Gandalf and the Open & Relational God

Gandalf and the Open & Relational God

https://calebposton.com/gandalf-and-the-open-relational-god-fa8a388906f0

by Caleb Poston

May 8, 2022

Gandalf + Open & Relational Theology = An Unexpected Analogy!

Part of what makes open and relational theology so attractive are its nuances, uncertainties, and variations. Ask any two open and relational thinkers for their view on God, and you will likely receive two answers. That makes sense, for these questions are so complex as to essentially demand different solutions.

Sometimes, we need to get creative to answer them; we might even need to travel to another world.

That’s what I’m going to do here. I’m going to take a little trip to Middle-earth and use Middle-earth’s favorite wizard, Gandalf, to attempt to explain how the open and relational God works.

DISCLAIMER: Tolkien was not fond of allegory, and he had no allegorical intent with his writings. Therefore, I’m not suggesting an allegorical interpretation of Gandalf; I’m suggesting literary application—an approach that Tolkien approved for his readers.

An Emissary

The first comparison to make between Gandalf and God, especially God from an open and relational perspective, is the manner in which both came to Middle-earth/Earth to interact with people. Gandalf isn’t just a regular person in Middle-earth who happened to learn magic; he is an emissary sent to Middle-earth by the deities and spiritual hierarchy in Arda (the entire world in which Middle-earth is located).

Wizardry in Middle-earth isn’t like other stories: People can’t go to Hogwarts and learn how to be a wizard. No, wizards in Middle-earth are part of an exclusive class of spiritual beings known as the Maiar, primordial spirits that work directly with the Valar and their king, Manwë. They are able to take physical form in Middle-earth and have done so in a variety of ways, both good and evil. Some examples of evil Maia in Middle-earth include the balrogs of Morgoth and Sauron himself.

In the Third Age of Middle-earth, five of these Maia were sent by the Valar (basically the “angels” of Arda) to Middle-earth to take the form of wizards. This group of wizards was called the Istari (or in Quenya, “ones who know”). The Istari included Saruman the White, Radagast the Brown, the blue wizards Alatar and Pallando, and, last in this list but certainly not least in the Istari pecking order, Gandalf the Grey. According to Tolkien‘s writings and letters, Gandalf was the only one who fulfilled his purpose, which was to rally the free peoples of Middle-earth to contest the will of Sauron.

Gandalf was sent by Manwë to take the form of a wizard and contest the will of Sauron. Gandalf was a spiritual being, and he emptied himself of the glory in Valinor so that he could participate in the world he helped create. And he participated in various ways: as a counselor, a teacher, a warrior, a friend, and a leader — different roles for different people. He took physical form and experienced pain, hunger, emotions, love, anger, fear, etc. — I think you know where I’m going with this (but not yet).

God has also interacted in the world in various ways. He created the world (as Gandalf took part in the world’s creation), he revealed himself as a cloud and burning bush, and, ultimately, he emptied himself of his glory and took physical form (like Gandalf) as Jesus of Nazareth. As Jesus, he experienced pain, hunger, emotions, love, anger, fear, etc. And he wasn’t coercive—he inspired people to live for the kingdom through his words and actions. He, like Gandalf, played various roles: counselor, teacher, son, friend, and leader.

Relational

Gandalf was known throughout Middle-earth. The elves knew him and called him Mithrandir; men called him Gandalf; people in the south called him Incánus, and dwarves knew him as Tharkûn. They knew him because he went out of his way to know them. He formed relationships with them—all people from all races in Middle-earth.

Gandalf spent time in the holes of the Shire, and smoked their pipeweed; Gandalf spent time in the halls of the dwarves. He studied in the library of Gondor and rested in the forests and valleys of Rivendell and Mirkwood. And Gandalf likely drank in the great mead hall of Edoras. He went out of his way and traveled far and wide to form relationships with the people he came to counsel, guide, and, in some way, save.

God, like Gandalf, goes out of his way to know us. He meets us where we are and forms personal relationships with us. And people know him by many names: Jesus, Lord, God, Father, Ancient of Days, Yahweh, Jehovah, etc. Some open and relational thinkers propose that God reveals himself to all people, and all the world’s gods, in some way, point to God. They all know him as different names: God, Allah, Krishna, etc. Regardless, God is not bound by geography, cultural background, or race—God, like Gandalf, seeks to know all people and form lasting relationships with them.

