Describing God's Sovereignty by Love... NOT by Power

Describing God's Sovereignty by Love...

NOT by Power

With Process Theology I've been working towards refilling the phrase "Divine Sovereignty" with "Divine Love". And then, refilling the church's theology built upon Divine Sovereignty (Theodicy sic., Calvinism) with a theology of Divine Love (Theodicy sic. Arminianism, sic., Open and Relational Theology, sic., Process Relational Theology).

I remember an incident in life where I drove out of the driveway in the wrong direction. By the time I remembered I was going the other way I had travelled several miles opposite to where I was going. My conditioned response, based upon behavior, was to go the way I was going without thinking it was the wrong direction to head in this instance. Similarly with the church's theology.

The church has been centered upon Divine Sovereignty for many, many centuries. In fact, millennia, when reading all the way back through the Old Testament to the Genesis account where God is described as creating the earth and all that is in it.

Now you would think the Apostle John's description of God's Love would be front and center as a disciple of Jesus whom Jesus loved. But John introduces Jesus divinity to us ahead of his love and then, speaks to Jesus' ministry of awakening darkened hearts to the atoning work he had come to do in the life of the world, his creation:

John 1.1-13

The Deity of Jesus Christ

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 [a]He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. 5 The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not [b]comprehend it.

The Witness John

6 There [c]came a man sent from God, whose name was John [the Baptist]. 7 [d]He came [e]as a witness, to testify about the Light, so that all might believe through him. 8 [f]He was not the Light, but he came to testify about the Light.

9 There was the true Light [g]which, coming into the world, enlightens every man. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. 11 He came to His [h]own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, 13 who were [i]born, not of [j]blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

So let's ask the question differently... why would an all powerful God come to save his spiritually darkened, religious people from themselves and their ways? They were living by Moses' Laws, the Torah. They were practicing those Laws in their scripted, enculturated lives. And they were perceiving God rightly in all of his divine offices in Temple practices, observances, teachings, rites, and worship. What more could Jesus add to this God they knew?

First, let's look at a few definitions of sovereignty and think how church doctrine has enlivened these teachings and practices into its own beliefs and worship:

Definition: Sovereignty

Noun - supreme power or authority: Plural - sovereignties

Usage: "How can we hope to wrest sovereignty away from the oligarchy and back to the people?"

Similar: jurisdiction, supremacy, dominion, power, ascendancy, suzerainty, tyranny, hegemony, domination, sway, predominance, authority, control, influence, rule, raj, regiment.

Opposite: subservience, subjection: "the authority of a state to govern itself or another state;" or, national sovereignty.

Similar: autonomy, independence, self-government, self-rule, home rule, self-legislation, self-determination, nonalignment, freedom.

Opposite: hegemony, colonialism, a self-governing state.

 

Wikipedia - Sovereignty of God in Christianity can be defined primarily as the right of God to exercise his ruling power over his creation, and secondarily, but not necessarily, as the exercise of this right. The way God exercises his ruling power is subject to divergences notably related to the concept of God's self-imposed limitations. The relationship between free will and the sovereignty of God has been relevant notably in the Calvinist-Arminian debate and in the philosophical theodicy.

Cyber security markets providing protection & controlling information flow

Webster - Synonyms & Antonyms of sovereignty

the state of being free from the control or power of another: "upon leaving home she felt that she had achieved sovereignty for the first time in her life"

• Synonyms for sovereignty
• autonomy, freedom, independence, independency, liberty, self-determination, self-governance, self-government

• Words Related to sovereignty
• emancipation, enfranchisement, liberation, manumission, release

• Near Antonyms for sovereignty
• captivity, enchainment, enslavement, immurement, imprisonment, incarceration, internment, subjugation

• Antonyms for sovereignty
• dependence (also dependance), heteronomy, subjection, unfreedom

2a body of people composed of one or more nationalities usually with its own territory and government: "As parts of the same sovereignty, the states should not enact laws intended to harm one another economically."

• Synonyms for sovereignty
• commonwealth, country, land, nation, state

* * * * * * *

Continuing...

So let's ask the question differently... why would an all powerful God come to save his spiritually darkened, religious people from themselves and their ways? They were living by Moses' Laws, the Torah. They were practicing those Laws in their scripted, enculturated lives. And they were perceiving God rightly in all of his divine offices in Temple practices, observances, teachings, rites, and worship. What more could Jesus add to this God they knew?

