God's Justice and Compassion in the OT

The violence of God in the Old Testament is a continuing interest of mine begun but a few months ago (see sidebar on topic).... Recently another book has recently been published on this subject which I have thought to include in this study. To that is a contributing author whose OT outlook on the subject of God's judgments were published several years ago through Relevant Magazine providing the conservative, evangelical response to God's vengeance. I should like to use David Lamb's outlook as a reference point and then add to it (or retract from it) against the several views present in the book below as well as against our previous studies earlier presented here on this website.

 

Overall, it appears that God defends the weak and the oppressed against acts of injustice and ill-compassion. For those nations or people groups who do not repent of their ways God's patience runs out and He subsequently smites by plague, pestilence, and by the hand of men and angels. A comfort to any man, woman, or child, who daily lives under the horrid regimen of tyranny and unjust hardship however timely, or belated, God's judgment seems to come. To know that there is a God of the universe who is compassionate and watches over His creation gives to us comfort and hope against the thugs, bullies, and despots of this world. A God who will defend us and defeat our enemies after a period of patience and awaited repentance. If no repentance has been enjoined, and no mercy found from within a nation committed to injustice and oppression, than God's patience runs out and He measures back to that nation their crimes in full.

 

At least this is my surmise from what I have gathered through these past many months of exploring the themes of God's vengeance. However, this does not relieve us as followers of Jesus to ignore our own homeland and trade abroad... that within our own governance and lifestyles we must continually be aware of helping the poor, the homeless, the sick, the widow, the helpless and defenseless. To seek those less blessed than ourselves by sharing all that we are by works and by deed. To create social agencies committed to helping, providing, healing, and restoring as best we can those who require education, nutrition, dental/medical aide, recovery, shelter, legal, and financial services, to name just a few. In creating supportive community networks focused on extending benevolence, compassion, and advocacy for the unempowered, discriminated, overlooked, and misjudged.

As an example, in the city where I live there is an interest in creating a "farmers market" downtown where commuters and residents may come and purchase fresh foods. With this effort has arisen a tandem interest in "cleaning up" the city streets by removing the homeless from this same market area which they have called home for so many long years. Across our state another large city has been doing the same for years in their downtown area and have recently been called to account for their actions. However, rather than "sweep" the streets of the indigent and homeless, I might suggest the city double-down and renew its efforts in supporting area agencies working with the homeless to find more relevant solutions that may be more humanitarian and less discriminating.

 

As Christians we are commanded to extend God's mercy to all men - both at home and abroad. And though this small urban example seems "far from home" from the Old Testament's pages of genocidal warfare and divine judgment, it is but a reflective paradigm that is not unlike what God so long ago had encouraged Israel to observe towards her neighbors - towards both friend and foe alike. Who later, via His incarnation in the New Testament, we hear from again through Jesus, of His compassionate teachings and merciful ministries delicately balanced against His forewarnings of divine judgment and wrath. Biblical stories which in their narration continue the heart of the God who daily reaches out to our lives in love and justice, wisdom and mercy. An austere God to His enemies but a benevolent God to His obedient people.

 

R.E. Slater

May 2, 2013

 

 

 

Holy War in the Bible:

Christian Morality and an Old Testament Problem

 

Edited by Heath A. Thomas , Jeremy Evans and Paul Copan

 

This paperback edition available from Amazon and Christianbook.com.

 

The challenge of a seemingly genocidal God who commands ruthless warfare has bewildered Bible readers for generations. The theme of divine war is not limited to the Old Testament historical books, however. It is also prevalent in the prophets and wisdom literature as well. Still it doesn’t stop. The New Testament book of Revelation, too, is full of such imagery. Our questions multiply.

• Why does God apparently tell Joshua to wipe out whole cities, tribes or nations?
• Is this yet another example of dogmatic religious conviction breeding violence?
• Did these texts help inspire or justify the Crusades?
• What impact do they have on Christian morality and just war theories today?
• How does divine warfare fit with Christ’s call to "turn the other cheek"?
• Why does Paul employ warfare imagery in his letters?
• Do these texts warrant questioning the overall trustworthiness of the Bible?

These controversial yet theologically vital issues call for thorough interpretation, especially given a long history of misinterpretation and misappropriaton of these texts. This book does more, however. A range of expert contributors engage in a multidisciplinary approach that considers the issue from a variety of perspectives: biblical, ethical, philosophical and theological.

 

While the writers recognize that such a difficult and delicate topic cannot be resolved in a simplistic manner, the different threads of this book weave together a satisfying tapestry. Ultimately we find in the overarching biblical narrative a picture of divine redemption that shows the place of divine war in the salvific movement of God.