Behind the Scenes

As a member of the Istari, Gandalf was not sent to overpower evil in Middle-earth and bend it to his will; he was sent to counsel the freepeople of Middle-earth and guide them toward decisions that weaken the enemy and defend the freepeople. He was not allowed to display his full power as a Maia during his time with the people of Middle-earth. Consider this passage from “The Istari” in Unfinished Tales …

“Emissaries they were from Lords of the West, the Valar, who still took counsel for the governance of Middle-earth, and when the shadow of Sauron began first to stir again took this means of resisting him. For with the consent of Eru they sent members of their own high order, but clad in bodies of as of Men, real and not feigned, but subject to the fears and pains and weariness of earth, able to hunger and thirst and be slain; though because of their noble spirits they did not die, and aged only by the cares and labours of many long years. And this the Valar did, desiring to amend the errors of old, especially that they had attempted to guard and seclude the Eldar by their own might and glory fully revealed; whereas now their emissaries were forbidden to reveal themselves in forms of majesty, or to seek to rule the wills of Men and Elves by open display of power, but coming in shapes weak and humble were bidden to advise and persuade Men and Elves to good” (emphasis mine).

See that? Gandalf (and all the Istari) were in Middle-earth to counsel, not coerce. They were forbidden to display their full power; they did not come to rule while in physical form. They were there to advise and persuade people to make their own decisions that would make the world a better place.

When God revealed himself as Jesus Christ, he didn’t display his full power. He suffered, was bound by time, got tired, and went through every human emotion. Sure, he walked on water, turned water into wine, and rose from the dead, but Gandalf talked to animals, made magic fireworks, and … also rose from the dead. Gandalf, like Jesus, bent the rules and displayed power, but only in certain circumstances. Jesus was similar: Remember, he could have summoned angels to save him from his death (Matthew 26:53), but he didn’t. He did not display his full power.

In open and relational theology, God (like Gandalf) doesn’t coerce his people. Through his indwelling presence, he guides, counsels, and leads his people to make decisions that will bring glory to God. He, like Gandalf, has a purpose, he has plans he would like to see come to fruition, but his people must see those plans through, and God’s presence (as counselor, guide, motivator) helps to advise and persuade people to make their own decisions that make the world a better place.

Not a Helicopter Leader

Gandalf was more qualified to handle the conflicts and problems of Middle-earth than anyone else—maybe even elves like Galadriel and Glorfindel. But Gandalf, like the open and relational God, also gave his followers room to grow on their own. He stepped back and let them figure it out through their own strength and will. When Gandalf left Bilbo, Thorin, and the dwarves at the edge of Mirkwood in The Hobbit, he was leaving them in a difficult situation. Gandalf undoubtedly would have made that situation much easier, but by leaving, he forced Bilbo to grow and step up as the leader.

I feel that God, especially from the open and relational perspective, steps back and lets us get through difficult situations on our own. We go through sickness; we go through death and grief. We experience hardship financially, emotionally, spiritually, physically—almost every possible way. An all-powerful God could theoretically step in and solve all of our problems. But perhaps something restrains him?

The deities that sent the Maia, Olórin (Gandalf), sent him with a specific rule that he could not display his full power. Perhaps God has his own rule preventing him from displaying his full power, instead letting human free will run its course and guiding and counseling rather than forcing and coercing. It is better for God to guide us to make good decisions on our own than for God to coerce humanity into the outcomes he desires. Perhaps God’s central attribute, love, prevents him from this level of coercion—an idea Thomas Jay Oord thoroughly explores in his books God Can’t and Pluriform Love. Gandalf is in the same boat: Gandalf could act in his full power, but he can’t.

Fights the Battles We Can’t Face

Gandalf participated in and led some talented and powerful groups: Thorin and Company, the Fellowship of the Ring, and the White Council. The latter was a group of equals and superiors to Gandalf, but the first two consisted of regular men, elves, dwarves, and hobbits—to them, Gandalf was a god among men. Along the way, Gandalf defeated enemies that were beyond the abilities of the company he was with. For example, when Gandalf abandoned the company at the edge of Mirkwood in The Hobbit, he wasn’t scared of the flies and spiders; he was fighting a battle that needed to be fought but was beyond the abilities and power of his company. He, along with the White Council, was driving the Necromancer out of Dol Guldur to protect the North from the growing shadow.

In The Fellowship of the Ring, the first volume of The Lord of the Rings, Gandalf and the Fellowship face an ancient balrog in the Mines of Moria. As the group is trying to escape the mines, they hear the roar and see the flames of this demonic enemy. Those who have seen the film will remember Gandalf saying,

“This foe is beyond any of you. Run!”

The balrog was beyond Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli, Boromir, and all of them combined. But he wasn’t beyond Gandalf—and Gandalf knew that. He knew that he needed to use his power to defeat this ancient foe, which was the same spiritual entity (Maiar) as Gandalf. Gandalf defeated this foe, and he died in the process—though he was resurrected as Gandalf the White.

Likewise, the open and relational God doesn’t coerce, instead guiding and counseling through a personal relationship with his people, but he does and has fought the battles we, as mere humans, are fundamentally unable to face. The first example that comes to mind is Jesus defeating the greatest foe: death. Death now has no sting; death now has no power. But death’s defeat had nothing to do with us; it had all to do with the God, Jesus, who knew that it was beyond us. He defeated the foe, but he died in the process. However, like Gandalf, he rose again in robes of white, and he, just as Gandalf the White did for his friends and followers, gave us access to an even more powerful ally.

