A Premier on "Open & Relational Theology " - Part 1. The God of Evolution

I am participating in Homebrewed Christianity's course discussing Open and Relational Theology over a six week period. It is hosted by Thomas Jay Oord and Tripp Fuller. Those interested may go to their website to join. Below is a small part of our opening discussion from the evangelical theologian Clark Pinnock who began writing in this area in the 1980s. His backstory is that of a fundamentalist become overtaken with a new outlook on the bible from his former days of seminary training and teaching. In many ways Pinnock's story mimics my own as I came to realize there was more to God and the bible than what I had carefully crafted and learned over many years. I've taken the liberty to update Pinnock's thoughts while adding my own language and understanding within its discussion. As such, this is an abridged commentary of Pinnock's discourse.

R.E. Slater

March 12, 2019
revised March 14, 2019

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Thomas Jay Oord – Creation Made Free: Open Theology Engaging Science

Chapter 6 – Clark Pinnock – Evangelical Theology after Darwin

Abridged Commentary by R.E. Slater

INTRODUCTION

Accepting evolution does not require abandoning belief in God. As a scientific theory it is the best scientific model out there for making sense of observable phenomena from every direction we turn our minds. Anti-Intellectualism is evolution’s chief opponent. Historically, evolution is generally accepted by Catholics after the Galileo debacle of the 17^th century yet Protestants are still debating its plausibility.

Pure Reductive, Scientific Materialism opposes God-based evolution (theistic evolution). It has problems with creaturely freedom, an open future with free choices, self-transcendence, creativity, perception of the aesthetic, moral and religious values, and so forth.

1 THEISTIC EVOLUTION

Any doctrine of God must immediately account for the general theory of evolution. This is a basic axiom. If it does not it is incomplete. In the paragraphs which follow some of the major (doctrinal) themes of the bible will be interwoven into the discussion to illustrate how this might be done.

Preliminary thoughts regarding Theistic Evolution state: i) God does not impose a rigid plan on creation’s development; ii) God does, and will, experiment with different and sundry possibilities. In fact, it is built into evolution’s DNA; iii) God remains the source of all creaturely possibilities; iv) There is no coercion (or pre-determined “plan”) placed upon creation or upon its ultimate destiny (sic, its “telos”) – evolution is free to create on its own. As example, consider the corollary of raising children – they may be taught but they will usually create on their own with no fixed outcome of the parent; v) The process is adaptive. It is, and is becoming, a reality other than Godself; vi) Lastly, it has no divine constraint on its process.

Consider Natural Theology which was formerly focused on divine design (example, the human eye) rather than being focused on grander outcomes (example, quantum physics) which sees the universe unfinished, always evolving, always indefinitely in progress/process without end, and requiring a lot of time to realise its promise. God has seeded the world of evolution with possibilities; He has given the cosmos, the earth, and humanity a vast potential for life.

Evolutionary Creation must work together with both i) invariant lawfulness and contingent happenings along with ii) randomness with corresponding new possibilities. Each of these spectrums all held in-tension with one another. It could be said that evolution’s process is composed of fundamental elements such as lawfulness, contingency, randomness, and possibility all mixed together in the batch of deep time. This process can be known yet unexplained; studied yet a mystery; but always held in deep relation to each other’s orbit. Throughout all of evolution’s unfolding process as the cosmos, the world, and life unfolds, we may expect to find the mutuality and relationality of the Social Trinity of the God of love in continual partnership, guidance, and engagement. In essence, God experiences creation much as we do but in an infinite sense.

2 EVOLUTION & DIVINE PROVIDENCE

Evolution should not lead us to deism (sic, the absent Creator model) or to a form of Calvinism which regards God as ever-tinkering with His divine model - or disrupting or adjusting it – with regards to creation’s initiating process. Rather, God has both a vision and a hope for what the world may become and does not need a fixed divine “plan” to sovereignly overrule creation’s unfolding events. Because of this, the Open and Relational model (OR/ORT) understands evolution as God’s sovereign design of embedding an open and dynamic ontological character into creation itself through the process of evolution. This ontological character then bespeaks of the very nature of God Himself which is embedded in evolution as it morphs and changes and creates ever new possibilities. In itself evolution has no choice but to move forward on its own without need for a determinative outcome to which other theological systems subscribe. It is complete in itself without requiring divine interventionism or coercion as it began from the heart of the God wishing to share Himself.

This then should bring a solace to the human breast. That God’s love is neither forcible nor coercive in relation to His creative design within the foundations of evolution. Consequently God’s sovereignty is at once undergirded by His grace and love which partners and participates in redemptive engagement with His creation. In contrast, the determinative model requires forcible divine omnipotence (power) to rule whereas the Open and Relational model disclaims divine omnipotence in favor of divine non-coercive love (or, non-omnipotence) to guide, participate, and engage creation’s processes.

This means then that we and creation may shape our own future fully and freely within our bounds and abilities to create. In this sense evolution is biased in the direction of complexity and consciousness. God allows for experimentation, risk taking, room for novelty, and flexibility. God may have a purpose but He does not predetermine the future. It is truly open without determinative outcome. Divine purpose does not imply divine determination.

Firstly, Divine Providence does not guarantee orderliness. Rather, disorderliness is very much a central part of creation’s process. It is good but unfinished. Some creatures adapt, some do not. A static cosmos is a lifeless/mindless cosmos.

Secondly, what we call “accidents” in nature are actuality instances of adaptation, novelty, and freedom to try something different from the present order of things. Novelty must include and allow for trial-and-error. Ontological chance thus allows for real randomness with infinite possibilities.

Thirdly, evolution can be orderly though complexly organized yet allowing for an intensification of consciousness over the course of its process as its Creator-God guides the cosmos towards a positive future. This divine direction is most likely imbued within the very fabric of evolution itself rather than as a moment-by-moment “directive” feature. As the Spirit of God breathes life into creation it lures the world to greater and greater complexity and consciousness. God is ever guiding the emerging universe and is the source of serendipitous creativity everywhere.

Evolution is compatible with the (essential) kenotic model of providence in which God self-limits Himself for the sake of love. God does not coerce obedience but participates with creation while respecting its freedom to be and to become. Open and Relational theology understands this idea as the God who is always willing to risk.

