 |
| by R.E. Slater & ChatGPT5 |
Color-code branches signify:- Calvinism (deep blue)- Arminianism (green)- ORT (orange)- ORPT (gold)- Evangelical adaptations (red)Illustration of a layered flowchart or family tree visualizing:- Calvinism and Arminianism origins (with denominational branches).- Their evolution into hybrid forms.- The emergence of Open & Relational Theology (ORT).- The further development into Open & Relational Process Theology (ORPT).- The evangelical “hijacking” of ORPT to it's own purposes (evanglicalized ORT).
Evangelical-Arminian "Open and Relational Theology" (EA/ORT = ORT) has emerged as one of the most significant theological movements to challenge and reshape Evangelical-Calvinistic thought in recent decades.
While it builds upon earlier Arminian insights into divine love, freedom, and relationality, it also moves beyond them - having itself derived from earlier forms of Process Theology in what is Open and Relational Process Theology (ORPT).
Because process theology is malleable it can morph into various sub-derivations of itself such as ORT. To be sure, ORT is a synthetic position that is part process and part non-process. The non-process part will be related to ORT's earlier continuity with classic Arminian tradition which was built upon non-processual metaphysics and ethics.
As a synthetic adaptation, ORT has been selectively adopted, adapted, or even "hijacked," by sympathetic evangelical leaders and institutions. As a result, this newer synthetic theology has created a significant watershed moment for the broader evangelical movement - forcing evangelicals to confront prior 16th and 20th century metaphysical commitments and theological boundaries prominent in Calvinistic theology either positively - or, more commonly, in defense, apologetically (thus, negatively, implying no helpful forward movement).
Moreover, it is correct to observe that Open and Relational Theology (ORT) has evolved from core Arminian impulses to radically expand and reframe classic Arminianism through the newer philosophical and theological lens of process philosophy and theology.
This means that to think along open and relational lines is to utilize process thought re-contextualized within the evangelical context thus making evangelical dogma more processual than it once was.
Because Evangelicalism struggles with anything outside of itself, the newer development of a processualized version of (Arminian-based) ORT has been careful to exclude any reference to it's proper progenitor, Process Thought (sic, ORPT). Process theology in many ways is foreign to evangelicalism and common responses of heresy are wildly thrown about.
And yet, it must be acknowledged that "open and relational process theology" is the rightful birth child of process philosophy from which EA/ORT is derived and is being adapted into evangelical doctrine. Thus, ORT is a synthetic derivative of ORPT.
It will therefore be observed here that however much process philosophy and theology is removed or excluded by ORT will likewise correspond to the degree of difficulty ORT will heap upon itself as it creates a pseudo-theologic, philosophic, and scientific world observations/connections based upon non-processual conjectures and assertions. Thus creating for itself processual disconnects with the more rigorous processual theology it delved from.
In mine own surmise, it would be better that ORT conforms to Process itself than to set itself apart from process thought in appeasement to evangelical theology. When doing so, ORT will suffer from it's own philosophic confusions having accepted foreign non-processual philosophic and theologic systems into Whitehead's process philosophy.
Statedly, it's one thing for process thought to evolve naturally but quite another in forcing synthetic process positions such as "evangelicalized" ORT to speak processually when it's voice is already unnaturally mitigated or compromised by non-rigorous allegiance to non-processual systems.
August 9, 2025
I.
Comparing ORT with Arminianism
1. Continuity with Arminianism
-
Free Will & Divine Love — Like classic Arminianism, ORT affirms human freedom as essential for genuine love and moral responsibility.
-
Resistible Grace — Both reject the Calvinist doctrine of irresistible grace; God’s call can be accepted or rejected.
-
Universal Invitation — Both affirm that salvation is genuinely available to all, not just a predestined elect.