 

 

 

 

Reconciling the God of Love With the God of Genocide:

How could the God of the Old Testament and the New Testament be the same?

http://www.relevantmagazine.com/god/god-our-generation/reconciling-god-love-god-genocide#_=_

 

by David Lamb

Sept/Oct 2011

 

My wife, Shannon, and I were on a date recently, and we ended up chatting with our server. He finally turned to me and asked, “So, what do you do?”

 

I told him, “I teach the Bible, mainly the Old Testament.”

 

“The Old Testament—isn’t that where God smites people and destroys cities?” he asked. “Not exactly, but I get that question a lot because the God of the Old Testament has a bad reputation,” I said. Everyone loves the New Testament God. He’s the one who sends His son to die on a cross for humanity’s sin. But do Christians really love the God of the Old Testament? Perhaps no part of the Bible gives God a worse reputation than His command to utterly wipe out the Canaanite residents of the Promised Land (Deuteronomy 20:16-18; Joshua 10:40; 11:10-15). How do we reconcile a loving God with a God who seems to command genocide?

 

It’s not just atheists or agnostics who ask these types of questions, but even committed Christians wonder what God was thinking when He commanded His people to wipe out another nation. (And if we aren’t wondering, we should be.) Adolf Hitler attempted to do something similar with the Jews during WWII with his “Final Solution” and he’s in the running for the Worst Person of All Time award. So ... is God Hitler-esque?

 

Often Christians are too quick to downplay biblical problems like these and make people who ask questions feel like they’re not taken seriously or even belittled, as if it were wrong, disrespectful or irreverent to ask about God’s behavior.

 

Personally, I think the Canaanite conquest raises not only a valid question but an important one. As someone who loves the Old Testament and the God it portrays, I find the Canaanite problem deeply troubling. While I may go to my grave still struggling over this issue, there are some good arguments that can help people understand why a loving God would command the destruction of the Canaanites.

 

Two Arguments That Don't Help

 

I’ll start with two arguments that are often used to explain the Canaanite conquest but don’t help since they don’t actually address the problem. One argument may be more attractive to liberals, the other to conservatives, but neither takes the biblical text very seriously.

 

The fictional argument.

 

The Canaanite conquest as described in Joshua is fiction. If God’s behavior in the Old Testament is not consistent with the behavior of Jesus in the New Testament, then one can discount or ignore the Old Testament account. Even if the Canaanite slaughter occurred, it wasn’t commanded by God.

 

While this argument is attractive since the problematic divine mandate for genocide conveniently disappears, it establishes a dangerous precedent that many Christians (myself included) won’t be comfortable with—specifically, throwing out parts of Scripture that don’t make sense to us. (Though many Christian leaders do essentially the same thing by never teaching on troublesome texts.) If we get rid of the Canaanite conquest, why not get rid of the stories of Noah’s flood, Uzzah’s smiting or Elisha’s bear-mauling? History is full of people who attempted to edit out the uncomfortable bits of Scripture (Marcion, Thomas Jefferson), but fortunately their abridged Bibles never succeeded, and this argument doesn’t either.

 

The whirlwind argument.

 

From the whirlwind, God speaks to Job with a barrage of questions (Job 38-41), putting Job in his place for questioning God’s behavior. Who are we to question God? We can never fully understand what God is doing in the world, and the Canaanite conquest is just another mystery we cannot comprehend.

 

I call this argument the “trump card,” because it tends to end the game. While it’s an attractive card to play, and a favorite of many Christians, it won’t convince a true skeptic, and may infuriate them. Of course we can never fully understand God’s behavior, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t even try.

 

My biggest problem with this argument is it goes against so much of what we find in Scripture. The Bible is full of people who ask questions about God’s behavior (Abraham, Moses, the psalmists). Surprisingly, at the end of the book of Job, God rebukes the three friends and affirms the speech of Job: “You have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has” (42:8, NIV). Apparently, God viewed Job’s questions and laments as speaking rightly, so we shouldn’t conclude that God’s speech from the whirlwind is meant to shut down this type of interaction.

 

Even Jesus on the cross questioned God’s behavior: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” If Jesus can question God’s behavior, shouldn’t it be OK for us? People need to be encouraged to ask tough questions about the Bible, particularly where God does things we don’t understand, like commanding the destruction of the Canaanites.

 

Five Arguments That Do Help

 

And now for five helpful arguments that address the problem directly, explain the context accurately and take the text seriously.

 

The context argument.