When attending church, participating in church ministry and government, it's polities and practices, Divine "controlling power" seems to resonate throughout its structure and missional outreaches. Whether by a dogma, a doctrine, officiating processes of overseership, synods, associations, fellowships, etc. Controlling message, beliefs, and practices is a large part of the church's life.

But What If...

But what if God is defined in terms of God's Love and not by God's Power? What if God's Sovereignty is refilled with the idea of a Loving Sovereignty, a Loving Deity, a Loving ministrations of Deity as versus a wrathful, judgmental exercise of Divine Power? Of seeing Heaven everywhere instead of a Hell everywhere stripped of demons, devils, and works of darkness?

What if God is truly a God of Love through and through and through the church's doctrines, dogmas, messages, and practices?

If seems to me that over the millennia the traditional Church has confused itself when describing God's Sovereignty in terms of power rather than by love. Perhaps it is because of man's insatiable desire to control everything around him - which is no less true of religionists today as in the yesteryears past - perhaps, even more true of the church as we look around seeing it's religious over-reach across all spectrums of life demarcating it's sanctified boundaries it thinks God is pleased with.

To my own personal way of thinking God thinks about love, not power. Not lines and boundaries but love. God is power but it means nothing to God. It just is who God is as upholder and sustainer of the universe.

A Process-Relational Theodicy

But what's more important to God in a freewilled, indeterminant universe, is God's love for creation and in giving God's love away at all times to all things in every way possible.

• Did you notice how I slipped in a "freewilled, indeterminant universe"? If creation is free than it is indeterminate. It's actions are uncontrolled by God. Not dictated to; not circumscribed in its days and life's actions. It is free. It is indeterminate.

• Thus and thus the position of an Open and Relational Theology. God's Love gives away control in order for creation to become wholly what it was created for in God's Imago Dei.

• And thus Process Relational Theology which says this becoming ever gins towards life and love, a composition which is beneficial and valuative as it concreases towards a wholly loving fellowship of creativity, imagination, and unbounded reality of generative acts within and without itself.

• This is the upside of a theodicy unbounded by Calvinism's darkened outlook preached by the church seeing everything in terms of sin and evil, wrath and judgment. Perhaps these statements are a description of positional idealism v practical devolvement but a loving theology seeks an escalating revolution of loving sovereignty as opposed to a bleak Armageddon-like Revelation of the ultimate break down of life by its own hand.

In Summary

God is a God of love and power but it is more correct to describe God as a God of love when describing God's sovereignty by which very term itself implies power as we have seen.

So let's forgive the church for its misuse of labels when thinking of God and man.

Let's preach "God's love as a higher priority than God's sovereignty".

I was raised in my faith to fixate over power. Divine power. Today I would rather revel in Divine Love.

The one theology teaches withdrawal from the world, militancy against the world, and exclusion to the world. Their can be no mission to people when coming with a sword in hand to conquer, forcing ideology and religious dogma. 

Here's a list of what I might call a conscientious theology of welcome when preaching about God's love:

• The first is that preaching a loving God is attractive. It's kind of hard to hate something which loves you back. Which listens and doesn't judge. Which says welcome when all seems unwelcoming. Or you don't measure up to the rules of the game. But e-s-p-e-c-i-a-l-l-y a theology which doesn't judge deficiencies, counts sin, looks at the Scarlet Letter on your forehead, or sets obstacles in front of you to get to God. This doesn't mean we aren't sinners but it does mean we are a lot more than what an austere religion might judge against us.

• Next, preaching God's Love seeks inclusion not exclusion. It is naturally missional and wholly centered in the other by taking in difference and allowing difference to reside with other diversities and dissimilarities. It speaks to cohesion. As illustration, Process Theology not only allows for the racial, gender, ethnic existence and beliefs of "the Other" but provides for equality and fairness in its cultural embrace and loving respect for the Other (whoever that Other is in our lives).