Conclusion

In my opinion, Gandalf is a powerful example of the open and relational God. He emptied and humbled himself of his glory to experience life like us so that he could truly relate with us. He guides us and counsels us to good decisions and good works. He doesn’t coerce us, and, consequently, the future is open to the future we create. It could go well; it could be delayed by struggles, trials, and tribulations, but God is always there, within us, guiding us and empowering us to make the world a better place. God, like Gandalf, has fought the most important battles—the battles we could not face. And his victory and resurrection has given us access to the power we need to act on his behalf and partner with him as we renew the Earth.

Someone once said, “We all need a little Gandalf on our shoulder.”

Fortunately, as Christians, we do have a little Gandalf on our shoulder.

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 - Many biblical scholars and theologians fail to affirm the priority of love

amazon link

Obstacles to Putting Love First

article link

by Thomas Jay Oord

April 13th, 2022

Many biblical scholars and theologians

fail to affirm the priority of love.

In this essay, I focus on the final of five reasons why many fail to make love a priority. I’ll simply list the first four before addressing the fifth. Get a copy of Pluriform Love to read the explanations I give to the first four:

1. Love is sometimes equated with sex/romance, self-indulgence, sentimentality, or extreme tolerance.

2. Biblical writers are sometimes unclear about love’s meaning.

3. Biblical writers sometimes portray God as unloving.

4. The Bible has no precise definition of love.

We Need a Definition of Love

The final reason many theologians and biblical scholars fail to affirm the priority of love arises from confusion over what we mean by love. This confusion emerges from a failure to clarify terms. I put it this way…

5. Theologians often fail to define love well.

Most theologians do not define love. Even those who focus on love rarely clarify what they mean. This practice is especially odd, because most theologians know love has diverse and often confusing meanings. There’s a dearth of explicit definitions.

The few theologians who do define love often fail to use their definitions consistently. They’ll say we ought to love the world, for instance, which sounds like we should treat creation well. In the next breath, they’ll say we shouldn’t love the world but should love God instead. Others say God causes or permits evil but also claim God loves everyone. The harmed and hurting doubt this. Theologians will say suffering is a necessary part of love, but they’ll claim heaven is a loving place without suffering. Others say God loves everyone, but God does not love the wicked. Some say God loves us like a friend and then say friendship with God is impossible. Or theologians will say love isn’t about feelings, but then urge us to feel compassion for the needy. Some claim humans are incapable of love but criticize them for being unloving.

Theological claims about love often make no sense!

So… theologians need to define love well. And then employ their definitions consistently. Of course, definitions cannot capture everything that’s true. Just as we will probably never grasp the full meaning of God, we will never grasp the full meaning of love. Words cannot provide all-encompassing explanations.

Despite imprecision and failure to be comprehensive, however, words are meaningful. They can partially describe reality. Words also move us to act, feel, think, and live in particular ways. We often need them to, as the Apostle Peter put it, “make a defense to anyone who demands from you an accounting for the hope that is in [us]” (1 Pet. 3:15). If we thought words useless, we would stop using them altogether. And yet we persist.[1]

Because I think theologies of love should offer clear definitions of love, I devote a whole chapter to defining love and explaining what I mean.

I define love as acting intentionally, in relational response to God and others, to promote overall well-being.

Later chapters in Pluriform Love explore the details and implications of my definition in light of key theologians, doctrines, and intuitions. I aim to put love first in my theology, because I think it’s first in scripture and should come first in everyday living.

- TJO

[1] For accessible accounts of the primacy of love, see Jim Burklo, Tenderly Calling (Haworth, N.J.: St. Johann, 2021); Jared Byas, Love Matters More (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2020); Jason Clark, Prone to Love (Shippensburg, Penn.: Destiny Image, 2014); Jonathan Foster, Reconstructionist (Glen Oak, Ca.: Quoir, 2021); Daniel K. Held, Love’s Resurrection (Springfield, Oh.: Higher Ground, 2013); Jacqui Lewis, Fierce Love (London: Harmony, 2021); Andrew Lightbown and Nick Fane, ReDiscovering Charity (Buckingham: UBP, 2009); Brian McLaren, A New Kind of Christianity (New York: HarperOne, 2010); Chuck Queen, A Faith Worth Living (Eugene, Or.: Wipf and Stock, 2011); Niq Ruud, Only Love (Glen Oak, Ca.: Quoir, 2021).

Open & Relational Process Theology - Audio/Video Authored Titles

https://c4ort.com/ortline22/

Click on the audio or video link below each book to download the file.

