Thomas Jay Oord - Strong Passibility, Trinity & Theocosmocentrism

Strong Passibility, Trinity, and Theocosmocentrism

http://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/archives/strong-passibility-trinity-theocosmocentrism

by Thomas Jay Oord
January 19, 2018

An increasing number of Christians believe God is relational. To be “relational” is, in the classical language, to be “passible.” It means that God is affected by others.

I’ve written an essay for a new book on im/passibility, and I defend what the editors call “strong passibility.” In my language, I call this God’s essential relations with others.

In this essay, I lay out two ways we might think relationality is essential to God. And I mention a third way, which is really a combination of the first two. I’ll also point to concerns with these ways, although I think at least some of these concerns can be overcome.

Strong Passibility/Essential Divine Relations

The strong divine passibility view I defend says being affected by others is a necessary attribute of God’s nature. God doesn’t voluntarily choose to be affected; God is necessarily affected. I have been using the phrase “essentially relational” to describe strong divine passibility.

I take the biblical phrase, “God is love,” to mean that love is an essential divine attribute. If God is essentially loving and love always involves relational giving and receiving relationships, God must be essentially relational. Strong divine passibility says God is necessarily and everlastingly passible.

God Essentially Relates in Trinity

There are two ways (and a third that combines them) to affirm strong divine passibility. The first says God essentially relates in Godself. This view is typically associated with a vision of God as a social Trinity. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (or other names we might use) have everlastingly related with one another. Some call this relating a perichoretic dance. This Trinitarian view affirms that God everlastingly and necessarily relates in Godself.

There are several downsides placing all one’s emphasis upon the Trinity to affirm strong passibility. One downside is that saying divine persons relate to one another sounds to many people like tritheism rather than monotheism. Real relations require real differences; real relations among persons require more than one person. Few Christians want to say three Gods exist.

Those who affirm the social Trinity also typically affirm the idea that God once existed alone and then created the universe out of nothing. They say God necessarily loves and relates in Trinity but contingently loves and relates with creation. The downside of this view, however, is that God’s love for creation is arbitrary, in the sense that there is no essential divine attribute for love of creaturely others. God by nature does not love nondivine others.

The view that God only loves necessarily within Trinity can sound like God is inherently selfish. After all, God necessarily loves Godself and contingently loves creatures. By contrast, many believe love promotes the well-being of those beyond the lover. And imitating God involves loving others not just ourselves.

Those who affirm God as essentially related in Trinity respond to these criticisms. The most common response says it’s a mystery how God can be both one and essentially self-related as three. Some regard this as the highest of holy mysteries. And we should simply believe God will always love creatures, despite there being no love-for-creation attribute essential to God’s nature.

God Essentially Relates with Creation

The second way to affirm that God essentially relates with others says God essentially relates with creatures. This way denies that God once existed alone and at some time decided to create the universe out of nothing. Instead, God always and necessarily relates with creatures, because God always creates others with whom God relates.

I call this view “theocosmocentrism,” but some forms of panentheism also affirm it. Theocosmocentrism says we make the best sense of reality if we refer both to God and creation. The strong passibility version of theocosmocentrism says God necessarily loves and relates to creation, but the particular ways God loves and relates with creation are contingent.

One disadvantage to the theocosmocentric way of affirming strong divine passibility is that many people cannot fathom how God everlastingly relates to creation. Most Christians accept that God had no beginning, although they cannot fathom that view. They also accept a big bang cosmology that says our universe had a beginning. So they cannot fathom how God everlastingly creates and relates to creation. Affirming both requires believing God was creating before the big bang. That’s difficult for many to conceive.

God Essentially Relates in Trinity and with Creation

Another downside to the idea that God always relates to creatures (at least in the minds of some) is that the idea isn’t explicitly Trinitarian. Some theologians want to keep the Trinity front and center. Saying God essentially relates to creatures doesn’t require belief in Trinity, at least not obviously so.

But this downside can be overcome. One can affirm that God essentially relates in Trinity and God essentially relates with creatures. Both types of necessary relations can be true simultaneously. We might even consider Jesus’ revelation of a relational God as evidence of this doubly essential divine relatedness.

A God of Strong Passibility Exists Necessarily

One can affirm any of these versions of strong divine passibility and think God exists necessarily. Strong passibility and divine aseity are compatible. God can necessarily exist and essentially relate to divine others or creaturely others or both. There is no logical contradiction.

With the Psalmist, we can affirm that the steadfast love of the Lord can literally endure forever. And that enduring can be within Trinity, with creation, or both (Ps. 118).

Conclusion

This argument is part of my much longer essay defending God’s relationality in general and essential relations in particular. Look for it in a 4 views book next fall.

In my next blog essay, I’ll offer reasons it’s better to affirm strong divine passibility/essential relations than weak passibility. My goal in this essay, however, is to lay out two ways to say God is essentially relational.

* * * * * * * * * *

Why We Should Believe God is Essentially Relational

http://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/archives/believe-god-essentially-relational

by Thomas Jay Oord
January 25, 2018

It seems that most Christians believe God is relational. I agree. Theologians call this “divine passibility.” But some Christians think God chooses to be relational, while others think God is relational by nature. Does it matter whether we believe God is relational by choice or by nature?

Five Reasons to Affirm God is Essentially Relational

In my previous post, I described two forms of strong passibility, or what I usually call God’s “essential relations.” One form says God essentially relates within Trinity. The second says God essentially relates with creation. A third combines them to say God essentially relates in Trinity and with creation.

So what? Does it matter that we affirm the strong version of divine passibility? After all, biblical writers don’t explicitly endorse one version of passibility instead of the other. I think it does matter, and there are good reasons to believe God is relational by nature and not by an arbitrary choice. Saying God is essentially relational makes better sense than saying God is contingently relational.

1. The God Revealed as Relational is So by Nature

I am among many who believe it wise to unite conceptually how God self-reveals with who God truly is. We should believe the God witnessed to in Jesus, the Bible, and in other forms of revelation is who God truly is by nature.

While this argument isn’t a proof, it makes sense to think that the God revealed as relational is who God is by nature.

2. God’s Essence is Love, and Love is Relational

Affirming strong passibility provides a consistent view of divine love. If love is an essential divine attribute and God essentially and everlastingly expresses love in relations with others, strong divine passibility makes sense.

Strong divine passibility does not force us to do apophatic gymnastics when speaking of God’s love. It doesn’t balk at speculating about God’s nature. Strong divine passibility provides a coherent framework for conceiving of God’s love.

To affirm that love is an essential attribute of God, we should affirm strong divine passibility.

3. Only an Essentially Relational God Can be Trusted to Love Us

If God’s love is essentially relational and God necessarily relates with creatures (theocosmocentrism), we have assurance that God always loves us. God loves us no matter what, because that’s the kind of being God is.

Weak divine passibility cannot affirm this, because it says God’s love for us is contingent. The weak view cannot say God necessarily loves creation. And those who deny divine passibility altogether cannot speak coherently about God being compassionate or expressing love in giving-and-receiving relations.

To affirm unambiguously God’s steadfast love for us, we should affirm strong divine passibility.

4. An Essentially Relational God is Best Conceived as Uncontrolling

I’ve argued in other publications that God’s love is uncontrolling. Strong divine passibility fits nicely with the view that God’s love is necessarily uncontrolling, because divine love necessarily gives and receives.

Believing God cannot control others solves the central issue in the problem of evil: the God who cannot control is not culpable for failing to prevent evil. I call this “essential kenosis.”[1] Although one could affirm weak divine passibility and the uncontrolling love of God, the strong divine passibility view fits uncontrolling love better.