2. Where ORT Goes Beyond Arminianism
-
Open Future — Arminianism still tends to believe God knows the future exhaustively (simple foreknowledge), whereas ORT says the future is partly unknowable even to God, because it has not yet been decided [remember, this is spoken by the evanglicalized version of ORT. True process theology states that God cannot know the future as it is in a continual flux of evolution from one moment to the next. This does not reduce God's sovereignty, especially since process theology recenters God's sovereignty in God's love and not in God's control. - re slater].
-
Relational Metaphysics — ORT is grounded in relational ontology: God is in dynamic give-and-take with a freewill creation, not merely responding to foreknown choices.
-
Noncoercive Power — ORT takes the Arminian emphasis on persuasion to a deeper level: God cannot act coercively, even in miracles or judgment, because God’s nature is love [refers to God's amipotent sovereignty: God's power is fundamentally rooted in love and not in power. - re slater].
-
Broader Theological Scope — While Arminianism’s debates were mostly soteriological (how salvation works), ORT addresses cosmology, ecology, interfaith dialogue, science & religion, and more. [This is significant because process theology is based upon a process metaphysic. - re slater]
3. Philosophical Upgrades
-
Arminianism emerged in the 17th century largely in scholastic categories inherited from Reformed and medieval theology. [sic, scholasticism is the system of theology and philosophy taught in medieval European universities, based on Aristotelian logic and the writings of the early Church Fathers and having a strong emphasis on tradition and dogma.
-
ORT borrows from process philosophy, open theism, and relational metaphysics, shedding many of those scholastic constraints.
-
In this sense, ORT is less of a “patch” and more of a new operating system that still preserves Arminian “apps” like free will and resistible grace.
4. Why the Upgrade Matters
-
ORT removes the last vestiges of determinism that even Arminianism sometimes carried (e.g., exhaustive foreknowledge as a fixed reality).
-
It reframes God’s omniscience and omnipotence in ways that resonate with modern science, pluralism, and lived experience.
-
It makes love the metaphysical center, not just the moral attribute, of God.
5. Side-by-Side Chart
Shows the progression from Calvinism → Arminianism → Open & Relational Theology (ORT), with the “upgrade” features highlighted:
| Theological Feature | Calvinism | Arminianism | Open & Relational Theology (ORT) |
|---|---|---|---|
| View of God’s Sovereignty | Absolute control over all events; decrees everything that happens | Sovereign but allows human free will within a foreknown plan | Sovereign as loving relational partner; does not control all events |
| Human Free Will | Denied in salvation (monergism) | Affirmed; humans can accept or reject grace (synergism) | Fully affirmed; choices genuinely shape reality, even for God |
| Predestination | Unconditional election of the elect | Conditional election based on foreseen faith | No fixed future; God calls all and works with unfolding free choices |
| Grace | Irresistible to the elect | Resistible by all | Always noncoercive; persuasive rather than controlling |
| Atonement | Limited (only for the elect) | Unlimited (for all humanity) | Unlimited; integrated with cosmic reconciliation and restoration |
| God’s Knowledge of the Future | Exhaustive definite foreknowledge of a fixed future | Exhaustive definite foreknowledge of a fixed future | Open future: partly definite (past & present), partly indefinite (future free acts) |
| Problem of Evil | Permitted or ordained for God’s glory | Permitted for sake of free will | Cannot be prevented unilaterally by God; God works with creation to overcome it |
| Divine Power | Omnipotence as control | Omnipotence as power to allow freedom | Essential kenotic love; God cannot act against love’s nature |
| Scope of Theology | Primarily salvation-focused | Primarily salvation-focused | Salvation plus cosmology, ecology, ethics, interfaith relations, science & religion |
| Core Metaphysics | Classical theism (static divine attributes) | Modified classical theism | Relational metaphysics (influenced by process thought) |
II.
ORT is More Properly ORPT (Open and Relational Process Theology)
Open and Relational Theology (ORT) did not emerge in a vacuum; it has deep resonance with and, in many cases, direct dependence on Process Theology, even if some ORT theologians avoid the explicit label.