Audio

Video

Audio

Video

Audio

Video

Audio

Video

Audio

Video

Audio

Video

Audio

Video

Audio

Video

Recording errors failed to render this session.

Recording errors failed to render this session.

Open and Relational Theologies - More Resources for the ORT Christian and Non-Christian

We live in an open and relational creation. All are invited in regardless of faith or non-faith. Though developed for the Christian faith Relevancy22 is not here to proselytize but to expand the commonalities between the  Christian and the World of God. An open, relational creation and future is one such commonality. All is possibility and all is relational. This isn't a Christian philosophy but a process-based philosophy as developed by Alfred North Whitehead in the early 1900s. Like Einstein's insights, theology, like science, is rapidly expanding these former thinker's ideas into all areas of study and observance. Aptly, process thought is a way to describe the world in its societies, geographies, times and locations. Insomuch as God is an open and relational Being so too is God's creation. How man has responded to these qualities has been reflected over the eons in a multitude of ways: from  beliefs and religions, to community, to academic application. An Open and Relational way of being and thinking is not a Christian thing, but a creational / world thing. Welcome to all who would explore this world of being-ness which is becoming". - R.E. Slater

Open and Relational Theologies

This group fosters discussion of a wide variety of theological issues relevant to those who in some way embrace open and relational theology. Such theology includes ways of thinking found in traditions such as Process, Openness, Feminist, Evangelical, Postmodern, Liberation, Womanist, Wesleyan, Continentalist, Analytic, Existential, and Narrative theologies.

JOIN GROUP

God is Open - the Open Theism Circle

Our main body of posts should be neat things we have discovered in the Bible, not theological debates.

JOIN GROUP

Open Theism

Open Theism affirms that: 1) God and creatures enjoy mutually-influencing relations 2) the future is partly open / God does not fully settle it 3) love is uniquely exemplified by God and is the human ethical imperative

JOIN GROUP

Process and Faith

Process & Faith is a multi-faith network for relational spirituality and the common good. Process Philosophy and Theology offer a comprehensive vision of the world and better hopes for the world, inviting a sense of wonder and a recognition of the sacred, based on the interconnectedness, intrinsic value, and beauty present in all living things.

JOIN GROUP

The Uncontrolling Love of God Conversations

This group was originally started as a weekly skype/video discussion of Tom Oord's book The Uncontrolling Love of God. It has evolved into an ongoing discussion around the uncontrolling love concepts. We welcome all people to join the conversation. It would be helpful for all participants to have read The Uncontrolling Love of God. Besides that, we ask that conversation be charitable yet engaging.

JOIN GROUP

r/cruciformity

This discussion group explores cruciform theology. At the fore is the idea Jesus reveals the nature and character of God, one of self sacrificial love and of power shown in weakness on the cross. Difficult issues like violence in the Old Testament and why there is evil in the world bring open and relational theologies into the conversation.

JOIN GROUP

Healing with God Can't

This group explores what it means to believe God doesn't cause or allow evil but works with us and others to heal. Members assume no one has all the answers, but we can find insights when sharing our stories and working toward wholeness. Much of the discussion arises from ideas in the book God Can't, written by Thomas Jay Oord.

JOIN GROUP

Bibliographies

John Sanders - Open Theism

This bibliography is arranged in five categories: (1) multi-views works, (2) works supporting open theism, (3) works engaging open theism, (4) works against open theism, and (5) doctoral dissertations and masters theses engaging open theism. Updated November 2018

Read More >>

Center for Process Studies Library

The Center for Process Studies library is the world’s largest collection of writings in process-relational thought–consists of more than 2,400 books, 750 dissertations, and 12,000 articles.

Browse Library >>

Whitehead Research Library

The Whitehead Research Library provides open access to archival material related to the philosophy and life of Alfred North Whitehead. It includes electronic versions of student lecture notes, letters, and photographs.

Browse Library >>

Podcasts

• ORT Shorts (Shorts Thoughts on Open & Relational Theology)
• Catherine Keller (Homebrewed Christianity)
• Chris Fisher (God is Open)
• John Haught (Homebrewed Christianity)
• John Sanders (Homebrewed Christianity)
• Open and Relational Q&A with Thomas Jay Oord and Tripp Fuller (Homebrewed Christianity)
• Open and Relational Theology Throwdown (Homebrewed Christianity)
• Open and Relational Theology Series (Laity Podcast)
• Thomas Jay Oord (A Better Story)
• Thomas Jay Oord (Homebrewed Christianity)