To affirm clearly that God is not culpable for evil, we should affirm strong divine passibility.

5. An Essentially Relational God Will Never Leave nor Forsake Us

The theocosmocentric version of strong divine passibility provides grounds for believing it is necessarily true that God will “never leave you or forsake you” (Dt. 31:6; Heb. 13:5).

Other views cannot affirm that God necessarily relates to creatures. If those views are correct, God may choose to leave us and forsake us. There’s nothing to prevent God from giving up and abandoning us. Those views provide no confidence God will always be with us.

To be confident that God will never leave us or forsake us, we should affirm strong divine passibility.

Conclusion

To my way of thinking, these are powerful reasons to believe God is relational by nature and not merely by choice. But I know that some will disagree. In the final post of this series, I’ll show that even most who think God chooses to be relational actually think God is necessarily so.

- TJO

*See my arguments in The Uncontrolling Love of God: An Open and Relational Theory of Providence (Downers Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Academic, 2015) and various essays in Uncontrolling Love: Essays Exploring the Uncontrolling Love of God with Introductions by Thomas Jay Oord, Chris Baker, Gloria Coffin, Craig Drurey, Graden Kirksey, Lisa Michaels, and Donna Ward, eds. (San Diego, Ca.: SacraSage, 2017).

Thomas Jay Oord - A Process View of God & Creation

Creatio Ex Nihilo and Creation Care

http://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/archives/creatio-ex-nihilo-and-creation-care

by Thomas Jay Oord

April 2, 2018

A growing number of Christians see the need to care for creation. But most of these Christians affirm the ancient idea that God created the universe out of nothing (creatio ex nihilo). Does care for creation fit well with creatio ex nihilo? I don’t think so…

I’ve been writing a book chapter for a new book on the influence — for good or ill — of Christianity’s creation doctrines on climate change, ecological degradation, and species extinction. In that essay, I address four creation theology issues, one of which is the creation from nothing view.

Implicit in these issues are three questions: Does God’s love entail plans, desires, and purposes for creation? Does God have the power to control creation to accomplish those purposes? Do creaturely actions – for good or ill – ultimately matter to God’s purposes?

Ex Nihilo?

Since the third century, most Christians have said God initially created our universe from absolute nothingness.[2] The Bible doesn’t explicitly support this claim.[3] Instead, biblical writers speak of God creating out of or in relation to creation (water, invisible things, chaos [tehom], the deep, and more) rather than from nothing. Nevertheless, the doctrine of creation from nothing prevails among liberal and conservative Christians.

Historians argue about the origin of the creation from nothing view. Gerhard May’s widely influential thesis is that two Gnostic leaders introduced the idea. Gnosticism typically regards matter as inherently evil, so Gnostics would understandably be averse to the idea a holy God used unholy materials when creating. Most Christians reject the Gnostic belief that matter is inherently evil, but they retain the creation from nothing view.

In the second century, Irenaeus proved influential in establishing creatio ex nihilo among Christians. “[God] was influenced by no one but, rather, made all things by his own counsel and free will,” argues Irenaeus.[4]“God made those things that were made in order that all things might exist out of things that did not exist, just as he willed, making use of matter by his own will and power.”[5]

The sovereignty of God was especially important for Irenaeus’s claim that God created from nothing. “The will of God must rule and dominate in everything,” he argued, “everything else must give way to it, be subordinated to it, and be a servant to it.”[6]

Alternatives to Ex Nihilo

Christians propose alternatives to creatio ex nihilo. Some of yesteryear and some today suggest that God creates from Godself or ex Christi.[7] The idea that God creates out of Godself seems to lead to pantheism, however. Most Christians want to distinguish between the transcendent Creator and creation, believing God differs in important ways from creation and alone is worthy of worship. Consequently, creatio ex deo/christitheory has few adherents.

Other Christians argue that God creates out of chaos, possibilities, profundity, love, previously created things, eternal matter, and more.[8] The motivations they have for proposing these theories vary, but some appeal to their favorite theory for its fruitfulness for ecological concerns.

These theories also often provide a middle way between an entirely transcendent or entirely immanent God. Labels such as “panentheism,” “a sacramental universe,” “theocosmocentrism,” or “deep incarnation” describe this middle way.

Ex Nihilo Implies Creation is Insignificant

Those who offer alternative theories to creatio ex nihilo note two problems the traditional view presents for motivating Christians to care for creation. The first problem is that creation from nothing implies creation is ultimately insignificant. That which comes from nothing is finally superfluous.

Proponents of creatio ex nihilo typically regard creation’s lack of necessity as positive. Creatio ex nihilo tells us, they say, that creation is a free divine gift from a transcendent God. God could have decided not to create, and God could decide, at any moment, to send creation into nonexistence. Creation is a wholly divine gift bestowed and supported by God’s omnipotence.

Thinking God created the universe from nothing, however, easily leads to thinking creation does not ultimately matter. Michael Zbaraschuk puts it this way: “If the world is created out of the nothing in a free expression of the divine power, its radical contingency means that it is, at the end of the day, not very important. If God made it once unilaterally, so God can make it again.”[9]

It’s understandably difficult for some Christians to feel motivated to care for and protect what ultimately doesn’t matter. The lack of motivation becomes especially problematic when caring for and protecting creation requires considerable self-sacrifice.

Does the Bible Explicitly Teach Creation Care?

Some respond to this charge by arguing that earthly-oriented motivations ought to be secondary. Christians ought to be primarily concerned with what God commands, they say, not with whether creation is radically contingent. “Who cares how the universe was created or if it ultimately matters,” they say, “we must obey God and not worry about understanding our world.”

Making a biblical case that God commands care for creation, however, requires interpretive moves not obvious to many Christians.[10] While important scholarly work has been done, much of the biblical witness seems unconcerned with creation care. Anthropocentrism reigns.

Ecologically-oriented theology would find strong scriptural justification had Jesus said, “Love all creatures great and small, care for the earth and its ecosystems, and learn to live sustainably with creation!” While biblical writers say God cares for nonhuman creatures, explicit commands that humans love animals, ecosystems, and the planet are rare if present at all.

Ex Nihilo Implies God Could Singlehandedly Prevent Ecological Destruction

The traditional creation from nothing view implies a second problem: If God has the power to create something from nothing, it stands to reason God has the power to prevent ecological degradation singlehandedly. Such prevention might mean overpowering humans to stop them from harming creation, or it might mean creating from nothing obstacles to thwart such harm.

If God has creatio ex nihilo power and yet allows environmental degradation, one might even assume God wants that degradation. If God really cared about creation, the God with ex nihilo power could prevent ecological disaster singlehandedly.

This problem leads some Christians to adopt noninterventionist theologies, whereby God either can’t or won’t interrupt natural processes or creaturely free will. The “God won’t intervene” option doesn’t solve the problem, of course. After all, “won’t” retains the idea God could prevent ecological degradation unilaterally.

The “God can’t intervene” view is conceptually stronger, but it requires a more radical reformulation of divine power. I recommend that reformulation, however. In either case, however, theologians who believe God can’t or won’t prevent ecological degradation unilaterally should find alternatives theories to creatio ex nihiloattractive.

An Alternative to Ex Nihilo that Supports Creation Care

I suggest Christians set aside the view that God created the universe from absolute nothingness. Rather than follow the logic of Irenaeus, Christians should follow the logic of biblical passages, which consistently speak of God creating through, with, and alongside creation.

A more adequate creation theory might say God lovingly creates something new in each moment from that which God created previously, and God’s creating has always been occurring. Our universe began at the Big Bang, but it was preceded by previous universes and will be followed by more.