OR(P)T’s philosophical DNA draws deeply from process thought, even when its advocates frame it in more biblically familiar or evangelical language.
Recognizing it as “Open and Relational Process Theology” clarifies its intellectual heritage and philosophical coherence.
This fuller descriptor makes it easier to connect OR(P)T to wider dialogues in philosophy, science, and interfaith work, preventing it from being reduced to narrow evangelical dogma and debates about propositional subjects such as foreknowledge, etc.
It also makes transparent the continuity between relational theism and the process tradition’s panexperiential, panentheistic vision.
By naming the process influence openly, theologians acknowledge that OR(P)T is not simply an evangelical restatement of Arminianism but a participation in a much larger metaphysical project.
This identification helps situate OR(P)T within a global, interdisciplinary conversation - aligning it with fields like ecological ethics, cosmology, and comparative religion where process thought has already established a respected voice.
Here’s the fuller picture:
Open and Relational Theology (ORT) did not emerge in a vacuum; it has deep resonance with and, in many cases, direct dependence on Process Theology, even if some ORT theologians avoid the explicit label.
OR(P)T’s philosophical DNA draws deeply from process thought, even when its advocates frame it in more biblically familiar or evangelical language.
Recognizing it as “Open and Relational Process Theology” clarifies its intellectual heritage and philosophical coherence.
This fuller descriptor makes it easier to connect OR(P)T to wider dialogues in philosophy, science, and interfaith work, preventing it from being reduced to narrow evangelical dogma and debates about propositional subjects such as foreknowledge, etc.
It also makes transparent the continuity between relational theism and the process tradition’s panexperiential, panentheistic vision.
By naming the process influence openly, theologians acknowledge that OR(P)T is not simply an evangelical restatement of Arminianism but a participation in a much larger metaphysical project.
This identification helps situate OR(P)T within a global, interdisciplinary conversation - aligning it with fields like ecological ethics, cosmology, and comparative religion where process thought has already established a respected voice.
Here’s the fuller picture:
1. Common Core Commitments
-
Reality as Relational — Both Evangelical (E)ORT and Process Theology reject the isolated-substance model of classical theism, affirming instead that all entities exist in webs of relationship.
-
God’s Power as Persuasive, Not Coercive — Both see God’s love as the defining divine attribute of God's sovereignty thus redefining divine power as incompatible with unilateral control.
-
Dynamic God-World Interaction — God responds to the unfolding of creation, not simply executing a predetermined plan per classic dogma re divine transcendence. [sic, what good is a far-away God to here-and-now creational dilemmas??]
-
Openness of the Future — The future is genuinely undetermined because of (i) creaturely freedom and (ii) God’s non-coercive nature.
2. Distinct Emphases
-
ORT’s Evangelical/Arminian Bridge — ORT often uses Arminian language to make process-friendly ideas accessible to evangelicals.
-
Process Theology’s Philosophical Depth — Rooted in Alfred North Whitehead’s metaphysics, with a fully articulated ontology of becoming, panexperientialism, and cosmic teleology.
3. Historical Lineage
-
20th-century evangelical "Open Theism" (Clark Pinnock, John Sanders) questioned exhaustive foreknowledge.
-
These open theists were influenced - either directly or indirectly - by Process Theology’s critique of classical theism (Charles Hartshorne, John Cobb).
-
Thomas Jay Oord and other leading ORT figures openly affirm many process commitments (panentheism, persuasive power, relational ontology), even when distinguishing themselves from "full" process philosophy.
4. Why the Full Descriptor Matters
Calling it "Open and Relational Process Theology":
-
Acknowledges the philosophical scaffolding that supports ORT.
-
Connects ORT to the broader, richer cosmology of process thought.
-
Prevents the narrowing of ORT into a purely soteriological or biblical-theological conversation.
