not at all condeming the every-day Mormon--God handles that stuff--but I am making a decision (judgment) in regard to Mormon doctrine. That I am doing. The doctrine is not of God, in any sense, whatseover, and the founder leaders of the past have gone to great lengths to perpetuate the lies and depeptions, using more lies and deceptions. It's not at all that they didn't know what they were doing. That's what is so disheartening; the average joe Mormon hasn't got a clue.
Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 6/13/2004 9:01 AM (GMT -6) | | Starkman (and Tom),
I think you might want to go back and read through some of Jorgenson’s stuff. Yesterday when I put up a response I was extremely tired and was working with only half a brain (which means I was working with a full brain), so I don’t think my response was as good as it could have been.
Anyhoo, as you may be well aware of, Clark seems to me to ALWAYS approach other faiths and beliefs with a hermeneutic of charity. He is always seeking to build bridges ( i.e. process theologians, liberals, and now Mormons) as oppose to guys like James White who seem pretty vindictive. What does this do? James is certainly not going to win any converts. I would contend that Craig Blomberg will have a better chance with Stephen Robinson (How Wide the Divide? IVP) then James will with Mormon scholars.
In the paper above, basically Clark “compares notes” delineating the similarities and differences (unfortunately that’s all he does). Clark is also an inclusivist and so he teaches a “pagan saint” tradition. Going back to what Jorgenson said:
quote:
I agree with Clark Pinnock and John Sanders on inclusivism. Of course Christianity's truth claims are normative over against utterly different claims from other religions. Of course Jesus is the only incarnate sacrifice by which we are reconciled to God, and were it not for which such reconciliation would be impossible. But the question here is, how must we necessarily appropriate that reconciliation - is knowledge of any kind necessarily a part of it? Inclusivists (including myself) don't find anything in the teachings of Jesus, Paul or the apostles which clearly and unanimously says so, and indeed they find clear teaching in the synoptic Gospels and James, and compatible teaching in John's gospel and the other epistles, as well as OT support, that no particular conscious knowledge is absolutely needed to be saved. Not even conscious knowledge about Jesus, his divinity, his death and resurrection, etc.
Personally, what I find in scripture to be the means by which we appropriate salvation, is a simple and trusting heart attitude of seeking after God and his will for good. "He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God." (Micah 6:8, NIV) This is faith that pleases God and, by means of his atoning self-sacrifice, allows him to credit it to us as righteousness. It is faith which is found most fully in consciously-comprehended Christianity, but which can possibly exist, more dimly yet still sufficiently, in the followers of other religions (or even no religion), as well as people too young or mentally infirm to understand the gospel.
Jorgenson goes on to say: quote:
Inclusivism, then, is simply about knowledge, or rather the over-emphasis on knowledge which exclusivism insists upon. I mean, really: are we gnostics or not? Gnosticism, too, emphasized right knowledge (of the gnostic kind) about Jesus and, more broadly, God, as the only means of appropriating salvation (whatever that meant in gnostic thought). At the end of the day, I simply can't believe from scripture, let alone my own intuition, that God would condemn those people whose heartward attitude was one that, humbly and haltingly (that being all of which we are capable), sought God and good during life, and yet who (by whatever barrier, whether developmental or cultural or whatever) failed to intellectually acknowledge the right mantra.
I think Mormons should be thought of in this light.
Brandon
"Corporations are simply the kind of structure that rises when hordes of people need to be managed, and after spending some time in a large church, I've found that our spirituality does not exempt us from these inefficient and dehumanizing practices."--Steve Lansingh's review of "The Office" at The Film Form | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 6/14/2004 3:40 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey Brandon,
Nice to chat with you again, too! Hope all's going well, bro.
Yeah, I agree with your last post, in that it is ultimately God who decides who has shown faith in Him and who has not. I think there's a line to be drawn, however, when it becomes clear that someone is not "faithing" in Him, but is working. Dialog with individuals is really the best way to discover where one's head is at.
Take care,
Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
|
massdak
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2004
Total Posts : 1
| Posted 6/15/2004 3:50 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Tigress
All this talk about Mel Gibson being a Universalist while still being a Catholic has got me wondering - can he still be called a Christian if he holds to such an incorrect theology? I mean to be a Christian is to be a follower of Christ but doesn't that also mean agreeing with the Bible and the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed which all clearly state that one must accept Jesus and be His follower to get saved? As I understand it, Universalists believe that anyone can get saved even if they don't accept Jesus or follow Him. Is that a correct definition of a Universalist? If so, how could one still be considered a Christian? How is a Universalist any different from cults like Mormons who believe a lot about Jesus, but not everything? Mormons are not Christians, even though they believe some things about Jesus, right? So, how is someone like Mel Gibson really any different? I'm seriously confused about this. Does someone have an answer for me? Is Mel Gibson really saved if his theology is so wrong, obviously proving that he hasn't really been listening to The Holy Spirit?
many that say they are Christian are in fact not, the catholic religion has added works and sacraments with Christ for salvation, a person must believe in the biblical Jesus and not a different jesus made up in their own mind. adding works or any human merit to grace will make grace null and void. Remember God is a jealous God and Christ will share no other ingredient into His finished work on the cross. it is Jesus alone so it is faith in Christ alone. it is not making a decision for Christ or trying to follow Christ that cannot save you, it is God who draws and it is God who grants repentance, one must realize that it is by grace through faith that a person is saved.
2Jo 1:9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
| | Back to Top | | |
| 62 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 9:20 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|