3 THE GOD OF EVOLUTION & SIN

The argument of evolution by design, though popular, is spurious. Creation is as much orderly as it is disorderly. The role of predation and violence is a necessary part of its becoming. This process is otherwise known as a necessary and imperfect adaptation within evolutionary creation which has a long history of wasteful experimentations. Paradoxically, the present orderly façade of nature masks epochs of suffering alongside epochs of amazing creativity. Then why does God allow such suffering and waste in the process of evolution?

Part of the answer lies in the fact that sin is a part of the freedom God has endowed creation with… Divine justice (theodicy) allows for sin while adjusting to its presence for optimal outcome over sin. Thus God’s self-sacrificing love is ultimately bourne through His redemption of the world in Christ Jesus. His grace becomes His suffering. It is not done in divine isolation but in full relationship to all of creation’s being, hope, and promise. In this way does divine imbuement of creation through divine redemption provide creation with a future of completeness and fullness with its Creator God. All living and dying things readily share in the suffering death of our living God as well as the redemptive hope this death has provided.

The gospel is about a new creation which will end violence, suffering and death. Not only for man but for all of creation. We live in an unfinished world with a future full of unrealised possibilities. Evolution opens the future up as God calls to the cosmos to reach beyond itself to become a fully new creation without sin in its substance. As such, the cosmic journey is heading somewhere – it is not a pointless process. That somewhere is towards a cosmic redemption. Christianity’s mission is to share this hope for a better world.

4 GOD AND HUMANITY

Evolution is the story of the emergence of the soul gradually producing creatures more self-conscious, free, and able to love. God’s Spirit is present in all life proportionate to its complexity. The emergence of the human soul is not an exception to the animating process of evolution but an intense example of it. At this point in evolutionary history humans may be the only species endowed with heightened qualities more distinct than animals - some of which bear these same qualities in a less heightened state. But this should not be expected to remain the same as homo sapiens as a species comes, and goes, and is replaced in the long history of evolution.

Regarding morality, “survival of the fittest” may be part of a reductive, materialistic theory but it doesn’t take us very far along the pathway of God as a theistic theory of evolution does. The rise of cultures and religions represents a new evolutionary stage is the cosmic story. We may therefore expect it to reduce the power of natural selection for a time as social institutions, laws, customs and beliefs act to protect (or not protect) the weak, the unfit, etc. In the area of ethics even the unfit get the opportunity to survive.

Regarding original sin, we can recognize the concept without purporting or ascribing to it its biblical legacy recounted in the story of Genesis. Unlike many other biblical doctrines, sin, as a concept,  is a truth well attested to empirically throughout the cosmic and human story. Essentially, the doctrine of sin testifies to the truth that creation - as well as humans - are estranged from God and need a Savior. That all things everywhere are deeply flawed because of sin. Only God can save us. Or rather, redeem us. This is the concept of original sin without requirement for a single human couple, a garden, a possessed snake, and so forth.

Unlike Reductive Materialism, Theistic Evolution requires the need for a cosmic Christology, whereas Reductionism or Materialism does not. Jesus has defeated the powers of darkness and has begun to set the universe right. God’s power and love are radiating throughout the whole world revealing the magnitude of His redemptive love. Hence, theistic evolution should stimulate us to recover the themes of a cosmic Christology. It can be the occasion for a renewed and expanded Christology. In short, Jesus is the guarantee that the self-transcendence of creation will come to pass because it has already come to pass in Christ. Jesus is therefore the start of a new cosmology. Restated, history is headed towards redemption with-or-without the human species.

5 EVOLUTION AND THE CHRISTIAN HOPE

Evolution is a very big story. The universe has been advancing and evolving in the direction of increasingly organized complexity for a very long time. It has passed through many stages over many aeons and is now at work guiding human communities towards a redemptive future. During its course societal consciousness has grown in proportion to the increase in organized social and physical complexity (such as a social/spiritual morality, ethics, the human body and mind, etc.).

The end goal of evolution is what Teilard de Chardin called the Omega Point: Essentially, “things are going somewhere.” In theistic terms, God is drawing the whole universe to Himself. Historical time is always moving towards a good and redemptive ends. It began with the physical geo-sphere, has continued through the biological bio-sphere and is moving towards the heart of humanity, the soul of man – the noo-sphere. This is the direction to the story of evolution even though the text will meander in its long journey.

Creation is becoming newer and newer in its unstoppable process of becoming whatever it will become both in the near future and the far future beyond. It is restless. It is pregnant with hope. We must not expect that God will preserve some state of “status quo” nor be a deity of coercive rather than persuasive power from which order and novelty arise. God’s world is a world open to possibility yet ever driving towards a new creation in Christ. We may then see in evolution an intensification of God’s consciousness into the cosmos. This is a most salient point full of possibilities. But within this divine consciousness God has left the future undetermined. Creation is free to create any future it wishes to move towards. We live in a truly open future moving towards the redemption God has provided the cosmos through Christ.

Nor does God force the universe into a rigid design but calls creation to listen and follow His voice. God has made a world in which chance and randomness exist alongside order because God values order and novelty. Even random occurrences play a role in an unfinished and open universe. The present order is continually moving away from its older order to make way for a newer order. True, suffering, pain, death, are a part of this journey but as Christians we trust and believe that the power of God’s love will prove more influential than coercive, deterministic power. Nature’s beauty, vitality and creativity are intimations of this new creation and the promises of God’s love.

Lastly, ours is a world that gives joy to God while giving joy to creation itself. In giving Himself away God has added valuable experiences from His life to ours. God’s love is self-giving. It is also self-realizing. His love grants new kinds of value, freedom, and community. Certainly such a world adds value to God’s divine experience even as it does to creation itself or to our experiences. Ours is a world capable of becoming the Kingdom of God. The purpose of our lives is to carry forward the values of the divine spark of creation. Sin is the refusal to participate in this arrangement. We may think of the Omega Point not as a rigid goal but as God’s vision for the world and what it may become as He calls forth the possibilities that are inherent in the very fabric of the cosmic order He has created.