-
Positions ORT in interfaith, science-religion, and ecological dialogue where process thought already has credibility.
III.
Evangelical Hijacking and the ORT Watershed
What happened with Open and Relational Theology (ORT) in evangelical spaces is a textbook case of theological cross-pollination meeting institutional resistance. Here’s how it unfolded and why it became a watershed
The “hijacking” of ORT by certain evangelical leaders has often involved taking its most comforting pastoral themes - like God’s genuine empathy in suffering - while ignoring or rejecting its deeper metaphysical foundations. This selective adoption can produce theological hybrids that sound relational but still operate within rigid classical frameworks.
While this allows for minimal disruption within evangelical systems, it also dilutes ORT’s transformative potential. The resulting tension has created a watershed moment, where evangelical communities must decide whether to remain with these hybrids, revert to classical theism, or fully embrace process-informed relational theology.
This dynamic has also revealed the underlying philosophical discomfort many evangelicals feel toward process categories, such as God’s temporal experience or the rejection of unilateral divine control. These tensions often lead to partial acceptance of ORT’s language without fully integrating its implications, creating both internal inconsistencies and opportunities for deeper theological growth.
1. Selective Adoption
-
Evangelical theologians saw in ORT certain tools that could make their theology more pastorally compassionate and biblically defensible (e.g., God doesn’t cause suffering, the future is open).
-
However, they often avoided process philosophy’s deeper metaphysical commitments — such as panexperientialism, dipolar theism, and cosmic teleology — for fear of breaking from classical categories entirely.
-
Result: a hybrid theology that kept many traditional evangelical assumptions (e.g., inerrancy, individualistic salvation) while borrowing relational language from ORT.
2. Theological Watershed
ORT quickly became a point of division within evangelicalism because:
-
It challenged exhaustive divine foreknowledge, shaking the foundation of classical omniscience.
-
It denied meticulous providence, undermining Calvinist determinism.
-
It recast God’s power as persuasive love rather than controlling will, raising questions about miracles, sovereignty, and “God’s plan” language.
-
It reoriented theodicy away from “mysterious divine will” toward shared God-world suffering.
3. Fragmentation of Evangelical Theology
-
Progressive Evangelicals embraced ORT as a theological upgrade of Arminianism and a bridge toward process thought. [progressive evangelicalisim is not process-based Christianity; however, process-based Christianity is deeply centered in progressiveness. - re slater]
-
Moderate Evangelicals cherry-picked relational language but kept classical metaphysics intact, creating a conceptual mismatch.
-
Conservative Evangelicals rejected ORT entirely as a “slippery slope” toward liberal theology or heresy. [a common fear tactic. For many Christians this means withdrawing from their local fellowships if they were to move towards embracing process theology.]
4. Why It Matters
Because ORT sits between Arminianism and Process Theology, it forces evangelicals to decide:
-
Stay in the classical fold (Calvinist or Arminian).
-
Adopt a transitional position (Evangelical ORT).
-
Step into full philosophical process theology, accepting its metaphysical implications.
In this way, ORT has become:
-
A theological fault line that reveals the deep philosophical differences under the surface of evangelical unity.
-
A gateway theology for those ready to move from classical evangelical categories into a more open, pluralist, and scientifically informed worldview.
Conclusion
The evolution from Classical Arminianism through Open and Relational Theology to its fuller processual form reflects both theological continuity and transformation.
ORT has provided a bridge for evangelicals to rethink God’s nature in relational and dynamic terms, but its selective adoption has also exposed deep divisions within evangelicalism.
The emergence of process theology (ORPT) offers a coherent philosophical framework that extends beyond the boundaries of traditional evangelical thought, aligning theology with contemporary philosophical and scientific developments.
This trajectory represents not just a change in doctrine but a fundamental shift in how God, creation, and the future are understood - marking a much more genuine watershed in modern Christian theology than simple ORT can offer.
No comments:
Post a Comment