We might call this theory “creatio ex creatione sempieternaliter en amore,” if we thought the Latin mattered. The everlasting God who everlastingly creates is the ever Creator.

This view not only fits the dominant biblical views of God creating from creation, but it also supports the idea God creates through self-giving, others-empowering, and therefore uncontrolling love. And it says the God who creates from creation cannot prevent environmental evils singlehandedly. (Click for more on this alternative creation doctrine.)

- TJO

NOTES…

[2] For essays focusing on particular advocates of creatio ex nihilo in history, see chapters in David B. Burrell, Carlo Cogliati, Janet M. Soskice, and William R. Stoeger, Creation and the God of Abraham (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010) and “Creation ‘Ex Nihilo’ and Modern Theology,” in Modern Theology 29:2 (April 2013).

[3] Among the many biblical scholars who say creatio ex nihilo is not explicitly found in the Bible, see Joseph Blenkinsopp, Creation, Un-Creation, Re-Creation: A Discursive Commentary on Genesis 1-11 (London: T & T Clark, 2011); William P. Brown, The Ethos of the Cosmos: The Genesis of Moral Imagination in the Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999); Brevard S. Childs, Myth and Reality in the Old Testament, Studies in Biblical Theology, No. 27 (London: SCM, 1960); Terence E. Fretheim, God and World in the Old Testament: A Relational Theology of Creation (Nashville: Abingdon, 2005); Rolf P. Knierim, Task of Old Testament Theology (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1995); Jon D. Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Jewish Drama of Divine Omnipotence (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1994; New York: Harper & Row, 1987); Keith Norman, “Ex Nihilo: The Development of the Doctrines of God and Creation in Early Christianity,” BYU Studies 17/3 (1977): 291-318; Shalom M. Paul, “Creation and Cosmogony: In the Bible,” Encyclopedia Judaica (Jerusalem: Keter, 1972), 5:1059-63; Mark S. Smith, The Priestly Vision of Genesis 1 (Philadelphia: Fortress, 2010); David Toshio Tsumura, The Earth and the Waters in Genesis 1 and 2: A Linguistic Investigation (Sheffield: JSOT, 1989); Bruce K. Waltke, Creation and Chaos (Portland, OR: Western Conservative Baptist Seminary, 1974); Claus Westermann, Genesis 1-11: A Commentary, John J. Scullion, S. J., trans. (London: SPCK, 1994); Frances Young, “Creatio Ex Nihilo: A Context for the Emergence of Christian Doctrine of Creation,” Scottish Journal of Theology 44 (1991): 139-51; John H. Walton , The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2009).

[4] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Ancient Christian Writers Series, Book 2, Vol. 64 (New York: Newman, 2012), 1.1.

[5] Ibid., 10.2.

[6] Ibid., 34:4.

[7] For biblical support for creation out of Christ, see 1 Cor. 8:6, Col. 1:15-20, John 1:1-3, and Heb. 1:2.

[8] Find arguments for these vies in Theologies of Creation: Creation Ex Nihilo and its New Rivals, Thomas Jay Oord, ed. (New York: Routledge, 2015).

[9] Michael Zbaraschuk, “Creatio Ex Deo: Incarnation, Spirituality, Creation” in Theologies of Creation, 85.

[10] For examinations of the biblical claims about creation care, see Richard Bauckham, The Biel and Ecology: Rediscovering the Community of Creation (London: Darton, Longman, and Todd, 2010), Norma Habel, ed., The Earth Story in Genesis (Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic, 2000).

* * * * * * * * * * *

My Alternative Theory of Creation

http://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/archives/alternative-theory-initial-creation

by Thomas Jay Oord
April 3, 2017

In three previous blogs, I explored 9 reasons many Christians affirm the theory that God initially created our universe from absolutely nothing. Although some of the reasons have validity, I found none of them to be ultimately convincing.

In this blog, I want to offer my alternative to creation from nothing.

The Basic Idea: creatio ex creatione sempiternaliter en amore

My new theory of creation says God, in love, always creates out of what God previously created. As the ever Creator, God has everlastingly been creating.

That’s it in a nutshell. But there’s a lot packed into those phrases. So let me explain a bit more…

My theory says God never creates out of absolute nothingness. Each moment of creation history begins with God creating something in relation to what God previously created. God always creates something new from something old and never ex nihilo.

This theory says God has always been creating. God’s work to create in relation to what God previously created has always been going on. To put it another way, God’s creating is everlasting. That’s why I call God the “ever Creator.” God’s creating activity had no absolute beginning and is new every moment of a history without beginning or end.

This implies that God has never existed absolutely alone. God has always related to creatures, whether those creatures be complex or simple, whether creation be ordered or disordered. In fact, I believe God essentially relates to creation. God does not just relate within Trinity but also with the creaturely entities God creates. God’s relationality derives necessarily from God’s essence.

My theory says God must create. Creating is a necessary activity for God, because creating is an essential attribute of God’s nature. God has always existed and always creates, because creating is indispensable to the necessarily creative God.

Perhaps most importantly, my theory says love is God’s motive for and means of creating. And love is God’s creative goal. God’s nature is first and foremost love, which means God always loves, and this love is creative, self-giving, and others-empowering. To the question, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” my theory says, “because God always loves, and this love always motivates God’s creating.” From my perspective, love is the key to understanding reality.

One could describe my alternative theory with the Latin phrase creatio ex creatione sempiternaliter en amore. This phrase means “creating out of creation everlastingly in love.” To put it differently: God always and lovingly creates out of that which God previously created, and this creating has always been occurring.

What My Theory Does Not Mean

My creation theory that God always and lovingly creates out of what God previously created needs further explanation. Like all theories – especially new ones – it is prone to misunderstanding.

In my next blog, I’ll address four misunderstandings. As a teaser for that blog, I’ll conclude by mentioning the four misunderstandings I suspect many will have when first encountering my alternative theory of initial creation:

• My theory does not say or imply that our universe is eternal.

• My theory does not mean God is without freedom.

• My theory does not mean creation pre-exists God.

• My theory says that for God to exist, God does not need creation.

* * * * * * * * * * *

Overcoming Misunderstandings of

My Creation Theory

http://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/archives/overcoming-misunderstandings-of-my-creation-theory

by Thomas Jay Oord
April 19, 2017

My new theory of initial creation denies that God creates out of nothing. It says God always and lovingly creates out of that which God previously created. God is ever Creator. But I recognize that my alternative view is open to misunderstandings. So I want to address the most common.

Upon first hearing my view (here’s a link), some people will jump to wrong conclusions about what it means. That’s understandable. We typically make sense of new ideas in relation to old ones. We naturally make assumptions – right or wrong – about what new ideas imply.

Below I list four common misunderstandings people have when first hearing of my view…

My theory does not say or imply that the universe is eternal.

My view that God always creates out of what God previously created implies that God never exists alone. God always creates and relates with creaturely others, whether complex or simple. This could sound to some like our universe is eternal.

My theory does not, however, require one to think our universe or any other universe exists eternally. In fact, I don’t believe any universe exists eternally. Instead, my theory simply says that whatever new God creates is done in relation to the old God previously created. Creatures and universes come and go. They are temporary.

In my view, only God exists everlastingly. Neither our universe nor any other is co-eternal with God. A succession of entities, creatures, and universes has always been, but no particular entity, creature, or universe has always been.

On this point, it’s important to remember that all created things have beginnings. I affirm this. Most if not all of them come to an end. Remembering this can help us avoid the misunderstanding that my theory requires an eternal universe.