• Process Religions will work this way. And specific process theologies like Process Christianity will share many interfaith or interdenominational ecumenisms with its process brothers and sisters. That is, our fellowship will hold many common foundational elements with one another as we each work together toward shared humanitarian goals. Perhaps these goals may be:

i)  A better visualized humanity (sic, Process Humanism or for myself, a Process-based Christian Humanism being evidenced in progressive evangelical organizations like Red Letter Christians);

ii) Fairer democracies comprised of nurturing equalitarian ecological civilizations;

iii) Promotions of loving temperaments with one another across global societies;

iv) Or, at sites like Relevancy22, one might expect a Christian-form of Process Theology which is centered in God's love and is Jesus centric in the atoning redemption provided to the world who was the Redemptive Midpoint of Salvic History as well as example and model as to how we might think and minister about God.

• Further, a Loving Theology leads with a smile, a handshake, an embrace. It is naturally attractive in its helps, healing, assurance, and welcome to the other. Its transformative power starts (and stays) with the heart, not the head.

• Too, as just mentioned, a theology of a God of Love is Jesus-centered around the incarnational God whom showed us his heart. Not a sword ala the apostle Peter. Not religion, ala the apostle once named Saul who stoned Christians for abandoning the Jewish faith. Not like the unbowed Scribes and Pharisees who eschewed Jesus' salvation (some for good reasons re questions of whether they would be worshipping one or two Gods; but many for reasons of disbelief and works of blasphemy).

• In contrast, the disciple John understood God's love when Thomas did not; or when his fellow disciple Judas fled from God's love losing courage to be love, share love, accept love, forgive self and others, share compassion, thoughtfulness, or let go of himself into belief. Instead, Judas abandoned love and killed himself.

• God's Love is what God is all about. Not power... whether oppressive power, controlling power, or worried power. God is Love. God's power is a derivative of God's Love. God cannot deny who God is. God is Love and Power but God's Love describes God's Power and not the other way around else creation wouldn't be what it is, and is becoming, without Divine Love.

• Hence, God created from love. Sustains in love. Relates in love. Speaks, sings, and flourishes in love. God is wholly about love from which all of God's Self revolves, regenerates, rebirths, and renews.

This is my short list on the God I worship now. Whose songs, poetry, teachings, counsel, and theology I speak to and am in constant wonder not only of my Redeemer, but how my church got it so backwards. So confused. So wrongheaded.

Of a church teaching a God of wrath and judgment and controlling dogma claimed as biblical when it shows itself as not.

Of an oppressing church - whether civilly or religiously - is still oppression. Love does not oppress. It gives, shares, respects, honors, and protects all around, whether human or nature. Love nurtures. Love hugs. Love kisses the other in warm fellowship. Hate cannot and never will. God is Love.

Read the book of 1 John... all of it. And then go back and reread the bible as its narrates its interior struggle with who God is based upon a community's fears and needs. One might say religion has always got it wrong when leading out with a sovereignty build of power and not by love.

Peace,

R.E. Slater

June 14, 2022

1 John 1:1-10 (1 John 1-5)

Introduction, The Incarnate Word

1 What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life— 2 and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us— 3 what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ. 4 These things we write, so that our joy may be made complete.

God Is Light

5 This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all. 6 If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth; 7 but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin. 8 If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us.

Thomas Jay Oord - Free Will is an Experiential Nonnegotiable

9 Reasons to Affirm Free Will

Free Will is an Experiential Nonnegotiable

post link here

by Thomas Oord

March 22nd, 2020

There are strong reasons to believe humans have genuine but limited free will. I believe this, in part, because I experience freedom every day.

In a previous post (click here), I listed 9 reasons it makes sense to affirm that humans have genuine but limited free will. In this post, I address perhaps the most powerful reason: freedom as an experiential nonnegotiable.

Our Freedom is Always Limited

Some people think “freedom” means “the ability to do anything.” So they reject the view. Few if any scholars who affirm free will believe this, however.

Human freedom is always limited. It’s constrained, conditioned, or framed by many sources, both internal and external to the actor. But all humans act as if they are free, even if some deny this verbally.

To be free is to choose, in a particular moment, among a limited number of relevant options. We freely choose as a source or cause of our actions. Free creatures could have chosen something other than what they chose; they could have done otherwise.[1]

I don’t know with certainty that all humans have limited but genuine free will. Absolute certainty about such matters is illusory. Certainty is rare!

But I’m more confident about my freedom than I am about descriptions of humans or even of existence. I’m confident about about free will, because I experience it personally. And I presuppose its veracity in the way I live my life.

We Should Start with the Data We Know Best

We often make mistakes and don’t know much if anything with certainty. So we should have some method in our attempts to make sense of life.