Videos & Online Courses

• See Rory Randall’s Video Archive, Open Renewal
• A People’s Theology
• An Introductory Introduction to Process Theology (John Cobb)
• An Introduction to Process Theology (David Ray Griffin)
• Animal Suffering (Bethanie Sollereder)
• Dancing with God in a World of Crucifixion (Karen Baker Fletcher)
• God and Suffering (Tim Reddish)
• Homebrewed Christianity
• Open View of the Future (Greg Boyd)
• Open Theism (Greg Boyd)
• Open Theism (William Hasker)
• Panentheism and Panpsychism (Thomas Jay Oord)
• The God of Noncoercive Love in the Face of Randomness and Evil (Thomas Jay Oord and Tripp Fuller)
• What in the World is Process Theology? (Theology Matters)
• What is Open Theism? (Chris Fisher)
• What is Open Theism? (TC Moore)
• What is Process Theology? (Thomas Jay Oord)
• Why Go Process? (Monica Coleman and Tripp Fuller)

Process and Faith Lectionaries

• Year A, 2019-2020
• Year C, 2018-2019
• Year B, 2017-2018
• Year A, 2016-2017
• Year C, 2015-2016
• Year B, 2014-2015
• Year A, 2013-2014
• Year C, 2012-2013
• Year B, 2011-2012
• Year A, 2010-2011

Web Essays & Sites

Select Blog Essays:

• “An Open and Relational God” – Scott McKnight
• “Is Open Theism a Type of Arminianism?” – Roger Olson
• “Open and Relational Theology” – TC Moore
• “O is for Open Theology” – Bo Sanders
• “Relational Power” – Jay McDaniel
• “Ask an Open Theist” – Rachel Held Evans
• “Summary of Open Theism” – John Sanders
• “The Last Kid Off to College” – Jonathan Foster

Resource Websites:

*though unpublished please consider Relevancy22 as an important

application website for Open & Relational Process Thought as well...

• Academia Open and Relational Papers
• Bruce Epperly
• Catherine Keller
• Debates on Open Theism.org
• God Can’t Website
• God is Open – Scripture Sources
• John Sanders
• Keith Ward
• Andrew Davis
• Mike Edwards
• Open and Relational Reading Group
• Open Horizons Website
• Open (Access) Theology Journal
• Process Essays – Religion Online
• Process Studies Website
• ReKnew Website
• Thomas Jay Oord
• Tom Torbeyns
• Tripp Fuller
• Uncontrolling Love Essays

What Would Process Christianity Look Like?

Amazon Link

Open and Relational Theology:

An Introduction to Life-Changing Ideas

by Thomas Oord

published July 2021

I have been asking myself how to go about producing a doctrinal theology on Process Christianity. I believe I no longer need go about taking on this task as my friend, Thomas Oord, has accomplished a part of it in his latest upcoming book out this July 2021. I believe Tom's text would be a good beginning in summarizing a Process Theology through the perspectives of an Open and Relational Theology. Thank you Tom for this help!

What Would Process Christianity Look Like?

Process Christianity might be condensed in an Open and Relational form which at present I might sum up in five motifs:

1 - A personal/relational God who "Is" and not "It"

2 - A unique divine ontic distinction between God and creation/creatures expressed in terms of divine alterity (radical otherness) inseparably combined with divine immanence (radical intimacy)

3 - A God who everlastingly creates. This refers to the universal process of "organic being which is always in process of becoming". Ex: God said "I Am and Am Becoming" (Ex 3.14). Thus rejecting creatio ex nihilo (creation from nothing) by replacing it with creatio continua (creation always forming).*

4 - A theology which addresses the problem of evil in terms of creationally imbued agency rather than in terms of divine determinism. This would then necessarily re-orientate traditional ideations of divine sovereignty into more formative terms of process-based sovereignty in accordance with who God is in His divine Self and Self-expression. 

5 - Lastly, Process Christianity must include as foundational to its categorical genres a close affinity with Panentheism, Panexperientialism, and Panpsychism. The first speaks to organic relationship, the second to organic wholeness, and the last to organic awareness.

R.E. Slater

May 25, 2021

*This will be a developing post

* * * * * * * *

*Creatio Ex Nihilo by Keith Ward

Creatio ex nihilo (Latin for "creation from nothing") refers to the view that the universe, the whole of space-time, is created by a free act of God out of nothing, and not either out of some preexisting material or out of the divine substance itself. This view was widely, though not universally, accepted in the early Christian Church, and was formally defined as dogma by the fourth Lateran Council in 1215. Creatio ex nihilo is now almost universally accepted by Jews, Christians, and Muslims. Indian theism generally holds that the universe is substantially one with God, though it is usually still thought of as a free and unconstrained act of God.

*Creatio Continua, by Keith Ward

The term creatio continua refers to God's continuing creative activity throughout the history of the universe. In a sense, most theologians accept creatio continua, since creation is the dependence of the whole of space-time on God. But more traditional views hold that because God is timeless and immutable, there is only one divine creative act, which originates the whole of space-time from first to last. Those who speak of creatio continua think of creation taking place in many successive acts, partly in response to events in time. Thus, at any particular time God's creation has not been completed, and the future is partly open, in some theological views, even for God.