While God always creates and relates to creatures, no universe exists eternally.

My theory affirms that God is free.

My alternative theory of initial creation says God must create, because creating is a necessary aspect of God’s nature. God would not be God if not Creator. Just as God does not voluntarily choose to exist but simply does so, God does not voluntarily choose whether to create. God cannot choose not to create, to use the double negative. God is not free, in this sense.

But my theory says God is free in choosing how to create, given creaturely conditions and God’s love. God chooses in relation to an open and not predetermined future. God freely creates in relation to creation and a host of possibilities. God is free when creating, in this important sense.

Let me illustrate what I mean.

We are each human, and we are not free to be something else. We cannot breathe exactly like fish, for instance, nor can we fly exactly like eagles. But we are free as humans to act in various humanly ways. Our human freedom is real. Because of our humanness and the conditions of our world, however, our freedom is limited. We are not free to be nonhuman. We must be human.

Similarly, God is not free to be something else. God must be God, which includes having particular attributes and eternal character. The Bible tells us that God cannot lie, for instance. The apostle Paul says God “cannot deny himself.” In fact, the Bible lists several things God is not free to do. In short, God is not free to be nondivine, because God must be divine.

God is free, however, to create in relation to creatures and creation. God’s freedom is real in determining how God chooses to create. God’s freedom is limited by God’s own self-giving, others-empowering love, which creates while giving and then respecting the freedom and integrity of creation. But this leaves open a wide range of options for God freely to create in love.

My theory does not imply that creation pre-exists God.

When God began creating our universe at the big bang, God created in relation to or “out of” what God created previously. What God created before the big bang must have been incredibly diffuse and chaotic. This realm of “stuff” must have been highly disorganized and simple, the chaotic elements of a dying universe that had come before.

The very simple elements out of which God created our universe were also created by God. In other words, God created something new at the big bang from that which God created before the big bang.

God always creates in each moment out of that which God created in previous moments. Consequently, no universe, world, creature, or thing pre-exists or pre-dates God, because God acts first in each moment when creating each creature.

My theory agrees with the common Christian concern that an adequate theory of creation not say God creates from stuff “laying around” that God didn’t first create. In my view, God didn’t “stumble upon” some stuff that God had not first created. In each moment – the present moment, at the Big Bang, and before – God acts first to create in relation to what God previously created. Nothing pre-exists God.

My theory says that for God to exist, God does not need creation.

Some Christians embrace creation from nothing as a way to say God exists essentially independent of creatures. My theory affirms that God is independent of creation in several respects. But it also says God depends upon creation in other respects.

Like most believers, I think God exists necessarily. God does not need or depend upon creation in order for God to exist. Ancient people use the word “aseity” to describe the idea that God exists “in Godself.” This means that to exist, God does not require anything beyond the divine being. I affirm this understanding of aseity.

Unfortunately, some ancient people and Christians today think aseity means God must be independent of creatures in all ways. God’s self-existence, they say, implies that God is independent from others in all respects.

But aseity does not require this belief. It can simply mean God necessarily exists: God relies upon Godself to exist, and nothing could prevent God from existing. I accept this positive respect of divine independence and aseity.

My view says God does depend upon creation in other respects, however. The most important of the ways God depends upon creatures pertains to love. While I think God loves necessarily, I also believe love is inherently relational. Relational love takes at least two, because love is never solitary.

As I see it, God’s nature of love includes always loving creaturely others. In fact, God essentially loves and relates with all God creates. Consequently, God depends upon creation to exist as the recipients of relational love. And because my theory says God necessarily creates out of that which God previously created, it overcomes any doubt that creatures will exist whom God will relate with and love.

Because God’s love has both receptive and creative dimensions, God also depends upon creatures in the creating process. This dependence is not about whether God will create. God’s creative motivation comes from within; it derives from God’s nature of love. But God does depend upon creatures in choosing how to create.

The “materials” God uses when creating come from outside God. God does not create from Godself. God depends upon creatures to exist and join in, to whatever extent possible, the creative process. Creatures are created co-creators. Consequently, God is always motived internally to create out of creaturely others who are external and whom God created previously.

Conclusion

I suspect there other misunderstandings emerge in those who first encounter my theory. It takes time to think through the view that God always and lovingly creates out of what God previously created.

In the book I’m currently writing I plan to address other misunderstandings. And I’ll argue in greater depth for the cogency of a view that says love comes first in God, including in God’s creating.

If for some reason this is the first of my essays you’ve read on an alternative to creation from nothing, I invited you to read through previous posts on the issue in the Science and Theology tab of my webpage.

Is God Culpable For Sin and Evil?

Does God permit evil to produce good? The answer is "No, of course not," but to listen to old line theology is to say "Yes, God permits evil so that good might arise." This line of questioning goes back to the idea of how responsible is God, the Creator, for the suffering and evil that is in the world? Is He 100% culpable? 50%? 0%? Is it us? Is it God? Is it sin, devil, world, or those around us? If God is the Sovereign God of the universe, of all creation, over all mankind, over me and my actions, etc and etc, than is God culpable for sin and evil in any sense?

Again, the answer is, "No, of course not." It goes back to the premise we wrongly assumed and started off with - that God is "Sovereign" over sin and evil. In plain language, God is NOT. The sin and evil that is in this world is not of God, nor used or employed by God, nor continued by God, nor even of its own kinds of power or entity. It just is because there is love, freedom, goodness in this world. Once God granted love, freedom, and goodness than the conditions exited for rebellion - for not loving, for oppression, for doing harm. The initial conditions God granted set the initial outcomes of all things irrespective of who God is, desires, or wants.

Stated another way, "God is holy, good, loving, and righteous." And thus, we have a problem. Our definition of God and sin/evil is in direct opposition to what we think we know of God, the world, how it operates, ourselves, and so on. Quickly we would think, "If God is not God than He is neither Sovereign, Holy, Good, nor Loving!" But again, this is incorrect. God's relationship with His creation as Sovereign is extremely complicated - claims that He is a lesser God than He is, or incapable of "controlling" (a word which is unhelpful in this discussion but used all the time by Christians in explaining God to themselves and others) His creation, or a useless God for all the outcomes we see but do not like. These ascriptions cannot help us here.

So again, "Is God unwise, or short-sighted, or made powerless once He created a creation with the possibilities of sin and evil, or with such horrible outcomes as sin and evil?" This kind of question we'll leave to the philosophers and theologians but essentially, if God were to create a world with how it is now, in this moment, than this is how it will operate - both good and bad, right and wrong, loving and hating, along with its storms, cancers, brokenness, and such like.

Which brings us to another line of thought... Did God create a world in which He might share His fellowship and love with His creation despite knowing the outcomes of sin and evil? That because of His great love, that it is, that He must likewise allow His creation to respond one way or another. IF God were not the way He is in Himself than no corollaries would be resulting. But because God is who He is than all the corollaries we have read about, felt, and seen, are in evidence. They are, because He is. If He were not such those qualities would not be either. Nor would we be. Nor this world. Nor our family, friends, ministries, hopes, dreams, and occupations. Which gets us back to that philosophical line of thought we'll leave for another time - both in their heretical (non-theological) and non-heretical (theological) forms.