The philosopher Roderick Chisholm recommends what he calls “epistemological particularism.”[2] This method privileges experiences we know best when trying to makes sense of life. It begins with ideas that seem most obvious.

Amazon Link

Epistemological particularism doesn’t claim we can be certain descriptions of our experience are 100% accurate. But we can be more confident in first-person data — especially data inevitably expressed in our living — than data we know from a third-person perspective.

This method should lead us to affirm the reality of human freedom. Of course, some people interpret studies in neuroscience (and other sciences) as indicating humans are not free. For several reasons, I think such interpretations mistaken. But my first step in addressing claims about determinism is to argue we should feel more confident of the truthfulness of first-person data – our inescapable personal experiences – than the data of neuroscience. Scientists obtain neuroscience data through third-person perspectives.

I’m not rejecting neuroscience as a discipline. In my view, neuroscientists should pursue their research with passion. The discipline has generated helpful insights, and I have friends contributing in this field. But we must avoid conclusions the data does not and, I think, could not in principle support. For an accessible philosophical defense of freewill in light of neuroscience research, see Alfred Mele’s work.[3] 

Is Free Will Just Common Sense?

Some call those beliefs that are self-evidently true and inevitably expressed in our actions “common sense.” Philosophers such as Thomas Reid, GE Moore, and Alfred North Whitehead argued for commonsense ideas.[4] In terms of freedom, common sense says we all act freely — at least sometimes.

We use “common sense” to describe ideas that are not inevitably expressed in our lives, however. To some people, for instance, it’s common sense black men should not marry white women. Others think it’s common sense that the New England Patriots are the greatest football team. Some think common sense tells us God controls our lives. Because these ideas are not truly common nor expressed inevitably in our actions, the phrase “common sense” can be misleading and then dismissed as unhelpful or dangerous.

David Ray Griffin distinguishes between ideas some call common sense and what he calls “hard-core” and soft-core commonsense ideas.[5] We inevitably presuppose hard-core commonsense ideas in our practice. We don’t inevitably presuppose soft-core commonsense ideas. Soft-core commonsense ideas might include the (wrong) belief that black men and white women shouldn’t marry, the (debatable) belief that New England has the best football team, or the (arguably harmful) belief that God controls creation.

We can deny soft-core commonsense ideas and still live consistently. Hard-core commonsense ideas cannot consistently be denied in our practice.

Free Will is an Experiential Nonnegotiable

I’ve come to call the ideas that we inescapably live out “experiential nonnegotiables.” We must accept the truth of experiential nonnegotiables if we want to speak adequately about the way the world works.

We contradict ourselves if we say we act one way and then act differently. We commit what Jürgen Habermas calls “performative contradictions:” our performance in life contradicts our statements about what life is like.[6]

In terms of freedom, we contradict ourselves if we claim we are not free and then live as if we act freely. Our words don’t match our actions; we are experiential hypocrites. At least for most humans if not all, genuine but limited freedom is an experiential nonnegotiable.

I could list other experiential nonnegotiables (e.g., there is a world external to myself). Myy point for this essay is the inevitable experience of freedom in our lives provides strong justification to think humans have genuine but limited freedom.

We contradict ourselves if we claim we're not free and then live as if we act freely. We are experiential hypocrites.

NOTES:

[1] For similar understandings of freedom, see Laura W. Ekstrom, “Free Will is Not a Mystery,” in The Oxford Handbook of Free Will, 2nd ed., Robert Kane, ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 366-380; William Hasker, “Divine Knowledge and Human Freedom,” The Oxford Handbook of Free Will, 2nd ed., Robert Kane, ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 40-56; Timothy, O’Connor, “Agent-Causal Theories of Freedom,” in The Oxford Handbook of Free Will, 2nd ed., Robert Kane, ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 309-328 and “The Agent as Cause” Free Will, Robert Kane, ed. (Oxford: Blackwell, 2002); Kevin Timpe, Free Will: Sourcehood and its Alternatives, 2nd ed. (New York: Bloomsbury, 2013).

[2] Roderick M. Chisholm, The Problem of the Criterion (Milwaukee, WI: Marquette University Press, 1973).

[3] Alfred Mele, Free: Why Science Hasn’t Disproved Free Will (Oxford University Press, 2014).