Abridged Commentary: Clark Pinnock by R.E. Slater

Sources:

Amazon Link

A Final Farewell by Clark Pinnock and Tribute to Open Theology

Pinnock, Alzheimer’s, and Open Theology

http://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/archives/pinnock_alzheimers_and_open_theology/#.UXBqrKKsiSo

 

by Thomas Jay Oord

March 24, 2013

 

I received sad news in an email recently: Clark Pinnock is suffering from Alzheimer’s disease. Clark sent John Sanders and me the following note:

 

Dear Tom and John:

 

I want to inform you that I am now middle stage Alzheimer’s. I will not be able to do my writing etc. I am 73 years now, and I've enjoyed my biblical three score and ten. I am not bitter. I have had a good life. I'll meet you over Jordan if not before.

 

You are free to make this news known.

 

With love,

 

Clark

 

Clark Pinnock is a theological giant in our day. His influence has been great, especially in Evangelical circles. This news of Alzheimer’s disease indicates that his active contribution to theology will now diminish if not cease.

 

Pinnock’s personal theological journey has been intriguing. He moved from affirming a more or less conventional and/or fundamentalist view of God to the Open view he considers more faithful to the biblical witness.

 

In this journey, Pinnock consistently considered the Bible his primary source for theology. He gave particular weight to biblical narrative and the language of personal relationships found in Scripture. Although he rejected a Fundamentalist view of the Bible, he remained committed to honoring the Bible as his principal authority for theology.

 

Open theology offers a coherent doctrine of God, says Pinnock, in which each divine attribute “should be compatible with one another and with the vision of God as a whole.” For instance, Pinnock wishes to offer a vision of the God who “combines love and power perfectly.” Unless the portrait of God compels, he says, the “credibility of belief in God is bound to decline.”

 

Open theology as Pinnock presents it depicts God as a self-sufficient, though relational, Trinitarian being. God graciously relates to the world as one self-limited out of respect for the genuine freedom of creatures. Creatures genuinely influence God. God is transcendent and immanent, has changing and unchanging aspects, gives to and receives from others, is present to all things, and has supreme power. God’s love, says Pinnock, includes responsiveness, generosity, sensitivity, openness, and vulnerability.

 

Open theology rejects traditional theologies that portray God as an aloof monarch. Influential theologians of yesteryear often portrayed God as completely unchangeable, ultimately all determining, and irresistible. By contrast, Pinnock says the biblical vision presents a loving God who seeks relationship with free creatures. “The Christian life involves a genuine interaction between God and human beings,” he says. “We respond to God’s gracious initiatives and God responds to our responses... and on it goes.”

 

The future is not entirely settled, according to Open theology. This means that while God knows all possibilities, God does not know with certainty what free creatures will actually do until creatures act. Classic views of God’s foreknowledge are incompatible with creaturely freedom, says Pinnock. “If choices are real and freedom significant,” he argues, “future decisions cannot be exhaustively known.”

 

Open theology does affirm that God is all knowing. God knows all things knowable. Believers should not understand divine omniscience as the idea God possesses exhaustive foreknowledge of all future events, says Pinnock. After all, future possible events are not yet actual.

 

Biblical evidence for Open theology’s view of omniscience comes in many forms. Dozens of biblical passages, for instance, record God saying “perhaps.” This uncertainty [allowance for free will interaction on the part of man - res] on God’s part means the future remains open, and not completely certain [knowable; nor is it necessary that it be knowable - res]. The Bible also says God makes various covenants. These covenants suggest God does not know with certainty everything to occur in the future. God often asks Israel to choose one course of action over another.

 

For instance, Jeremiah records God offering two possible futures for Israel: “If you will indeed obey this word, then through the gates of this house shall enter kings who sit on the throne of David…. But if you will not heed these words, I will swear by myself, says the LORD, that this house shall become a desolation” (Jer. 22: 4-5). God’s particular course of future action depends in part upon Israel’s choice. God apparently does not know with certainty what Israel’s choice will be. Other Old Testament passages exhibit covenant language in which the future is yet to be decided, and God does not know with certainty what will actually occur.

 

God cannot be in all ways timeless, say Open theologians. We best conceive of God’s experience as temporally everlasting rather than timelessly eternal. To say God is in all ways timeless implies God is totally actualized, immutable, impassible, and outside of time and sequence. Such a God is static and aloof, says Pinnock, not relational and responsive. The temporally everlasting Lord is the Living God of the Bible.

 

Those who embrace conventional theology have difficulty accepting Open theology. This difficulty arises because Open theology challenges certain well-established traditions, argues Pinnock, not because it opposes the Bible. Open theology themes appear throughout the biblical witness: “the idea of God taking risks, of God’s will being thwarted, of God being flexible, of grace being resistible, of God having a temporal dimension, of God being impacted by the creature, and of God not knowing the entire future as certain.”

 

One of Open theology’s greatest assets is its fit with Christian experience. It addresses well the demands of ordinary life and practices of the saints. “It is no small point in favor of the openness model,” Pinnock argues, “that it is difficult to live life in any other way than the way it describes.”

 

Open theology releases people to live their lives meaningfully, says Pinnock. “As individuals we are significant in God’s eyes… the things we do and say, the decisions and choices we make, and our prayers all help shape the future.” Our lives and life-decisions really matter.

 

Open theology is preferable in other ways. It points to a friendship with God possible in cooperative relationship. Most conventional theologies implicitly or explicitly reject friendship with God. Open theology emphasizes the reality of freedom we all presuppose. Many conventional theologies directly or indirectly reject creaturely freedom vis-à-vis God.

 

Open theology corresponds with our intuition that love ought to be persuasive rather than coercive. It emphasizes sanctification in the sense of growth in grace and decisive moments. Open theology corresponds with the view that God calls and empowers growth in Christ-likeness.

 

Christians should especially prefer Open theology to conventional theology on the issue of petitionary prayer. Most Christians believe their prayers make a difference to God, including influencing at least sometimes how God acts. Pinnock argues that petitionary prayer does not genuinely influence now the God who foreordains and/or foreknows all things. Petitionary prayer cannot change an already settled future.

 

“People pray passionately when they see purpose in it, when they think prayer can make a difference and that God may act because of it,” argues Pinnock. “There would not be much urgency in our praying if we thought God’s decrees could not be changed and/or that the future is entirely settled.”