Experience tells us that sin and evil seemingly compounds itself out of control. But cannot light as well? Cannot light push away the darkness of sin and evil? And there's that old, mistaken assumption again... If I can't have a God who is "in control" than He isn't any kind of God I can believe, trust, respect, worship, or obey. In essence, we've assumed the role of God, we have become His own Father and Creator, we have told God how to be, live, run a universe, and so on. Curious, isn't it? A God who loves, who provided so much good, is accused of being so short-sighted, limited, and unwise. People like the biblical tragic figure of Job have stood on these same shoals asking similar questions of essence, ontology, and metaphysics. And God's reply? To look around us and answer us in the only categorical existentialisms we can understand. In this case, God used Job's definition for a good and loving God against Job's line of thinking. He didn't teach above it, beyond it, or redirect it. He used what Job knew and answered him to the point of overwhelming humbleness and submission.

Jesus was also such a tragic figure bearing the sin and evil of the world upon Himself. This, as Christianity teaches, is the very God who created all things who became for us a created, tempted thing but within sin or stain, blotch or blemish. Who took upon Himself all sin and evil unto His holy personage as ransom for all. His redemption as fully God and fully man enlivens creation with opportunity to live productively. To live lovingly in a sinful world. To resist its temptations and powers even to the point of death or martyrdom. And yet the world still spins, still reels from sin and evil, still goes along and we ask, "When, O God, shall this pain end? How shall this old creation be renewed?" Which we'll save for another day - that of the Christian hope in a creation full of pain. For if God cannot answer this question through love and by His love than I suspect all other versions of God's apocalyptic end-times are askew, filled with our sinful versions and ill-expectations of Himself, and need a bit of correction. Suffice it to say, we are to love God and love our neighbor. The simplicity of this command is enough to obey. To act as our Creator acts in all wisdom and love, goodness and justice. Be this so that your light might push away the darkness for others.

Peace,

R.E. Slater

March 25, 2018

      

PAUL APOSTLE OF CHRIST (2018) Movie

Full Official Trailer Drama Movie HD JC Series

"Christian" America's Weakness in the Age of Trumpian Politics

Yesterday I completed a four week mini-course on Sparta and Athens, both rivals and friends when it suited them. Sparta was a militaristic state which evolved Hellas' (The Greek name for Greece before Rome later renamed; thus "Hellenistic" culture or the influence of "Hellenism" upon the ancient Jewish world) first rudimentary democracy amongst its own Spartan population (750 BC). Otherwise, it was a slave state from first to last, expanding its territory as it went along and taking slaves (helots) as it conquered. Athens, whose power came 250 years later (around 500 BC), expanded the Spartan idea of a limited democracy to include all citizens of all races, classes, stripes and colors. Most of Western civilization is based upon this latter Hellenic model. As such, Athen's mode of "conquering" was through economic and political alliances which, once made, was difficult for city-states to get out of without resorting to a war of some kind against Athen's expanding global outreach. This ancient idea of "leaguing" with one another is still in use today to greater or lesser effect.

Thucydides, a late Athenian general, leader, and later exiled historian who used his freedom to travel abroad in the ancient world including that of Sparta, witnessed the Spartan-Athenian alliance work together to conquer a common adversary, Persia. But later this alliance dissolved through what he called "mutual distrust." This meant that each city-state power "feared the other" and came to determine what it had to do to keep its "rule" against the other's waxing power and influence. Though each had its own kind of democracy, how each understood and utilized its democracy was starkly different. One limited it to its own "race of people" (those who were "Spartans") while the other (Athens) extended it to "all its people living within its borders" regardless of race, color, or distinction. Over time, these systems clashed so that what destroyed Spartan and Athenian democracies was their own internal warfares with one another which weakened each and eventually ceeded (yielded) to tyranncy, greed, adverice, and a mania for wealth and power by the lesser lights of their citizenry.

Moreover, Thucydides who chronicled Hellas' legacies is considered the father of the school of political realism, which views the political behavior of individuals and the subsequent outcomes of relations between states as ultimately mediated by, and constructed upon, the emotions of fear and self-interest:

Jonathan Haslam from the University of Cambridge characterizes realism as "a spectrum of ideas."[1] Regardless of which definition is used, the theories of realism revolve around four central propositions:[2]That states are the central actors in international politics rather than individuals or international organizations,
That the international political system is anarchic as there is no supranational authority that can enforce rules over the states,
That the actors in the international political system are rational as their actions maximize their own self-interest, and
That all states desire power so that they can ensure their own self-preservation.

Realism is often associated with Realpolitik as both are based on the management of the pursuit, possession, and application of power. Realpolitik, however, is an older prescriptive guideline limited to policy-making (like foreign policy), while realism is a particular paradigm, or wider theoretical and methodological framework, aimed at describing, explaining and, eventually, predicting events in the international relations domain. The theories of Realism are contrasted by the cooperative ideals of liberalism.

Furthermore, the "Thucydides Trap" is one where international relations is upended through the emotional attitudes of fear and distrust (see article below). This is now in evidence across America as its democracy is threatened within and without:

The "Thucydides Trap" refers to when a rising power causes fear in an established power which escalates toward war. Thucydides wrote: "What made war inevitable was the growth of Athenian power and the fear which this caused in Sparta."

"By within," is meant how America will, or will not, extend its democratic principles to those races, cultures, and religions within its borderlands in an equal and just legal system. When refusing to do so it evolves into a democratic tyranncy of majority over the minorities. "By without," is meant how America behaves both to its Allies as well as to those newer rising international powers which would threaten its commerce and trade. Of course the benefit to all involved nations is the opportunity to examine, understand and accept one another in times of high stress. Many times the strength of nations can be found in accepting and examining a foe or ally's cultures and religions. The trap for Sparta and Athens was the rise of the latter's power and influence over the other resulting in the fear that it instilled in Sparta which made war inevitable between both ancient city-states.

Similarly, when reviewing Western civilization's past 500 years of history (1,500-2,100 AD) it has evidenced 16 incidents in which a rising national power threatened to displace a ruling one. Twelve of those historical incidents ended in war. The bottom line is that war is usually inevitable once the "fear line" of tolerability has been crossed. This is the "Thucydian Trap". Should America continue its militaristic rhetoric of war against rising powers like China we will witness an accelerating and harrowing relationship between both powers. Powers which should rather work together to solve massive global crises of water, food, pandemics, poverty, and injustice, rather than rattle sabers at each other vying for supremacy. The objective is as inane as the populations which think there can be a winner in war. However, in all wars, all lose. And in the case of Sparta and Athens the new winner was the one on the sidelines waiting to come in, namely, Macedonia under Philip and his son Alexander (the Great).

As an evolving democracy on the precipice of internal collapse, America owes itself the opportunity to continue reforming itself under the Constitutional principles of equality and justice both "within and without." And as an international power to share its wealth, knowledge and power with the world in a kind of relationship which works towards peace, cooperation, and acceptance. If not, America will continue civilization's course of mutually assured destruction where neither side wins and all sides lose. As a nation which prides itself as a Christian nation (which, when looking at its history can be highly debatable) would certainly be the Christianly thing to do. It is certain the Jesus thing to do who served others ahead of Himself and strove for peace, love and just equibility between all men and women. If America is a Christian nation then it will do the same - working for justice to its minorities within - and justice to the world without. It rests in the unique position of servanthood - a spiritual strength which could bring peace and goodwill to all nations. But if refusing, provide an injustice and harm beyond measure to all innocents within and abroad.

R.E. Slater

March 24, 2018

* * * * * * * * * *

The Thucydides Trap
http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/06/09/the-thucydides-trap/

When one great power threatens to displace another,
war is almost always the result --
but it doesn’t have to be.

by Graham Allison

June 9, 2017

In April, chocolate cake had just been served at the Mar-a-Lago summit when President Donald Trump leaned over to tell Chinese President Xi Jinping that American missiles had been launched at Syrian air bases, according to Trump’s account of the evening. What the attack on Syria signaled about Trump’s readiness to attack North Korea was left to Xi’s imagination.