[4] For a brief overview of commonsense philosophy, see “Philosophy of Common Sense,” New World Encyclopedia. http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Philosophy_of_Common_Sense

[5] David Ray Griffin, Unsnarling the World-Knot: Consciousness, Freedom, and the Mind-Body Problem (Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1998), 34, 210.

[6] Jürgen Habermas, “Discourse Ethics: Notes on a Program of Philosophical Justification,” in Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans. C. Lenhardt and S.W. Nicholsen (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1990).

Thomas Jay Oord - A Missional Theology of Love & Peace

God on a Mission: A Missional Theology

article link

Thomas Jay Oord

“Today, salvation has come to this household. For the Son of Man

came to seek and save the lost” (Luke 19:9-10).

Jesus says these words to a rich man, Zacchaeus. But we find the message repeatedly in the Bible that God seeks and saves. The missional adventure these words inspire prompts me to wonder:

What would it mean to believe Jesus’ loving pursuit of the lost – which seems to include you, me, everyone, and everything – tells us something essential about who God is?

This question may seem boring. But upon closer examination, I think it’s revolutionary! In fact, the missional theology emerging from believing God lovingly pursues creation radically alters the status quo.[1]

The God who seeks and saves is a God on a mission!

Overcoming the Status Quo

“Of course, God wants to save us all,” someone might say. “Who would argue otherwise?”

Unfortunately, a host of theological voices in the past and present argue this way. The theology supporting these voices is sometimes hidden or unconscious. But sometimes the not-really-wanting-to-save-all God is explicitly preached.

Let’s start with the easy pickings.

Those who believe God’s sovereignty and election means God predestines some to hell say God doesn’t want to save everyone. At least they would say God’s effective will doesn’t offer salvation to all. They argue for predestination, despite St. Peter’s claim that God is not willing that any should perish but all should come to repentance (2 Pt. 3:9).

Their peculiar interpretation of this verse, in my opinion, undermines their own doctrine of divine sovereignty. I wonder, why isn’t a sovereign God supposedly capable of anything also able to save all?

Those in the Wesleyan tradition walk in step with theologians who reject this view of predestination. Wesleyans, instead, affirm genuine creaturely freedom. In philosophical terms, Wesleyans affirm “libertarian” freedom.[2]

John Wesley stressed the Apostle Paul’s admonition to “work out your own salvation, with fear and trembling, for God is at work in you both to will and to work for God’s good pleasure” (Phil. 2:12). Wesley believes passages such as this one argue that God’s loving action (“prevenient grace”) precedes and makes possible free creaturely responses. He advocates a theology of freedom, not predestination. This freedom has limits, of course. But it is genuine freedom nonetheless.

The God who wants to save all, however, may not actually save all out of respect for creaturely freedom. Wesleyans can affirm a missional theology that says God’s intent is universal salvation. Yet they can also say universal salvation may not occur. After all, free creatures may choose to reject God’s loving invitation. And God respects such decisions, despite their devastating consequences.

God Wants to Save Us?

In criticizing predestination, I picked the easy fruit. I said predestinarians cannot account well for the biblical notion God wants to save us all. But let’s stretch to pick some fruit less often noticed.

Many theologies – at least in their sophisticated forms – affirm an idea at odds with the missional notion God wants to seek and save. They say God lacks nothing whatsoever. God is “without passions,” to use ancient theological language.

Only a needy God, say these theologians, has desires. A perfectly complete God wouldn’t want anything. When the Bible says God seeks us, it isn’t saying God’s love desires or wants.

The Greeks called desiring love “eros.” Today, we unfortunately think of eros in sexual terms. But the original meaning of eros isn’t about sex. Eros love might best be defined as promoting what is good when desiring what is valuable, beautiful, or worthwhile. Eros sees value and seeks to appreciate or enhance it.

In addition to denying divine eros, some theologians believe the doctrine of original sin supports their view God doesn’t really have desires related to creation. Their view of original sin denies that anything good remains in creation. Sin – more particularly, the Fall of Adam and Eve – left creation totally depraved, they say.

A holy God would find nothing valuable in a totally depraved world, say these theologians. In fact, God would not associate with such sinful filth. We hear this argument today, in fact, when some say a holy God cannot be in the presence of sin. A holy God, so this argument goes, cannot relate to unholy people, because sin would taint God’s pure holiness.