 

Above all, Open theology emphasizes love as God’s chief attribute and priority for theological construction. “God created the world out of love and with the goal of acquiring a people who would, like a bride, freely participate in his love.” Love was God’s goal, and giving freedom the means to that goal. “God is inviting us to join in his own ongoing Trinitarian communion and conversation,” says Pinnock. God “wants us to join in and share the intimacy of his own divine life.”

 

God’s loving nature is unchanging, but God’s experience, knowledge, and action change in the divine give-and-take of interactive loving relationship. “The living God is . . . the God of the Bible,” says Pinnock, “the one who is genuinely related to the world, whose nature is the power of love, and whose relationship with the world is that of a most moved, not unmoved, Mover.”

 

Because of this, Open theology “is a model of love.”

 

 

*Comments mine own - R.E. Slater (res)

 

 

 

Yet Another Great Book to Read: "Creation Made Free - Open Theology Engaging Science"

Creation Made Free:

Open Theology Engaging Science

 

 

Comments

 

Open Theology offers an advantageous framework for engaging the sciences. With its emphasis upon creaturely freedom, relationality, realist epistemology, and love, Open Theology makes a fruitful dialogue partner with leading fields and theories in contemporary science.

 

In Creation Made Free, leading proponents of open theism explore natural and social scientific dimensions of reality as these dimensions both inform and are informed by Open Theology. Important themes addressed include evolution, creation ex nihilo, emergence theory, biblical cosmology, cognitive linguistics, quantum theory, and forgiveness.

“One of the most significant theological movements of our day, Open theism bridges evangelical commitment and mainline concerns. The leading Open theists come together in these pages to listen and to respond to the sciences. In their respect for the empirical results and their resistance to flat-footed naturalism, these essays model the 'creative mutual interaction' of theology and science in its most sophisticated form.

 

- Philip Clayton, Ingraham Professor, Claremont School of Theology

“Open Theology presents a more mutual interactive account of God's relationship to creation than that given by classical theology. The essays in Creation Made Free provide a wide-ranging survey of the diversity, promise, and problems of this important twentieth-century development in theological insight.”

- Revd John Polkinghorne, KBE, FRS


About the Author
Visit Amazon's Thomas Jay Oord Page

Thomas Jay Oord is Professor of Theology at Northwest Nazarene University in Nampa, Idaho. He is the author of numerous books, including A Turn to Love (2009).

 

Thomas Jay Oord is a theologian, philosopher, and scholar of multi-disciplinary studies. He is the author or editor of about twenty books, and he is professor at Northwest Nazarene University, in Nampa, Idaho. Oord is known for his contributions to research on love, altruism, open and relational theology, issues in science and religion, Wesleyan/Holiness/Church of the Nazarene thought, New Evangelical theology, and postmodernism. He is or has been president of several scholarly societies. Oord blogs frequently at his website: http://thomasjayoord.com

 

 

About the Book

 

Amazon Listing

http://www.amazon.com/Creation-Made-Free-Theology-Engaging/dp/1606084887/ref=tmm_pap_title_0 

• Paperback: 280 pages
• Publisher: Pickwick Publications (2009)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 1606084887
• ISBN-13: 978-1606084885

 

 

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

 

5.0 out of 5 stars Creation Made Free a solid contribution to open theology March 27, 2010

By Cambria Hunter

Format:Paperback

 

Creation Made Free is a solid contribution to the study of open theology engaging science. Tom Oord has done a superb job assembling expert contributors to this important work. I highly recommend it to anyone who hails from a theological tradition that has failed to address God's desire for a significantly free creation. Creation made free is a book that opens the door to biblically based possibilities that may not be discussed in classical theism. Readers will benefit from wide ranging discussions in cosmology, evolution, creation, epistemology and practical theology. In short, you get a lot of bang for your buck!

On a personal level I have always struggled to bridge the gap between science and faith with my understanding never going beyond the surface. In Creation Made Free, Tom Oord invites his readers into four major discussions that include very helpful introductory remarks. The information found in each section will challenge both the academic and the novice. Common misunderstandings are dealt with along with the dreaded myth-information that swirls about open theism. I personally have benefited from this book, and I think you will too. Best of all, I came away with renewed appreciation for God's significantly free creation and love for the one who made it so.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *
 

4.0 out of 5 stars Exploring the Intersections of Open Theism and Modern Science May 28, 2011

By Brian

Format:Paperback

Creation Made Free is a book edited by Thomas Jay Oord that explores the intersections of open theism and modern science. Thirteen different theologians reflect on different aspects of this topic, so this book is beautifully nuanced. (I'm very biased in favor of edited books because of the diversity of thought.) While this book diverges from its focus on science from time to time, it's theological reflection is refreshingly insightful and evocative without being overly academic or pedantic. Therefore this book is worth a brief-yet-comprehensive review/overview.

 

Karen Winslow argued that "the earth is not a planet" in the Bible (26). When the authors of Genesis write about "all the land" they are not talking about planet earth. Instead they are describing the limited part of the world that they knew. So, for example, the big flood would not have destroyed the entire earth in a global sense, it would have simply destroyed the entire world of the author. Winslow uses this info to make her ultimate point: the scientific knowledge of the authors of Scripture was very different than the scientific knowledge of modern people. The authors were writing out of a different context as well as writing for a different context. Therefore Winslow said: "To try to force the Bible into categories of modern science creates an unnecessary opposition between theology and science" (24). After removing the awkwardness between the science of the modern and ancient worlds, she drives home her point about what that means for our reading of Scripture today: "Recognizing and appreciating what the Bible does not say is as important as understanding what it does say" (27).

 

Thomas Jay Oord tried to reconcile science and open theism by suggesting that God works through the process of evolution in a way that is "slow, indirect, and sometimes painful" (36). He suggests that Jesus revealed a God who is "self-sacrificial and non-coersive" and therefore "does not overrule or dominate creatures" (35). God gives humans - and all living things - freewill and agency. This freedom brings with it the risk of evil happening since God doesn't force anyone or anything to do the right thing. While God is the most powerful being in the universe, God doesn't invade the integrity of other creatures out of God's self-giving love for the creatures. Here Oord tried to walk a fine line between process theology and his own open theism.