Welcome to dinner with the leaders who are now attempting to

manage the world’s most dangerous geopolitical relationship.

The story is a small one. But as China challenges America’s predominance, misunderstandings about each other’s actions and intentions could lead them into a deadly trap first identified by the ancient Greek historian Thucydides. As he explained, “It was the rise of Athens and the fear that this instilled in Sparta that made war inevitable.” The past 500 years have seen 16 cases in which a rising power threatened to displace a ruling one. Twelve of these ended in war.

Of the cases in which war was averted — Spain outstripping Portugal in the late 15th century, the United States overtaking the United Kingdom at the turn of the 20th century, and Germany’s rise in Europe since 1990 — the ascent of the Soviet Union is uniquely instructive today. Despite moments when a violent clash seemed certain, a surge of strategic imagination helped both sides develop ways to compete without a catastrophic conflict. In the end, the Soviet Union imploded and the Cold War ended with a whimper rather than a bang.

Although China’s rise presents particular challenges, Washington policymakers should heed five Cold War lessons.

Lesson 1: War between nuclear superpowers is MADness.

The United States and the Soviet Union built nuclear arsenals so substantial that neither could be sure of disarming the other in a first strike. Nuclear strategists described this condition as “mutual assured destruction,” or MAD. Technology, in effect, made the United States and Soviet Union conjoined twins — neither able to kill the other.

Today, China has developed its own robust nuclear arsenal. From confrontations in the South and East China Sea, to the gathering storm over the Korean Peninsula, leaders must recognize that war would be suicidal.

Lesson 2: Leaders must be prepared to risk a war they cannot win.

Although neither nation can win a nuclear war, both, paradoxically, must demonstrate a willingness to risk losing one to compete.

Consider each clause of this nuclear paradox. On the one hand, if war occurs, both nations lose and millions die — an option no rational leader could choose. But, on the other hand, if a nation is unwilling to risk war, its opponent can win any objective by forcing the more responsible power to yield. To preserve vital interests, therefore, leaders must be willing to select paths that risk destruction. Washington must think the unthinkable to credibly deter potential adversaries such as China.

Washington must think the unthinkable to credibly deter potential adversaries such as China.

Lesson 3: Define the new “precarious rules of the status quo.”

The Cold War rivals wove an intricate web of mutual constraints around their competition that President John F. Kennedy called “precarious rules of the status quo.” These included arms-control treaties and precise rules of the road for air and sea. Such tacit guidelines for the United States and China today might involve limits on cyberattacks or surveillance operations.

By reaching agreements on contentious issues, the United States and China can create space to cooperate on challenges — such as global terrorism and climate change — in which the national interests the two powers share are much greater than those that divide them. Overall, leaders should understand that survival depends on caution, communication, constraints, compromise, and cooperation.

Lesson 4: Domestic performance is decisive.

What nations do inside their borders matters at least as much as what they do abroad. Had the Soviet economy overtaken that of the United States by the 1980s, as some economists predicted, Moscow could have consolidated a position of hegemony. Instead, free markets and free societies won out. The vital question for the U.S.-China rivalry today is whether Xi’s Leninist-Mandarin authoritarian government and economy proves superior to American capitalism and democracy.

Maintaining China’s extraordinary economic growth, which provides legitimacy for sweeping party rule, is a high-wire act that will only get harder. Meanwhile, in the United States, sluggish growth is the new normal. And American democracy is exhibiting worrisome symptoms: declining civic engagement, institutionalized corruption, and widespread lack of trust in politics. Leaders in both nations would do well to prioritize their domestic challenges.

Lesson 5: Hope is not a strategy.

Over a four-year period from George Kennan’s famous “Long Telegram,” which identified the Soviet threat, to Paul Nitze’s NSC-68, which provided the road map for countering this threat, U.S. officials developed a winning Cold War strategy: contain Soviet expansion, deter the Soviets from acting against vital American interests, and undermine both the idea and the practice of communism. In contrast, America’s China policy today consists of grand, politically appealing aspirations that serious strategists know are unachievable. In attempting to maintain the post-World War II Pax Americana during a fundamental shift in the economic balance of power toward China, the United States’ real strategy, truth be told, is hope.

In today’s Washington, strategic thinking is often marginalized. Even Barack Obama, one of America’s smartest presidents, told the New Yorker that, given the pace of change today, “I don’t really even need George Kennan.” Coherent strategy does not guarantee success, but its absence is a reliable route to failure.

Thucydides’s Trap teaches us that on the historical record, war is more likely than not. From Trump’s campaign claims that China is “ripping us off” to recent announcements about his “great chemistry” with Xi, he has accelerated the harrowing roller coaster of U.S.-China relations. If the president and his national security team hope to avoid catastrophic war with China while protecting and advancing American national interests, they must closely study the lessons of the Cold War.

*This article originally appeared in the May/June 2017 issue of FP magazine.

Madeline L'Engel & Thomas Oord - Being Light in the Darkness

"A Wrinkle in Time" author Madeline L'Engel's postmodern day counterpart is theologian Thomas Jay Oord who similarly deals with the issues of light and darkness - of how a loving and sovereign God acts in a world filled with sin and evil. In essence, God’s love makes a real and direct difference in the world and that without it there would be no hope. Evil would fill the entirety of its condition where no goodness or love could be found.

Yet God's love makes a real difference against evil when men and women submit to His divine love providing outcomes to creation which could not exist without creaturely obedience in response to the divine call, revelation, and examples set forth in Scripture (Jesus, for one) by God's positive, direct actions to love.

God's love is a love which partners with His creation without coercion, controlling, or determining obedience. Like a marriage partnership, He works within the limits we allow Him who fills His children with love and goodness when tempted at all times to give up, to allow sin and evil full reign. Little Meg in L'Engel's story fought against this same urge to discover she had the power to say no to evil when allowing the love and light of God's presence to guide her actions.

Some Christian groups call this incarnating moments of Jesus when God's presence in our faith in Him become pregnant with empowerment by His Holy Spirit. Other Christians, using less direct Christian descriptions, sense only the power and presence of a loving God asking us to say yes to Him that He might bring hope and healing not only to ourselves but to those around us in fundamental acts of Christlike actions.

Peace,

R.E. Slater

March 13, 2018

Reference Links:

• A Wrinkle in Time
• Uncontrolling Love Essays
• Uncontrolling Love

 

What Does God’s Love Do?

http://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/archives/what-does-gods-love-do#undefined.gbpl

by Thomas Jay Oord

March 7, 2018

If God’s love is uncontrolling, what does it actually do? Is God uninvolved in our lives? Or is God more like an object that inspires without directly affecting us?

In a recent International Journal of Systematic Theology article, Kevin Vanhoozer offered a dialogue between John Webster’s views of love and my own. Kevin wonders if my view of God’s uncontrolling love means God is ineffective in bring real change.

In this essay, I explain that God’s uncontrolling love makes a real and direct difference in the world.

What Divine Love Does

Vanhoozer wonders what God’s love actually does. “If it is real,” he says, “it should make a difference.” I agree.

My theology emphasizes that God’s love makes an actual difference in creation. God acts in many ways to promote wellbeing. God is the necessary cause in the existence of everything, moment by moment. But I do not think God’s action controls others.

I often refer to Aristotelean notions of causation when explaining my view. I think God expresses love as efficient, final, or formal causes, for instance. But God never acts as a sufficient cause. That would involve divine control. God always loves, and divine love is uncontrolling.