To which I say, “Hogwash!” (or utter some other holy expletive)

Jesus Christ best expresses God’s desiring love – even, or especially love for filthy people. Jesus was known for hanging around unholy folk. He earned a reputation for befriending with those of ill repute and ungodly character. He wanted – desired – those sick and broken be healed and whole.

In short, the desire for salvation we see in Jesus reflects the desire we find in God. And vice versa: the desires of God are expressed in the desires Jesus expresses in his missional life. In other words, the incarnation is our best argument that God’s desires are so intense and God’s love so radical “that he gave his only begotten son” (Jn. 3:16a).

A robust missional theology, therefore, returns us to the biblical portrait of a God who desires. While God’s nature is perfect and complete, God’s relational experience and passionate heart include wanting something better: the restoration of God’s leadership of love. God’s salvation derives, at least in part, from eros.

Jesus Wept

Continuing my Christological focus, let’s look at another important issue for missional theology: what the ancients called “divine passability.”

Passability might best be described with contemporary terms like “influence,” “affect,” or “sway.” We certainly see Jesus being influenced, affected, and swayed by others. Jesus was passable.

The shortest verse in Scripture describes Jesus’ passability well: “Jesus wept” (Jn. 11:35). Matthew also reports Jesus had compassion on people, because they were “weary and worn out, like sheep without a shepherd” (9:36). In these instances and others, we find Jesus affected by others.[3]

With skewed views of God’s perfection, some theologians have said God is uninfluenced by others. God is impassable, they argue. God only influences creatures; creatures never influence God. Many classic theologies implicitly adopted Aristotle’s view that God is unmoved.

This vision of an unmoved/uninfluenced/unaffected God doesn’t jibe well with the Bible. The God of Scripture expresses love that both gives and receives. God loves as friend (philia), for instance. When believers respond well to God’s love, we find God rejoicing. When they respond poorly, God is saddened, angry, and even wrathful. According to Scripture, creatures really affect God.

Today, many rightly speak of God’s passability by saying our Savior is the “suffering God.” This suffering was most poignant on the cross. In Christ, God suffers pain and death for the benefit of all. In fact, many theologians agree with Jürgen Moltmann and call the one who seeks and saves, “the crucified God.”[4]

A suffering God – one genuinely affected by creation – is the relational God at the heart of missional theology. The influence creation has upon God does not alter God’s loving nature, of course. We best interpret biblical verses saying there is “no shadow of change” (James 1:17) in God as describing God’s unchanging nature.

But creatures do influence the particular ways God relates to creation. Just as a perfectly loving father always loves his children, that same loving father allows his children to influence him, so he knows how best to love them in specific instances. A living God gives and receives in relationship.

To put it in missional terms, the God who seeks and saves does so to best address the specific ways we need saving! Some of us need saving from alcohol abuse; others need saving from dishonesty; others saving from unhealthy pride. God saves from all sin; but the specific ways God saves are tailor-made for creatures.

Kenosis and Mission

So… God wants to save us all. This is God’s loving desire, the divine eros. And the God of robust missional theology is affected by others. God is relational: both giving to and receiving from creatures. This is neither the God of predestination nor the status quo.

Now it’s time to reach for perhaps the most elusive fruit of all. It’s time to talk about the power of a missional God. We can’t ignore the power issue if we want a robust missional theology. Appealing to utter mystery isn’t helpful.

A number of contemporary theologians consider the Philippian love hymn especially helpful for thinking about God’s sovereignty. To refresh our memory, here’s the key part of that profound praise chorus:

In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness (2:5-7).

Theologians often focus on the Greek word, kenosis, which is translated here, “made himself nothing.” Other translators render kenosis “emptied himself” or “gave of himself.” These translations suggest that Jesus does not overpower or totally control others. Instead, Jesus reveals God’s servant-style power.

Kenosis suggests divine self-limitation. The Bible says Jesus reveals God’s very nature in this kenosis, because Jesus expresses limited power, like a servant.

Perhaps it’s best to say God empowers rather than overpowers. After all, empowering describes servant-style influence better than overpowering or total control. And empowering fits the notion that creatures possess some measure of freedom to respond well or poorly to God. Presumably, God grants power/agency to creatures to make freedom and agency possible. God is our provider.

There are two main ways to talk about God’s self-limitation revealed in Jesus. The first and more common is to say self-limitation is voluntary on God’s part. This view says God could totally control and overpower others. But God voluntarily chooses not to be all determining – at least most of the time. The voluntary self-limitation model says God could totally control others, however, should God so decide.