 

In the context of the ancient Near East, it was not unusual for victorious nations to slaughter defeated foes, so the brutality of Canaanite conquest was not unusual. In their inscriptions, ancient rulers (Ashurnasirpal of Assyria and Mesha of Moab) even bragged about wiping out cities and killing women and children, so what seems wrong to us was normal back then. Don’t take modern presuppositions about what warfare should look like and import them into a very different ancient context.

 

While I normally find understanding the ancient context helpful in understanding a difficult passage, this argument so far doesn’t help much in understanding the conquest, since it sounds like what a teen would say to a parent: “All the other nations are committing genocide. Why can’t I(srael) do it, too?”

 

People need to be encouraged to ask tough questions about the Bible.

 

But it’s not what is similar between Israel’s conquest and that of their neighbors that is most relevant to this problem, but what is different. Unlike nations like Assyria and Moab who were expanding their borders to enrich their own kingdoms, Israel was simply trying to gain a homeland. They were refugees who had experienced hundreds of years of oppression in a foreign land; they needed a place to live and the Canaanites weren’t going to give it to them voluntarily. Since the patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) had lived in Canaan previously, one could argue Israel had a legitimate right to be reestablished in the land of their ancestors. The context argument is an important one that needs to be used alongside the following four arguments.

 

The hyperbole argument.

 

The descriptions of the Canaanite slaughter are hyperbolic. The killing was probably limited as only a few texts speak of widespread destruction (Joshua 10-11), while more texts speak of numerous Canaanites still living in the land (Joshua 13:1, 13; 15:63; 17:12; Judges 1). To harmonize the texts that describe a complete slaughter with those that say many Canaanites remained in the land, one can conclude there is an element of exaggeration.

 

This argument not only takes the text seriously but also attempts to make sense of the biblical tension between a complete slaughter and a localized one. But even if the actual Canaanite slaughter wasn’t as bad as it appears in Joshua 10-11, the fact remains that God commanded it. And the fact the Israelites didn’t complete it was a problem.

 

However, even though God commanded it, the primary image used to describe the Canaanite conquest is not slaughter. While the texts that describe Israel’s violent obedience get our attention (Joshua 10:40; 11:12), the textual image used far more frequently for the conquest is “driving out” the people of the land (Exodus 23:28-31; 34:11; Numbers 32:21; 33:52-55; Deuteronomy 4:38; 7:1; 9:3-6; 11:23; 18:12; 33:27; Joshua 3:10; 14:12; 17:18; 23:5). God even tells the Israelites He’ll drive out the people of the land before they arrive, using hornets and angels (Exodus 23:28; 33:2); we can assume their numbers were reduced before the conquest battles began.

 

Although the hyperbole argument may not convince a skeptic, it’s a step in the right direction since it acknowledges other texts make a contribution to the complete picture of what happened with the Canaanite conquest, and it reminds us to not focus exclusively on the most problematic texts.

 

The punishment argument.

 

The Canaanites were being punished for wicked behavior, which included idolatry (Exodus 23:32-33; Deuteronomy 12:29- 31), child sacrifice and sorcery (Deuteronomy 18:9- 14) and unwarranted attacks on defenseless Israel (Exodus 17:8-13; Numbers 21:1, 21-26, 33-35). The Canaanites were guilty of many crimes, but it is hard not to conclude the severity of the judgment against them was due in no small part to a lack of hospitality and an abundance of hostility.

 

The strength of this familiar argument is that it receives a lot of support from Scripture. You might reasonably ask, “Isn’t it harsh and even ironic to violently wipe out an entire nation for being too violent?” Perhaps, but elsewhere in the Old Testament God punished evil nations with death and exile (Amos 1:5, 15; 5:5; Jeremiah 48:7). God even sent His own people, first Israel and then Judah, into exile for their evil behavior (2 Kings 17; 24-25).

 

While we may not be comfortable with the severity of the punishment, part of our problem with the conquest narratives comes from our discomfort with judgment more generally. But since punishment is found throughout Scripture, we need to continue to work to understand it and see how it fits in with God’s mission to bless the nations, which is directly related to the final two arguments explaining the Canaanite slaughter.

 

The slow-to-anger argument.

 

God was slow to anger with the Canaanites since He waited literally hundreds of years before punishing them. While establishing the covenant with him, God informs Abraham that his descendants will be slaves in a foreign land for 400 years and that judgment will come upon the idolatrous people who live in Canaan (Genesis 15:12-21).