Creatio Continua

My Journey Out of Calvinism and Towards Process Christianity

 

My Journey Out of Calvinism

and Towards Process Christianity

As I told one individual not long ago, my Christian background included being raised in a fundamental  Baptist Church (GARB, General Assembly of Regular Baptist Churches) which later joined its church culture some fifty years later with the conservative evangelical movement. Its pastor/teacher has never been rivaled in my experience for his instruction, warm-hearted faith, and deep pastoral care for his beloved congregation.

I next attended an IFCA independent fundamental bible church during my university years. There I experienced wonderfully strong preaching by a hard-headed, warm-hearted converted Jew to Christianity in South Africa. And having ministered in Johannesburg came to America to preach. Here were warm, close days of Christian unity in bond and witness which fought against the liberalism of its day and yearned with the passion of Christ to be wholly worthy of their Savior God.

Having left university after three years of heavy mathematics and science I transferred to a (GARB-based) Baptist College, and later its Seminary to graduate with an Masters of Divinity (M.Div). I took a major in psychology (35 cr hrs?) and a strong minor in Bible (30 cr hrs?) to finish out my undergraduate study. During this time I had rejoined my home church and participated in many ministries from its fellowship. Mostly visitation, evangelism, and cold calling but also worship ministries, choir, and musical productions as well.

At marriage my wife and I could count five ministries we either conducted or participated in from children's ministries to high school to adult ministries of various kinds. I stayed with choir because of the excellent music director and we eventually left when several of the under-pastors refused further ministries without going through their year(s)-long indoctrination course. Here we left the church and moved to my wife's church, a former Reformed Church (RCA) turned Inter-denominational with stupendous oratory preaching in the fashion of Billy Sunday of old.

We had been married five years by then and when leaving my home church of many, many years to go to my wife's fellowship I found myself immersed within my first conservative evangelical church  experience. In those days I had considered its ways and beliefs as liberal compared to my stricter background. But it was its atmosphere of healthy embrace to me and my wife which endeared us. By then I had craved an atmosphere free of judgmentalism of everyone and everything and yearned to minister in a more formal way. This I found in leading yet another set of youth ministries, this time in the college, career, and later, older singles level. It also included adult congregation assimilation ministries, worship ministries for a time, deaconing and other responsibilities. I even had several years of hosting a church-wide Christmas Eve Service through our college ministries and went so far as holding another church-wide Sedar Observation one Easter. The fellowship also saw my completion of seminary and two years later the birth of our first miracle child of two.

Twenty years of volunteer ministry came-and-went and through those formative years under a new pastor who had left the political conservative right movement to simply preach Jesus without any partisan portrayals. By then our church had successfully replanted several small area fellowships and began another one on the far side of town. After a month of operation we joined it by the pastor's urging to his congregation. Within two or three months of commencement the new church had far outstripped its facilities, its need for any fiscal help by our former church, and became the fastest growing church in America for a time. There we learned for the first time what Emergent Christianity meant (later to be known generally as Progressive Christianity). It sought Jesus with a passion to the exclusion and refusal of conservative evangelical doctrine which held it back by its rules and exclusions. Which  also got our new fellowship into trouble with area evangelical churches around it and nationwide. Still my wife and I stayed through the ups and downs and after twenty years of listening and wrestling with post-evangelical emergent approach and doctrine our children had grown up, had been out of the home for ten years, and my wife wanted to move to another part of town. It was time to begin anew. We had reached and gone beyond middle age. The years of youth were now past.

Currently, we fellowship with several area evangelical assemblies each dealing with the after effects of Trumpian Christianity gone terribly wrong. The evangelicalism I once knew has now died in its own cesspools of exclusion and self-indictments and like many other wrecked faiths have left many Christians homeless and disillusioned about what to do. Whether to double down or move on? Having sensed this spiritual degradation some years earlier I had begun re-examining my own church and bible training backgrounds. It also meant that for awhile I would enter into a very dark time of wilderness sojourney. During that time of darkness my church doctrine would switch from its failed Cal-minian roots back to its original Arminian roots which I knew nothing of, but in later years of study would come to embrace having seen the end of Calvinism into its degenerate forms of neo-Calvinism.

And so this I have done. Through its course it would expand towards Open and Relational Theology as Arminianism's natural contemporary predecessor. To this direction I have been adding Process Theology as the greater, more expansive Christian route to follow in these days of church cynicism and degradation of its faith. For the novice, what some call Progressive Christianity (birthed from its own roots of Emergent Christianity) is an expanded form of post-evangelicalism in its healthier forms of faith and worship. Now Process Theology may have its roots in Emergent and Progressive Christianity as a post-evangelical movement but is more formally defined as coming from the end-of-life work of Alfred North Whitehead having retired from mathematics and burdened to write down what he called a Philosophy of Organism. This later has become known as Process Philosophy. The Theology part of it comes from Whitehead's own Christian faith. So at once Whitehead's Philosophy of Organism is both philosophical and theological. This would not be dissimilar to what John Calvin did when writing his Institutes nor what Jakob Arminius' students did with Jakob's teachings on theology. In history, such literate visionaries look into the future to envisage what they believe will bring aide and comfort to the masses. So too Thomas Paine, John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, Marx and Engels, and on and on. All well intentioned until it isn't anymore.