The main problem with the voluntary divine self-limitation model is the problem of evil. The God who could overpower those who inflict genuine evil should in the name of love. To put it another way, the God who voluntarily self-limits should become un-self-limited to rescue those who suffer needlessly. At least in some cases, God should become un-self-limited to seek and save the lost. Voluntary divine self-limitation cannot provide a satisfactory answer to why God doesn’t prevent unnecessary pain, suffering, and death.

The other way to talk about God’s limited power Jesus reveals says God’s self-limitation is involuntary. It is self-limitation, in the sense that no outside force or factor imposes constraints on God. But it is involuntary, in the sense that God’s power of love derives from God’s own nature.

Because God is love, God never overpowers others. In love, God necessarily provides freedom/agency to others and never completely controls them. God’s loving nature compels God to empower and never overpower others. We might call this “essential kenosis.”

John Wesley endorses involuntarily self-limitation in one of his sermons: “Were human liberty taken away, men would be as incapable of virtue as stones,” Wesley argues. “Therefore (with reverence be it spoken) the Almighty himself cannot do this thing. He cannot thus contradict himself or undo what he has done” (emphases added).[5] God must be God, says Wesley, and God’s nature of love involves giving freedom/agency to others.

Although often unnoticed, the Bible offers examples of things God cannot do. (E.g., God cannot lie; God cannot tempt.) In my view, however, these examples fall under the general category expressed in Paul’s words: “God cannot deny himself” (1 Tim. 2:13). God’s power as involuntary self-limitation says God controlling others entirely – coercion – would require God to deny God’s loving nature. And that’s impossible… even for God.

Of course, affirming involuntary divine self-limitation requires new thinking about doctrines of creation, miracles, and eschatology. But these doctrines can still be affirmed: God is still Creator, miracle-worker, and hope for final redemption. They may need recasting, however, in light of God’s persistently persuasive love. Such recasting is not new to Wesleyans, because they typically try to propose Christian doctrines in light of divine love.[6]

The main point of this section, then, is that the power God exercises in the missional adventure to seek and to save the lost is persuasive power. Missional theologians may prefer one form of divine self-limitation over the other. But they together affirm that God’s power operates through love. God’s kenotic love, revealed in Jesus, is primarily if not exclusively the power of persuasion. God calls instead of controls.

Those called to missions – which includes us all – ought to follow the kenotic example of Jesus: we should express empowering, relational love.

Free, Free, Set Them Free

“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,” said Jesus. Standing in his hometown temple, he continues reading a passage from Isaiah: “he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor” (Lk. 4:18-19).

Among the many ways biblical authors talk about God seeking and saving, the themes of healing and freedom from oppression appear often. Healing and deliverance are part of the well-being/abundant life/favor the Lord generously offers. And we desperately need the well-being – shalom – of God’s salvation.

In a world of brokenness, wholeness breaks in. This wholeness is evident in the local church I attend, in which a robust Celebrate Recovery ministry has emerged. Those in this group believe God empowers them to overcome hurts, habits, and hang-ups. God is their deliverer. Through this and other avenues in the church, many find God’s healing and deliverance.

The Apostle Paul says liberation comes from the Spirit and becomes effective through Jesus. “The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and death,” he says (Rm. 8:2). In this liberation, we see God again empowering us in ways that provide salvation from destruction.

A look at the overall scope of Scripture leads one to believe humans are the focus of God’s seeking and saving. But the Bible also says God cares about nonhumans. In fact, Scripture says God intends to redeem all things. “The whole creation” hopes to be “set free from its bondage to decay and will obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God” (Rm. 8:21-22).

We play a vital role in this mission. We can be co-laborers with God’s work for the redemption of all things. God acts first to call, empower, and guide us in love – prevenient grace. But God seeks our cooperation. This becomes clear in the Revised Standard Version’s translation of Romans 8:28: “We know that in everything God works for good with those who love him” (emphases added).

We can work for good with God. The healing and deliverance God has in mind involves our participation.

Love is on the Move

A God on a mission is a God on the move. And love is the primary and persistent intent of our God-on-the-move. A robust missional theology is a theology of love.

To love is to act intentionally, in response to God and others, to promote overall well-being. God’s initial and empowering action makes response possible. We live in community with others to whom we also respond. We are not isolated individuals, and God desires the common good.