God’s love is more than an example that we might find inspiring. It is also directly affecting us moment by moment, empowering us to choose.

An Uncontrolling God Acts

Vanhoozer’s comments remind me of a worry the philosopher Arthur Holmes once raised. Holmes argued against theologies that say God lovingly persuades but never coerces. To him, the God who persuades “cannot act.”[1]

Holmes seems not to see the important distinction between 1) acting that affects outcomes and 2) acting that unilaterally determines. The vast majority of, if not all, actions we witness in the world affect others without controlling them.

In my view, God’s always acts, and divine love is action that makes a difference. Creatures or creation more generally cannot prevent God from acting. The outcomes God desires for creation, however, require creaturely response. Because God’s actions are always loving, God never singlehandedly determines others to generate outcomes.

The Marriage Proposal

I acted when asking my fiancé’ to marry me. Her favorable response, however, was required for the outcome I desired.

If I had tried to force, control, or unilaterally determine her, few would call such coercion loving. If she responds positively to me, however, we can say my action made a difference in generating the outcome I wanted: marriage. I think divine love is analogous.

Of course, I’m happy to say that my marriage proposal was accepted, and Cheryl and I have been married for almost 30 years. And my goal for our marriage to be excellent still requires her response. One person cannot guarantee a happy marriage!

God’s Love is Effective

Vanhoozer introduces a word in his essay that I do not think describes my view of God’s action well. That word is “non-effectual.” When summarizing my theology, he says I believe “God thus loves creatures not by strongly causing (i.e., determining) good things, but rather by constantly issuing non-effectual calls, thus weakly causing good things (when they happen).”

The word “non-effectual,” as Vanhoozer uses it, might sound as though he thinks my view entails that God’s actions do not produce any effect. He apparently means by “non-effectual” that I am claiming God’s actions do not necessarily produce God’s desired effect.[2]

To describe my view better, Vanhoozer might rephrase his sentence. The revised sentence might say “God loves creatures not by controlling events and thereby unilaterally causing good things but rather by constantly calling and empowering creatures, thereby symbiotically causing good things (as creation cooperates).”

This alternative statement rightly emphasizes my view that God’s actions are causal but not controlling. God’s actions in the world require creaturely cooperation to produce the results God wants. God’s actions prompt creatures to act in ways to produce some desired effect, but they do not necessarily produce such an effect.

Is Strong Divine Action “Determining?”

In summarizing my view, Vanhoozer says “strong” divine action is “determining.” This implies that weak divine action involves lack of control, in the sense of not producing the desired effect necessarily.

It seems that Vanhoozer believes controlling others to produce desired outcomes is the “stronger” form of power. I once believed this. But as I have argued in various publications, I now believe God’s almighty power is uncontrolling love.[3] And as I argued in previous blogs, this uncontrolling love can do miracles.

I believe the strongest form of power is cooperative rather than controlling. And many essayists in the new book, Uncontrolling Love, seem to agree.

God Acts as an Omnipresent Spirit

Let me conclude with brief words about God’s being. Like most theologians, I think that God is incorporeal. God is spirit (Jn. 4:24). I deny that God has a localized, physical, divine body with which God exerts an impact.

The biblical notions of God as ruach and pneuma are important for understanding why God fails to prevent genuine evil. While in some instances we use our bodies to prevent evil, God as spirit has no localized divine body to use in this way.

As spirit, God exerts efficient causation of the sort we think metaphysically analogous to other causal occurrences in the world. But efficient causation does not mean sufficient causation. Affecting others doesn’t mean controlling them.

One view of the human mind-body relationship helps as an analogy. Just as our minds exert efficient causal influence upon our bodies without entirely determining them, so God as spirit exerts causal influence upon creatures without entirely determining them. God acts causally without controlling others.[4]

Conclusion

God always acts, and we creatures cannot control God. God’s love is uncontrollable.

But God’s actions never control creatures. “Love does not force its own way,” to quote the Apostle Paul. Or to put it my language, God’s love always influences but is also always uncontrolling.

We cannot control God: God’s love is uncontrollable! But God can’t control us: God’s love is…

TJO

Notes

[1] Arthur F. Holmes, “Why God Cannot Act,” in Process Theology, ed. Ronald Nash (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1987).

[2] I am grateful to Kevin Vanhoozer for responding to a first draft of this essay and clarifying what he means by “effectual.” I tried to incorporate his thoughts here.

[3] See my books, Defining Love: A Philosophical, Scientific, and Theological Engagement (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Brazos, 2010); The Nature of Love: A Theology; and The Uncontrolling Love of God.

[4] For more on God acting as a spirit, see my essay, “The Divine Spirit as Causal and Personal,” in Zygon 48, no. 2 (2013): 466-77.

* * * * * * * * * *

Against a personal struggle to make sense of evil L'Engle found a way to communicate her Christian faith to a world struggling with the same: “If I’ve ever written a book that says what I feel about God and the universe, this is it,” L’Engle wrote in her journal about “A Wrinkle in Time.” “This is my Psalm of praise to life, my stand for life against death.”

R.E. Slater

March 13, 2018

“A Wrinkle in Time” author Madeleine L’Engle. (Crosswicks) 

Publishers rejected her, Christians attacked her: The deep faith of ‘A Wrinkle in Time’ author Madeleine L’Engle

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2018/03/08/publishers-rejected-her-christians-attacked-her-the-deep-faith-of-a-wrinkle-in-time-author-madeleine-lengle/?utm_term=.88714a8525aa

by Sarah Pulliam Bailey

March 8, 2018

It took 26 publisher rejections before Madeleine L’Engle could get “A Wrinkle in Time” into print in 1962. The book was an instant hit, winning the Newbery Medal the following year, but despite its wild success, L’Engle still had fierce critics — including a good number of them who disliked her book for faith reasons.

While L’Engle considered herself a devout Christian, and sprinkled the book with scriptural references, she was accused by some conservative Christians of promoting witchcraft and the occult — an accusation made later against “Harry Potter” author J.K. Rowling.

The religious wariness likely also contributed to some publishers’ rejection of the book, but it didn’t stop “A Wrinkle in Time” from being popular for more than 50 years after it was finally saw the light.

A Disney film adaptation of “A Wrinkle in Time,” which opens Thursday, stars Oprah Winfrey, Reese Witherspoon, Mindy Kaling, Chris Pine and Zach Galifianakis, and is directed by Ava DuVernay of “Selma.” In the story, 13-year-old Meg Murry, played in the film by Storm Reid, is guided by three angelic beings on a quest to find her father, a scientist who had gone missing.

“If I’ve ever written a book that says what I feel about God and the universe, this is it,” L’Engle wrote in her journal about “A Wrinkle in Time.” “This is my psalm of praise to life, my stand for life against death.”

Ava DuVernay's adaptation of the classic book has an all-star cast, including

Oprah Winfrey, Reese Witherspoon and Mindy Kaling.(Walt Disney Pictures)

[ Sorry, grownups. ‘A Wrinkle in Time’ is a kids’ film — for better and for worse. ]

Before she died in 2007 at age 88, L’Engle was the rare writer who ran in both liberal mainline Protestant circles and elite literary ones in New York City, and who also had made conservative evangelical fans around the country. L’Engle was part of an exclusive society of authors, including Eugene Peterson, Richard Foster and Philip Yancey, who remain popular among evangelical readers.

“Faith is what makes life bearable, with all its tragedies and ambiguities and sudden, startling joys,” L’Engle wrote in her book “Walking on Water: Reflections on Faith and Art.”