 

Michael Lodahl wrote about how Christianity is more open to the scientific worldview than Islam due to Islam's higher understanding of God's sovereignty. Islam tends to be committed to the absolute sovereignty of God. While the Quran gives humanity some agency over their lives (58), the Quran is also understood as a perfect revelation by an all-powerful God to a passive people. Lodahl then argued that such an understanding of God "surely undercuts the scientific endeavor" (65). He then went on to argue that Christianity is able to support the view of open theism because the incarnation (God in the form of a dynamic human) and Holy Spirit (God's presence in our midst). For Lodahl, open theism makes Christianity more supportive of modern science than theologies like Islam that hold to the idea that God's power is absolute.

 

Anne Case-Winters argued that God's ongoing presence in the world means that the world is continuing to be created and re-created by God. For her, the "incarnation is not the exception to the rule but the sign of what is really the case about God's relation to the world" (71). God has been and always will be present and active in the world. This point is important for Case-Winters because she argues that God creates and sustains the world through "the processes of the natural order" (82). In and through all things, God beckons each creature away from evils and toward their best potential. In some ways, this essay seemed to be suggesting that process theology is better than open theism.

 

Brint Montgomery wrote about how "God functions as Cosmic Mind after the creation of an ordered, material universe" (97). This essay was the least relevant and evocative in the book.

 

Clark Pinnock argued that God creates and re-creates the world through the process of evolution. He rejects the idea of "episodic divine interventions" because it brings back a "god of the gaps" (103). Instead he upholds the idea that God is continually active and creating. He wrote: "Evolution is opening the future up as God is calling the universe to reach beyond itself to a new creation" (108). Because God is always re-creating the world, each moment is "pregnant with hope" (110). Pinnock ends with an evocative thought: "Ours is a world capable of becoming the kingdom of God." The purpose of our lives is to carry forward the values of the divine project. Sin is the refusal to participate in it. One can think of the omega point, not as a rigid goal, but as God's vision for the world and what the process can become" (110).

Craig Boyd suggested that the earth isn't a perfect, static world, but instead, it's a good, dynamic creation where God is continually at work. For him, evolution is the story about how God creates and re-creates the world. As creatures act and react, God needs to adjust and readjust the vision for the journey forward. He ended by writing: "Creation is more like a song that begins with a simple melody. As it continues, the musicians improvise here and there with variations on the theme...God's song of creation is a song open to possibility, novelty, and ever-increasing goodness and beauty" (124).

 

Gregory Boyd argued that "evolution may be seen as a sort of warfare between the life-affirming creativity of an all-good God, on the one hand, and the on-going corrupting influence of malevolent cosmic forces on the other" (127). Boyd's reflections were the most judgemental, including two places where he said readers need to agree with him in order to be biblical (132, 139). This essay went too far down the doctrinaire rabbit hole.

 

Alan Rhoda wrote about God's decision to give humans freewill and the subsequent openness of the future because of that choice. Instead of a determined future, there is a "branching array of possible futures" (151). Rhoda goes on to propose analogies that describe God's relationship to the world: Theatre Director (brings out the best in the actors), Discussion Leader (helps students explore wisdom), Persian Rug-Maker (adapts the design as needed), Master Composer (helps autonomous musicians to find harmony together), and Expedition Leader (brings tools and resources - including the ability to change plans). Rhoda then used game theory to suggest that God plays games with many different people, with many different skill levels, so the strategy that God uses to play the game is different in each new game. The one constant feature in this game theory analogy is that God wants to find a win-win for every game. Clearly all of these analogies are used to illustrate the creativity and rationality of God with humanity.

 

Alan Padgett argued that God's knowledge is supreme (without knowing the future) and God's providence is powerful (without being coercive). In this essay, Padgett adds some much needed nuance to the discussion of God's foreknowledge and sovereignty.

 

Richard Rice used his essay to suggest that God's forgiveness of humanity demonstrates God's ability to resourcefully bring about transformation. God isn't naive. Bad things happen. But God is able to forgive people for their sins and then bring about change for the better. This means "the future is always open to new possibilities" (214). By emphasizing God's ability to bring about transformation, "Open theism keeps open the possibility of a future in which God's purposes for all God's children are fullfilled" (217). In the end, forgiveness is the foundation for hope.

 

John Sanders wrote about how we come to know, understand, and describe God through our embodiment as creatures. There are many different kinds of metaphors for God in the Bible but most of them are personal, relational metaphors. He then argued that "mutual relationships are the ideal form of relationship between God and humans" in Scripture (233). People seem to relate best to images of God as personal. Sanders used a quote from John Calvin to make his point: "God cannot reveal Godself to us in any other way than by comparison with things we know" (219). Humans relate well to a humanly God.

 

Dean Blevins argued that the continuously emerging world is a result of the ongoing transformations that God brings about through God's loving relationship with the world. Out of God's love for the world, God is intimately involved in the world, even at the quantum level. Our relationship with God is based on "co-relationality" and a "co-determinative" process whereby the world is co-created with God. In this process, God is aways leading us toward creative transformations in the future.

Creation Made Free is a great book for exploring Christianity's relationship to science, introducing open theism in general, or comparing process theology to open theism. If none of those topics seem worth exploring, then this would be a very boring book. But if any - or all - of those topics sound intriguing, then this book just might be an edge-of-your-seat theological thriller. Since I experienced this book as a thriller, I hope there will soon be a sequel!

 

 

 

Tributes to Clark Pinnock (Boyd, Olson, McKnight)

Clark Pinnock Has Finished The Race!
http://www.gregboyd.org/blog/clark-pinnock-has-finished-the-race/

By Greg Boyd
August 16th, 2010

I just received word that Clark Pinnock has finished his race. He passed away Sunday afternoon. Please keep his precious wife Dorthey and their family and friends in prayer.

Clark was an absolutely brilliant thinker, a humble and gracious kingdom servant, a loving husband and father, and a dear friend. Through his writings, teachings and personal relationships, Clark impacted more lives than he could have imagined. I’m certain his work will continue to impact lives and bear fruit until the Lord returns.