Per its roots, Calvinism is a faith which cites Scripture upholding to a perfect, high holy God whose rules over creation and all those who are worthy, or not worthy, of His love, and therefore must be condemned under His wrath to death and damnation. However, Messiah Christ is the One who comes to save mankind to prevent this tragedy from happening. That, in a nutshell is Calvinism and Evangelicalism wrapped up into one. In contrast, Process Theology returns to God's love as the center for all things, and the Christ of the Cross, as I had once learned through my earlier worship and study experiences. It is also this latter direction I wish to pursue by throwing out all the old rules I had learned under profane Calvinism by either modifying them or starting over all together. Hence, the past ten years have been an intense period of deconstructing and reconstructing my faith newly rebuilt upon the epistemic faith foundations of Christian uncertainty and doubt (but not fear!). I have found it extremely healthy for my spiritual walk with God granting days of wonderment and amazement how deep and wide the love of God is everywhere about us. It flows like a massive river we don't even realize is there!

Below is a condensed summary of several important creeds and confessions of Calvinism's Protestant roots beginning back in the 1500s and how it was responded to by then converting Catholic assemblies during the next 100 years through the 1600s. From its birth, Calvinism has been deeply directional for many denominational forms of Protestantism as faith assemblies were leaving behind the Catholic Church with its scholastic teachings. It is also where many evangelical churches have centered their faith today within the maze of secular Christian ideology and practice. For a fuller history of the Protestant church read Latourette's books to help explain and provide insight. I might also suggest for those Catholic readers here that Thomism and Franscican orders seem relevant for today. For myself, anything that Pope Francis says and does is highly helpful and relevant (mostly, but not always aka the church's position of LGBTQ lately). I also would remind everyone that Process Theology, or Process Christianity, is very fluid and easy to adapt into any Christian faith or sect. You will also find many of its elements in world religions which may also then be instructive to the Islamic and Buddhist faiths to mention a few.

R.E. Slater
April 20, 2021

John Calvin, the Confession, Canons, and Catechism of Continental Calvinism

Jacobus Arminius, the Dutch Reformer of Continental Arminianism

Process Futures Grant Hope as well as Being

   
Kenneth S Latourette (Author)

RELATED REFERENCES

Anything by Arminian Theologian Roger Olson - Website

Index- Calvinism v. Arminianism

Index - Calvinism v. Wesleyanism

Index - Open & Relational Process Theology

Index - Process Philosophy & Theology

Index - Process-Based Integral Philosophy

https://www.slideserve.com/thina/process-theology

Thomas Oord - Thank Goodness, God is NOT in Control

Thank Goodness, God is Not in Control

Article Link

by Thomas Oord, March 18, 2021

It’s common for people who believe in God to respond to suffering, confusion, or evil by saying, “All I know is that God is in control!”

To the ears of survivors, victims, hurting people, this phrase is rarely reassuring. It leads many to wonder if God is punishing them, has abandoned them, or just doesn’t care about their pain.

In this essay, I explore what it means for God to act, to be powerful, and to love. I’ll introduce a new phrase “essential kenosis” as a way to point to how God always acts, is powerful, always loves, but is unable to prevent evil single-handedly.

Those Who Start with Power

To make sense of how God acts, the majority of people – both trained theologians and novices – begin with God’s power. This is understandable: action requires power of some kind.

The majority of believers have a particular view of divine power in mind, however. They use various words to describe it, including “sovereignty,” “omnipotence,” or “almightiness.” No matter the preferred word, most believe God can control others should God decide to do so. God can be controlling.

By “control,” most think God can single-handedly determine outcomes in the world. Divine control means that God’s actions in relation to someone or something allows no creaturely cooperation or resistance. God alone determines what happens in a situation.

A small group of believers in God think God always controls others all the time. This is what theologians call “theological determinism.” God is the omnicause. [1] Those who affirm this position typically appeal to mystery or the inscrutable divine will when questions about evil and creaturely freedom arise.

The majority of people I meet believe God gives creatures and creation some freedom, agency, and indeterminacy. Some think God controls everything except humans.[2]

Most who say God gives freedom, agency, or existence to creatures say doing so is a free choice on God’s part. They believe God voluntarily chooses not to control others. In their view, the God who could control usually gives freedom.