L’Engle is sometimes compared with 20th-century British author C.S. Lewis, who wrote popular children’s literature, as well as books defending and explaining the Christian faith. L’Engle graduated from Smith College, and a collection of her papers is held at Wheaton College, the evangelical school in the Chicago suburbs that also holds some of Lewis’s papers.

She wrote that publishers had trouble with “A Wrinkle in Time” “because it deals overtly with the problem of evil, and it was too difficult for children, and was it a children’s or an adult’s book, anyhow?”

“A Wrinkle in Time,” by Madeleine L’Engle. (Square Fish) 

A woman named Claris Van Kuiken, who was a member of the Christian Reformed Church, wrote a 1996 book titled “Battle to Destroy Truth,” tying L’Engle’s work to New Age spirituality. She argued that L’Engle’s works “preserved the ‘ancient wisdom’ or ‘secret doctrine’ condemned by God Himself.”

L’Engle was baffled and frustrated by some of the vitriol she faced from fellow Christians, her granddaughter Charlotte Jones Voiklis said Wednesday. Although she once considered herself an atheist, after L’Engle became a Christian, she had a daily practice of reading the Bible and praying. Her granddaughter said L’Engle’s coming to her faith was slower “acceptance of what she had always known to be true,” rather than a sudden conversion moment.

“She was a Christian because she was deeply rooted in its traditions and language, and she was moved by and trusted in its stories,” Voiklis said.

Although L’Engle did not like denominational labels, she mostly attended Episcopal churches, serving for about four decades as a librarian and writer-in-residence at the Cathedral of St. John the Divine in New York City, an Episcopal church and one of the largest cathedrals in the world.

“The themes that are important in Christianity permeate her writing: good and bad, light and darkness,” said the Rev. Patrick Malloy, subdean of the cathedral. “She was open to questions and to looking at new ways to say old things.”

In the 1990s, L’Engle began attending Sunday services at All Angels Church, an Episcopal church on Manhattan’s Upper West Side known for attracting artists. She wanted the smaller community of All Angels but still attended noon prayer and evensong services at St. John the Divine, Voiklis said.

St. John the Divine Cathedral. (Sarah Pulliam Bailey) 

Voiklis, who co-authored “Becoming Madeleine,”said her grandmother’s faith informed everything she wrote, including numerous books, plays and poems.

“She preferred scientific metaphors, and scientists to theologians, because she understood that science is more open to revelation than religion,” Voiklis said. “Religion divides us into teams.”

L’Engle wrote that “A Wrinkle in Time” was her rebuttal to German theologians, who she complained were too rigid in their answers to cosmic questions. “It was also my affirmation of a universe in which I could take note of all the evil and unfairness and horror and yet believe in a loving Creator,” she wrote in “Walking on Water.”

But some conservative Christians took offense to elements of “A Wrinkle in Time,” including what they saw as relativism. The book lists Jesus alongside the names of famous artists, philosophers, scientists and Buddha.

The idea of conformity is one of the major themes in the novel, which was published during an era when Communism thrived. Conservative Christians were not only confused by the book, said Don Hettinga, an English professor at Calvin College, but they also proved its point by forcing conformity to a certain way of thinking.

“A Wrinkle in Time” author Madeleine L’Engle. (Crosswicks) 

L’Engle was not afraid to push buttons, said Luci Shaw, a poet, co-author, editor and a friend of L’Engle’s for more than three decades. She said L’Engle was a universalist, believing that all humankind will be invited into heaven, and she loved gay people at a time when many Christians were suspicious of them.

“Many conservative churches draw a circle, and certain people can’t enter the circle because they haven’t been baptized or committed themselves to Christ,” Shaw said. “Jesus drew a circle that was much bigger, and it included everybody. She had a broad sense that we’re all in this together, that God’s love is the power that runs the world.”

In some ways, L’Engle could be compared with Marilynne Robinson, the Pulitzer Prize-winning author of “Gilead”; a member of the liberal-leaning United Church of Christ, Robinson still finds fans among conservative evangelicals. But L’Engle was likely more controversial because she was writing for children, said Sarah Arthur, author of a forthcoming biography of L’Engle titled “A Light So Lovely.”

“If Madeleine had backed off from theology, it would’ve been safer,” Arthur said. Her literary friends often didn’t understand why she had to write so much about faith, Arthur said, while she received criticism from some conservative Christians. Yet she straddled both the Christian publishing world and a nonreligious publishing world in ways most authors cannot.

Hollywood has sometimes struggled with films that have spiritual or religious undertones. The film “Noah” received backlash for its loose interpretation of biblical narratives. “Exodus: Gods and Kings,” about Moses, was criticized for whitewashing the characters. And some filmmakers don’t include religion at all: Angelina Jolie’s film “Unbroken,” an adaptation of Laura Hillenbrand’s book on Olympian Louis Zamperini, did not include his Christian conversion.

The film adaptation of Madeleine L’Engle’s classic sci-fi fantasy novel “A Wrinkle in
Time” had its trailer debuted at the D23 Disney convention in Anaheim. (Reuters)

Early reviews of “A Wrinkle in Time” are mixed, drawing a 44 percent rating on Rotten Tomatoes. And a film starring Oprah, who is also controversial among some conservative Christians, might not attract the same kind of crowd that soaked up films such as “The Passion of the Christ,” “The Blind Side” and Disney’s adaptation of Lewis’s “The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe.”

Arthur fears that the film could turn L’Engle’s work into a “ ‘power of positive thinking’ approach to spirituality.”

“There are a lot of people who believe the strength that you need to fight the darkness is in you,” Arthur said. “But it’s because they were connected to the source of light who is Jesus. If it’s unmoored from Madeleine’s Christian faith, it’s missing a big piece of the spiritual thrust of what she was doing.”

The film, which preserves “a more vague spirituality,” makes no effort to appeal to the moviegoing audience that typically flocks to Christian movies, writes Alissa Wilkinson, a film critic at Vox and an English professor at King’s College in New York City. Instead of including particulars about many religions, Wilkinson writes, the film smooths “them all out into a vague swirl of ‘love.’ ”

Would L’Engle have liked Hollywood’s adaptation? Her granddaughter, who saw an early version, said it gave her the “same feelings of inspiration and optimism” as the book.

Hettinga, who had not seen the film, believes L’Engle would have loved the reinterpretation that made the main character, Meg Murry, a black girl from an interracial marriage. For its time, L’Engle’s book was groundbreaking by portraying Murry’s mother as a well-educated scientist with two doctoral degrees.

“I think she would like something that caught the spirit and wouldn’t try to be literal,” Hettinga said.

SPB

* * * * * * * * * *

Additional References to L'Engel's work

“The wound is the place where the light [must] enter you.” – Rumi, Persian

21 Memorable Quotes in "A Wrinkle in Time."

One of the many themes of the movie speaks to the idea of conformity. Says L'Engel's daughter: "...The story wasn't a simple allegory of communism; in a three-page passage that was cut before publication, the process of domination is said to be an outcome of dictatorship under totalitarian regimes, AND by an excessive desire of security under democratic countries." Now isn't that interesting? It wasnt until a year ago in 2017 that many can now see the truth of how fear brings about so much damage to a society. - re slater

Wikipedia, "A Wrinkle in Time"

I loved the mystery and wonder in the first third of the movie and had wished it persisted throughout the script though at some point one has to acknowledge that each of us deserves love and that this affirmation needs to be repeatedly expressed enough until it finds a home within our souls against all the words and lies which too often lingers in our ears holding its message back. - re slater

Rereading “A Wrinkle in Time,” After a Childhood Enthralled by Madeleine L’Engle