What I appreciated most about Clark was his epistemological humility and intellectual integrity. While he held fast to the faith, Clark was always acutely aware that he was a fallible pilgrim “on the way.” To the chagrin of many who consider themselves the guardians of (what they define as) orthodoxy, Clark was always willing to reconsider long-held views. Indeed, Clark was one of those exceptionally rare academics who are humble enough to publicly admit when they’ve changed their mind about a matter. While I happen to agree with Clark on many (but not all) of the particular theological conclusions he arrived at, it was the humble and gracious way Clark thought and conducted himself that most impressed me.

I and multitudes of others are deeply indebted to this humble scholar. We will miss him, and I personally look forward to our upcoming reunion.

Maranatha!

Greg

* * * * * * * * * *

My brief essay on Clark Pinnock (from The Word Made Fresh event)

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2011/11/my-brief-essay-on-clark-pinnock-from-the-word-made-fresh-event/

by Roger Olson

November 22, 2011 

Clark Pinnock

On Friday, November 18, many of us gathered in San Francisco to celebrate the life and contribution of theologian Clark Pinnock. Five of us read papers about Pinnock, including his daughter Sarah who teaches theology at Trinity University. Other presenters were Scot McKnight, Linda Mercadante and John Sanders. Below is some of what I said about Clark, one of my theological heroes, who passed away last year:

“Clark Pinnock pioneered a new way of being an evangelical in theology. I call that new way “postconservative” — a label Clark himself used in Tracking the Maze (Harper & Row, 1990) for certain post-Vatican 2 Roman Catholic thinkers and for what he called “another group of theological moderates from the Protestant end of the spectrum.” (66) 

What is clear to me is that Clark laid out the charter for this postconservative type of evangelical theology in his programmatic 1979 Christianity Today article entitled “An Evangelical Theology: Conservative and Contemporary” the subtitle of which was “Scripture is normative, but it always needs to be read afresh and applied in new ways.” (CT, January 5, 1979: 23-29) To be sure, Clark used the label “conservative” positively there, but he also called for an approach to evangelical theology that transcends mere repetition of past doctrinal formulations and even mere restatement of traditional doctrinal formulation for cultural relevance.

Clark’s call in the CT article for a new approach to evangelical theology would wrongly be interpreted as simply repeating Millard Erickson’s “translation” model expounded in Christian Theology:1. There Erickson, a mainstream, postfundamentalist, conservative evangelical thinker, argued for restatement of the essence of traditional doctrines in new forms for the sake of cultural understanding. Erickson presented only two possibilities for a contemporary theology—either “translation” or “transformation.” The difference lies in their preservation or rejection of the permanent essence of doctrines.

Clark seemed to be working with a similar model for a truly contemporary evangelical theology in his CT article, but I find there something more dynamic and exciting. And he spent the rest of his theological career working it out in terms of restatements that amounted to faithful revisionings of traditional doctrinal loci from the doctrine of Scripture to the doctrine of God to the doctrine of salvation. In his CT article Clark criticized both the “classical approach” to theology for “neglect of the contemporary situation” (24) and the “liberal experiment” for “losing continuity with Scripture and tradition.” (26) Overall he sides more with the classical approach which he described as “characterized by a concentration upon fidelity and continuity with the historic Christian belief system set forth in Scripture and reproduced in creed and confession.” (24) However, he expressed dissatisfaction with that approach represented especially by B. B. Warfield and Francis Schaeffer. He wrote “Much of the modern contempt of classical Christianity is due, not to its stand on Scripture, but to its nonessential narrow-mindedness in regard to the gifts of common grace that God has freely given us.” (25)

Clark’s own proposal in the CT article is the forging of a new evangelical theology that is genuinely conservative, in the best sense of faithful to given revelation, and at the same time contemporary in the best sense of responsible to culture and authentic in relation to truth. (27) One finds in the last few paragraphs of the article the difference from Erickson’s translating model of a contemporary evangelical theology. Pinnock calls for “creativity” in evangelical theology without accommodation to secular (especially naturalistic) thought forms. He declared “I am not advocating static conservatism. Fidelity does not consist in simply repeating old formulas drafted in an earlier time.” (28-29) If he were following Erickson, one would expect him then to say something about restating the old formulas for cultural relevance, but he goes beyond that. Next he says “It includes the creative thinking required to make the old message fresh and new” and “I see a kind of theological synthesis possible in which the Bible remains normative, but in which it is read afresh under the illumination of the Spirit who makes it live for us.” (29)

Clark’s program for a truly postconservative evangelical theology is only tentatively set forth in the CT article, but a close reading of it reveals something new in evangelical theology. Clark was calling for theological creativity without capitulation to non-Christian norms [sic, folk lore religion*]. He spelled it out in more detail in Tracking the Maze where he labeled it “postconservative” and compared it with post-Vatican 2 Catholic thought that affirms the essentials of the faith, basic Christian orthodoxy, but is willing to make some changes in theology that go beyond altering the ways in which they are expressed. Among these changes he mentions:

• “more openness to the humanity of the Bible,” [relational theology*]

• willingness to “talk about diversity in the biblical teaching,” [the Spectrum of Christianity*]

• “open discussion about the nature of the deity and the possible need to place more emphasis on the openness of God to temporal process,” and, [Open Theology / Open Theism*]
• “a growing tendency to allow for the possibility of the salvation of the unevangelized.” (67-68) [relational theology's soteriological element*]

Of course, these are changes Clark himself explored in later monographs on particular doctrines. All throughout his exploration of this postconservative paradigm of evangelical theology and his attempts at working it out in particular areas of theology Clark remained firmly planted in the evangelical tradition of biblicism, conversionism, crucicentrism, activism and respect for the Great Tradition of Protestant orthodoxy—even as he found it necessary to alter and adjust some aspects of these in light of fresh and faithful reflection on the Word of God in light of the Holy Spirit’s ongoing, dynamic presence among us.

That Clark’s theological pilgrimage since 1979 has been condemned by neo-fundamentalist evangelicals is not surprising; the postfundamentalists like Henry, Carnell and Ramm were condemned by the old fundamentalists. Courage in creativity is always going to be criticized and even condemned by the gatekeepers of tradition. What concerns me is not that neo-fundamentalists have condemned Clark and his pilgrimage in theology but that many mainstream evangelical leaders and spokesmen have in a cowardly manner neglected or refused to speak up in his defense.”