Beginning with Love

I think there’s a better way to think about how God acts. It begins with love. The alternative view of divine action I propose starts with God’s loving relations to creation rather than God’s power.

Most people believe God loves. Most wholeheartedly affirm the biblical phrase “God is love,” although theologians interpret that statement in various ways. Most say God’s love is steadfast, as biblical writers repeatedly say. I’ve never met a Christian who explicitly denies that God loves.

When I say that my view begins with God’s love, I mean, first, that God’s love is relational. God gives and receives from creatures. Rather than being unaffected by what creatures do, God suffers with and rejoices alongside creatures.

I also believe God’s love is inherently uncontrolling. “Love does not insist on its own way,” to quote the Apostle Paul (1 Cor. 13:5). To put it more clearly, love never single-handedly decides outcomes. God’s love does not control.

When I put this idea in a scholarly way, I say love is logically prior to power in God’s nature. Because God’s nature is first and foremost uncontrolling love, God never controls creatures, situations, or worlds. God can’t control.

Essential Kenosis

I call the view I’m proposing “essential kenosis.” I suspect this phrase is new to most, so let me explain it.

In a letter written to people in Philippi, the Apostle Paul uses the Greek word kenosis. He says, “each of you look not to your own interests, but to the interests of others.” He then says Christ Jesus “emptied himself (kenosis), taking the form of a slave.” This included Jesus humbling himself and dying on a cross. We therefore ought to “work out [our] own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in [us], enabling [us] both to will and to work for his good pleasure” (Phil. 2:3-13).

Scholars translate kenosis in various ways. But many believe this passage says Jesus reveals something important about God’s nature. Jesus’ kenosis tells us something crucial about who God is and how God acts.

The meaning of kenosis is partly given in phrases such as Jesus “taking the form of a slave,” “humbled himself,” and his “death on a cross.” Kenosis refers to action that looks “to the interest of others” and enables “us to will and to work.” Taken in light of Jesus, these phrases suggest that God’s power is essentially self-giving not overpowering. Instead of controlling us, God enables us to act.[3]

Essential Kenosis vs. Voluntary Self-Limitation

Is God’s uncontrolling love a choice? Could God sometimes decide to control?

Some who embrace kenosis theology say God voluntarily self-limits. God could control other creatures or creation but usually choose not to do so.

The voluntary self-limitation view has big problems, however. It says to survivors, victims, and those who have been harmed that God could have prevented their pain. God could momentarily un-self-limit to prevent evil. Notice that Polkinghorne says God “allows” the act of the murderer and the destructive force of an earthquake. The [controlling] God who freely allows evil, however, is not perfectly loving.

Love does not permit genuine evil that could be stopped.

Essential Kenosis

In opposition to the idea God voluntarily self-limits, essential kenosis says God cannot control anyone or anything. It says God is present throughout all creation, to every creature and entity, no matter how small or large. And God always acts to influence creation. From the big bang, in the emergence of life, through evolutionary history, and ongoing today, God acts with uncontrolling love.

Essential kenosis stands between two related views of God’s love and power. We’ve already looked at one: God voluntarily self-limits. The other view says external forces, factors, agents, or worlds essentially limit God. This view gives the impression that outside actors and powers not of God’s making hinder divine power. Or it says God is subject to laws of nature, imposed from without.

The “external forces limit God” view unfortunately portrays God as a helpless victim to external realities. God seems caught in the clutches of exterior principalities and powers.

Essential kenosis rejects both voluntary divine self-limitation and the idea external powers limit God. It says limits to God’s power derive from within: God’s nature of love. God’s eternal nature is to love others in an uncontrolling way.

Conclusion

In this essay, I sketched out my view and why it matters to start with love when pondering divine action. As I see it, the essential kenosis view of divine action, with its emphasis up God’s self-giving, others-empowering, and therefore uncontrolling love of God offers the best overall model of divine action.

---

Thomas Jay Oord, Ph.D., is a theologian, philosopher, and scholar of multi-disciplinary studies. Oord directs the Center for Open and Relational Theology and doctoral students at Northwind Theological Seminary. He is an award-winning author and has written or edited more than twenty-five books. A gifted speaker, Oord lectures at universities, conferences, churches, and institutions. He is known for his contributions to research on love, science and religion, open and relational theology, the problem of suffering, and the implications of freedom for transformational relationships. Website: thomasjayoord.com

Notes:

[1] Paul Kjoss Helseth advocates this view (“God Causes All Things,” in Four Views on Divine Providence, ed. Dennis W. Jowers [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2011], 52).

[2] Jack Cottrell advocates an interventionist God (“The nature of Divine Sovereignty,” in The Grace of God, The Will of Man, Clark H. Pinnock, ed. [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1989], 112).

[3] I note biblical scholarship supporting this position in my book, The Uncontrolling Love of God: An Open and Relational Account of Providence (Downers Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press Academic, 2015