God’s love establishes the God’s kingdom – or what I call God’s loving leadership. Here again, it is through Jesus we believe such things. Jesus preached God’s loving leadership as both possible and actual here in this life. And he proclaimed its fulfillment in the life to come.

As a young child, I learned a chorus I now sing to my kids. It derives from 1 John 4:7-8: “Beloved, let us love one another. For love is from God, and everyone that loves is born of God and knows God. The one that doesn’t love doesn’t know God, for God is love.” John says our best clue about what love entails is this: God sent Jesus.

The God who seeks and saves is revealed best in Jesus Christ. This God of love desires that all creation live shalom. God works powerfully through love to fulfill this desire, and we are invited to join in this love project. The result is the healing, restoration, and liberation of all held captive to sin and death. This holy God revealed best in Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection is on a mission of love.

John takes these truths about God, love, and Jesus a bit further and concludes with this logic: “Since God loved us so much, we also ought to love one another” (4:11). Thankfully God makes love possible, says John: “We love, because he first loved us” (4:19). The empowering God enables us to love.

A missional theology supporting the endeavor to seek and save the lost is not based primarily on an evangelistic canvassing strategy. Nor is it based primarily upon duty and obedience to God. It’s not even based primarily upon worship. Strategies, obedience, and worship are all important. But missional theology is based primarily on love.

We ought to be “imitators of God, as dearly love children, and life a life of love, just as Christ loved us...” (Eph. 5:1, 2a). This missional ethic emphasizes generosity, listening and speaking, both influencing and being influenced by, enabling, mutuality, and community. It’s a strategy that cares for the least of these and all creation.

In short: God loves us, and we ought to love one another. We ought to imitate God’s full-orbed love – agape, eros, and philia as we cooperate with God’s mission to seek and save the lost.

The God on a mission invites us on an adventure of love.

Questions

• In your opinion, what in the theological status quo needs to be changed?

• How important is it that creatures are genuinely free and the Creator is not in complete control?

• What does it mean for discipleship to believe God empowers rather than overpowers?

• What does it mean to say we can and should imitate God by living lives of love?

Recommended Reading

Gregory Boyd, God of the Possible (Grand Rapids, Mi.: Baker Books, 2000).

Philip Clayton, Transforming Christian Theology: For Church and Society (Philadelphia: Fortress, 2009).

Brint Montgomery, Thomas Jay Oord, and Karen Winslow, Relational Theology: A Contemporary Introduction (San Diego, Ca.: Point Loma Press, 2012).

Thomas Jay Oord, The Nature of Love: A Theology (St. Louis, Mo.: Chalice, 2010).

Thomas Jay Oord and Michael Lodahl, Relational Holiness: Responding to the Call of Love (Kansas City, Mo.: Beacon Hill, 2005).

Index

[1] For a short and accessible introduction to the gospel of love, see the evangelistic book I co-wrote with Robert Luhn, The Best News You Will Ever Hear (Boise, ID: Russell Media, 2011).

[2] The distinction about forms of freedom is necessary, because some predestinarians say they affirm creaturely freedom but also the idea God alone decides the chosen few who will be saved. They are, to use the philosophical language, “compatiblists,” at least when it comes to issues of salvation.

[3] For an accessible theology of holiness from a relational perspective, see the book I wrote with Michael Lodahl, Relational Holiness: Responding to the Call of Love (Kansas City, Mo.: Beacon Hill, 2005).

[4] Jürgen Moltmann, The Crucified God: The Cross of Christ as the Foundation and Criticism of Christian Theology (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1993; New York: HarperCollins, 1991; London: SCM, 1974).

[5] John Wesley, “On Divine Providence,” Sermon 67, The Works of John Wesley, vol. 2 (Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon, 1985) paragraph 15.

[6] See, for instance, my book, The Nature of Love: A Theology (St. Louis, Mo.: Chalice, 2010).

[7] For an exploration of a Wesleyan doctrine of creation, see Michael Lodahl, God of Nature and of Grace: Reading the World in a Wesleyan Way (Nashville, Tenn.: Kingswood, 2003).

[8] I explain the details of this definition from philosophical, scientific, and theological perspectives in my book, Defining Love: A Philosophical, Scientific, and Theological Engagement (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Brazos, 2010).