*[...] additions by R.E. Slater

* * * * * * * * * *

Clark Pinnock: My Tribute

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2011/11/23/clark-pinnock-my-tribute/

by Scot McKnight

November 23, 2011

Clark Pinnock

I was kindly asked by Tom Oord as a leader in the Word Made Fresh group of AAR/SBL to participate in a wonderous event that paid tribute to the late Clark Pinnock. The treat to this event was a presentation by Sarah Pinnock, Clark’s daughter, on her father; Linda Mercandante reflected on her experience as a student of Clark’s; John Sanders gave a presentation on the hassle he experienced with Clark in the open theism debate, mostly notably in ETS; the final paper was by Roger Olson on the place of Clark in evangelical theology. My paper, which was shortened so I had to speak from my feet at times, is below. I didn’t enter into the open theism debate as my assignment was on Clark’s use of the Bible and I had my hands full with three other of his topics — all of them hot and debated: Scripture, inclusivism and annihilationism. The highlight of the night was when the papers were all over — six in one hour — and folks in the room stood to witness to the influence of Clark in their life.

Introduction

Clark Pinnock and the New Testament: A Man on the Move

When I was asked to offer a presentation about Clark’s hermeneutics I thought back to my college days when I bought and read his 1971 book called Biblical Revelation. That book was one of the impulses that made me think of studying at Trinity because Clark taught there, though by the time I arrived Clark had moved on to Regent and then to McMaster. The invitation also made me think of Clark’s “revision” of that book on Scripture in his book The Scripture Principle, which I still think was a courageous book in its day. (In some ways his successors today are Kent Sparks and Pete Enns.) The invitation also made me think of Clark’s stuff on hell and annihilationism. What the invitation also triggered was a conversation I had with a friend when I was a student at Trinity. My friend’s name was Bill and he said he took Pinnock for a class and, if I remember this correctly, he said, “Pinnock began as a Calvinist, midway through the course he became Ariminian, and then by the end of the semester he had become Calvinist again.” Then he said something that probably each of us both knows and admires about Clark Pinnock. Bill said, "I liked Pinnock because he was man on the move. His theology was always growing." He then said, “… unlike …” and I shall not mention the name. The other name won. Clark did call Trinity a “ghetto,” and Clark moved on.

My time is limited so I want to make four brief points about Clark’s approach to the Bible as the means of theologizing in our world today, but first a few general comments. As I read Pinnock, I read a theologian who was essentially a biblical theologian who explored topics that matter to contemporary theologians, particularly those in the classic evangelical orbit. Maybe I can say that Clark Pinnock is what happens when New Testament PhDs decide to become theologians, which happened to Clark when he was teaching at New Orleans among the Baptists. I don’t see him as a systematician so much as a theologian who operated through the Bible’s categories, and this is what we would expect from a student of F.F. Bruce. And his approach to the Bible might be called mostly a “plain reading” of the Bible, though at times he resorts – as nearly all theologians do – to some more arcane and intricate interpretations. That “plain reading” tilts in the direction of the Arminians and charismatics though by that I don’t want any suggestion it is not anything less than rigorous. All of this has been told well in Barry Callen’s wonderful book on Clark’s light landings in moderate evangelicalism, Journey toward Renewal.

I.

I begin, first, with this: Clark Pinnock’s approach to the Bible was courageous. Evangelicalism is a wonderful group as long as you are safe, but the moment you wander outside that safety, which is protected by alarmists positioned everywhere, made even worse by the internet and blogs,… once you wander outside you are susceptible to alarms and charges and trials, some of them apocalyptic. Clark somehow managed to sustain sanity while setting off alarms in all directions. Like Aslan, Clark was not a tame theologian. In A Wideness in God’s Mercy, when Clark explored the “Bible’s view of other religions,” he transgressed the boundaries the missionary movement had established, convinced as it was of a strong exclusivist posture toward all things religious. Having read Jean Daniélou’s Holy Pagans of the Old Testament, Clark feasted on the generosity of God at work in the world outside Israel, and then was willing to probe into the implications of those holy pagans for religions today. Thus, he can say, “Some [outside the church today] intend the same reality Christians intend when they believe in God (as personal, good, knowing, kind, strong etc.)” (96). And then this: “People fear God all over the world, and God accepts them, even where the gospel of Jesus Christ has not yet been proclaimed” (97). And he digs: “One can make a faith response to God in the form of actions of love and justice” (97). He then pokes evangelicalism in the eye: “We have tended to ignore this line of teaching in Scripture because of a control belief which blocks it out” (99). He pushes further: “World religions reflect to some degree general revelation and prevenient grace” (104). Yet, religions are part of a fallen human culture, but God uses them – and thus the Bible, Pinnock is claiming, opens up a more generous approach to the religions of the world.

Another example of his courage. Anyone who wants to talk about inerrancy has to be courageous, or foolish. Clark was the former. As he puts this in The Scripture Principle: “But the case for biblical errorlessness is not as good as it looks. Of course God cannot lie, but that is not the issue” (added) – that very comment, which goes against the grain of the deductive habit of inerrantists, is both not the point and the point. It depends on which theologian is writing. He adds, “What we might expect God to do is never as important as what he actually does” (57). He gets personal, but this has been omitted from the newer edition of The Scripture Principle (84): “I can only answer for myself, as one who argued in this way [of total inerrancy] a few years ago. I claimed that the Bible taught total inerrancy because I hoped it did – I wanted it to” (58). He did get personal again in the second edition, in the Appendix, with these words: “I have moved from defending the Bible in a scholastic manner to understanding it in a more pietistic way” (255), and Clark uses the word “neo-evangelical” for himself (258), and so he describes his move from “philosophical” to “simple” biblicism (257). Perhaps most clearly, he said he moved from Francis “Schaeffer’s militant rationalism to [F.F.] Bruce’s move bottom-up irenic scholarship” (258).

But Pinnock wasn’t about to give in completely. “I wish also to state my conviction,” Clark claimed at the end of his Scripture Principle book and, once again, this was revised slightly in the new edition of the book, “that it would be wise for us to continue to speak of biblical inerrancy. Though the term is not ideal by any means, it does possess the strength of conviction concerning the truthfulness of the Bible that we need to maintain at the present time, while offering a good deal of flexibility to honest biblical study” (224). Now he gets positively provocative for the inerrancy camp: “Inerrancy is a metaphor for the determination to trust God’s Word completely” (225). That is, “…Scripture can be trusted in what it teaches and relied upon as the infallible norm of the church” (225). Which puts us where many have come: “The wisest course to take would be to get on with defining inerrancy in relation to the purpose of the Bible and the phenomena it displays” (225). Or, better yet, to where Clark came when the second edition was published: “… the wisest course now is either to abandon this term altogether or to alter its common meaning to better fit the purpose of the Bible …*” (250). It would be fun to stop here and chat, and I am on record saying that the word “inerrancy” to me is mostly a posture word today and that there’s a better word – truth – but we can’t pause or we’ll run over time. I do want to say that many today would argue that once we do what Clark suggested in his more functionalist approach to the Bible we have in effect abandoned what most people, most notably ETS, mean by inerrancy. Asking ETS to change its assumptive definition of inerrancy in Clark’s direction is like asking Mohler to become a moderate again.

_____________________

*For more on Inerrancy see - http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2011/11/infallibility-and-multi-vocality-of.html, R.E. Slater

_____________________

II.

Alongside courage, second, Clark Pinnock’s approach to the Bible was comprehensive. In a Wideness in God’s Mercy, where Clark was examining the hopefulness of the Bible, we are treated not to a verse here and there and not to some theological deduction, as one finds in some less-than-biblical-focused theologians, but instead we are treated to a wonderful sketch in fifteen pages of the expansiveness of God’s vision and what Clark calls a “hermeneutic of hopefulness” (20-35). The election of Israel is not a soteriologically-obsessed election but an election unto mission, as Chris Wright has recently articulated in his magnum opus, The Mission of God. For Clark, “this election is for the sake of all peoples” (24). It is a “corporate election… and a call to service” (24). Then this: “This is the election of a people to a ministry of redemptive servanthood. Election does bring privileges, but primarily it carries responsibilities” (24).

To show this angle on what God is doing in the world, we get a treatment of Job, Abimelech, Jethro, Baalam, the Queen of Sheba up to the Magi and we could go on. It is Clark’s comprehensiveness that I’m concerned with here. He turns over one stone after another in the quest to sort out what the Bible says for a theological problem today: who will be saved? Is God’s mercy narrow and stingy or wide and expansive? His question is that of YHWH to Abraham, “Have you seen the stars? Go ahead,” God says, “count them. So will your seed be.” Clark takes that as gospel truth: God’s people is wide and inclusive and expansive and way beyond our expectations, and it outstrips our exclusivity. In reading Clark, I’ve been impressed time and time again with his comprehensive grasp of the Bible.

III.

Next to his comprehensive approach to the Bible, I see a third thing: in Pinnock we find a rock-solid commonsensical approach to Bible reading. He asks in Scripture Principle (xix), "Why do Christians believe the Bible?" He answers – and I love what he says: “…because it has been able to do for them exactly what Paul promised it would: introduce them to a saving and transforming knowledge of Christ.” On the near idolization of the Bible among some sorts of Christians that leads to a neglect of God’s manifestation in other ways, Clark says this: “For my part, I cannot see how any revelation from the God of the gospel can be other than saving in its basic significance if it is truly a revelation of him [who is a saving God]” (7). That commonsensical approach leads to his chaser comment: “If we grant that such a revelation to all peoples… then it must be the disclosure of the gracious God from whom our creaturely existence flows.” There you have it: a brief apologetic for accessibilism or inclusivism or some kind of universal revelation of God’s gracious ways to all humans who have ever been capable of comprehending the world in which God has placed them.

IV.

Clark’s approach to the Bible has been, fourth, rhetorically compelling to many. I am teaching a course on Universalism and Hell to our 4^th Year Students this Fall. The first assignment was to read the principal essays in Bill Crockett’s book called Four Views on Hell. Prior to that reading I had given two lectures on the method in theology and the options on these topics. No one in the class was at that time an annihilationist. Most, so it seemed to me, had not even heard of such a view. When the students had read the Four Views, where Clark takes the annihilationist view, Clark had convinced a number of my students that the traditionalist view of Walvoord and the metaphorical view of Crockett were not adequate. I read this chp again for this paper and when we come to his conclusion, I have to say it is nothing short of rhetorically compelling to the reader: “I conclude,” he says, “that the traditional belief that God makes the wicked suffer in an unending conscious torment in hell is unbiblical, is fostered by a Hellenistic view of human nature, is detrimental to the character of God, is defended on essentially pragmatic grounds, and is being rejected by a growing number of biblically faithful, contemporary scholars.” And then this: “I believe that [a] better case can be made for understanding the nature of hell as termination” (165). But Clark is a persuader, after all he was Baptist: “The real choice,” he says in the last words of his essay, “is between universalism and annihilationism, and of these two, annihilation is surely the more biblical because it retains the realism of some people finally saying "No" to God without turning the notion of hell into a monstrosity” (166). One can’t help be caught into his rhetorical web of logic in this chapter, though I have not yet myself been convinced of annihilation (though for me it is entirely within the spectrum of sound evangelical theology). [You can read what I think in my book One. Life. I took another poll of my students yesterday; only one is now an annihilationist; nearly all of my students voted for the metaphorical view as the most biblical and theologically sound.]

Conclusion

Well, I’ve now run out of time. One might be tempted to think Clark Pinnock was also creative, but as I read him he doesn’t offer brand new ideas, but he takes the old message of the Bible and gives it life for a new day when people are struggling with potent problems in a modern and postmodern context. In the 9^th chp of his Scripture Principle, where he offers how to read the Bible, Clark offers a two-fold plan, and it is as old as it is important: first, we listen to the text as God’s Word in human language given to us, and second, we open ourselves to God’s Spirit to reveal the particular significance the text has for the present situation” (197). Clark had both an objective dimension and at the same time was unafraid of the subjective, which goes all the way back to his dissertation on the Holy Spirit in the New Testament in 1963. This subjective side made some nervous. I sort of think Clark liked that others were nervous about what he might say next, and in part this was because Clark was not afraid of pneumatology in his hermeneutics. Many are.