 

What was God doing while He waited? This text doesn’t make it clear, but God is often described elsewhere as being “slow to anger.” God Himself says He has “no pleasure in the death of anyone” and He wants people to repent and live (Ezekiel 18:32). So during this extended period of waiting, besides creating a people He would call His own, He was giving the Canaanites a long time to repent, and God’s own people paid the price for God’s delay. Because God is slow to anger, His people were not only homeless but also slaves and victims of oppression for centuries. I find this argument shockingly compelling, since it speaks both of God’s willingness to allow His people to suffer for others, and His desire to be merciful to sinners, a trait we see even more clearly in the final argument. The remnant argument. From among the Canaanites, a righteous remnant was saved. Every person or nation who showed hospitality to Israel was delivered: Rahab and her entire family (Joshua 6:22, 25); the Gibeonites (Joshua 9); a man from Bethel (Judges 1:24-25); the Kenites (1 Samuel 15:6).

 

I find this argument the most helpful. In some ways it’s the story of Scripture—even though we all deserve death, God shows mercy. The fact these people are shown grace supports the slow- to-anger argument because it provides further evidence God wanted to give the Canaanites opportunities to repent. God didn’t hate the Canaanites, but He hated their crimes, and He showed mercy to Canaanites who welcomed foreigners. God repeatedly commanded His own people to practice hospitality toward foreigners.

 

In each of these situations there are extenuating circumstances that could make it difficult to discern God’s attitude toward the deliverance (e.g., Rahab was a prostitute, the Gibeonites used deception). God’s voice may be absent as an initiator of these rescues, but He never condemns these acts of mercy toward Canaanites, and the New Testament’s perspective on Rahab is highly positive. This Canaanite prostitute is praised for her faith and hospitality and is given a place of high honor at the very beginning of the New Testament in the genealogy of Jesus.

 

Three Words of Advice.

 

If you’re looking for an argument that “solves” the problem of the Canaanite conquest, keep looking. No article can provide that. But hopefully, this has illustrated why some arguments are helpful and others aren’t.

 

Three final words of advice. First, keep asking questions about the text. But as you do, keep going back to God’s word. The process will deepen your relationship with God. Second, discuss these problems with your friends. We all have a lot to learn from others, and we all desire the depth of friendship that comes from talking about things that matter. Third, remember the mercy shown to a Canaanite woman more than 1,000 years before God’s ultimate act of love—sending Rahab’s descendant, Jesus, to the cross for the sins of the whole world.

 

 

 

How Important Is the Doctrine of the Trinity?

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2013/04/1807/

 

by Roger Olson

April 29, 2013

Comments

 

            Here is a quote from Rowan Williams: “Trinitarian theology, in so far as it is concerned with what ‘kind’ of God Christians worship, is far from being a luxury indulged in solely by remote and ineffectual dons; it is of cardinal importance for spirituality and liturgy, for ethics, for the whole of Christian self-understanding.” (Wrestling with Angels: Conversations in Modern Theology, p. 142).

 

            This statement appears near the end of a magisterial discussion of Karl Barth’s doctrine of the Trinity that is equally complimentary and critical. But I lift it out here as a stand-alone statement, independent of the context, because it expresses a kind of over-arching evaluation of the doctrine of the Trinity or “trinitarian hermeneutics.” For Williams, as for Barth, as for numerous other Christian theologians past and present, the doctrine of the Trinity is crucial, essential, indispensable to a robust and healthy Christian view of God.

 

            The problem is, of course, that many, perhaps most, Christians have little or no understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity. And they couldn’t care less. I once was a member of a church with the word “Trinity” in its name. During the eight years I attended there faithfully I don’t think I heard a single sermon on the Trinity. And I am almost sure that had I polled the congregation few would have been able to express, let alone explain, the doctrine of the Trinity.

 

            But I don’t want to be too hard on the perplexed. The doctrine of the Trinity is perplexing. Augustine said that anyone who denies the Trinity loses his salvation but that anyone who tries to understand it loses his mind. [He also] said that he did not use the word “persons” (of the trinitarian three) because he wanted to but because there was no alternative.

 

            I have known many devout Christian believers in, and followers of Jesus Christ, who have struggled with the doctrine of the Trinity. I don’t fault them. At least they struggle with it.... Let me interrupt myself for a moment to say this: believing in the doctrine of the Trinity is not really the point; the point is to worship the triune God. However, the doctrine of the Trinity, while it cannot replace the triune God in our hearts, must have a place in our minds or else we end up in confusion about who God is.

 

            Not all orthodox Christian theologians have agreed with Williams (and Barth) about the centrality of the doctrine of the Trinity for right understanding of God. Emil Brunner, Barth’s counterpart in Switzerland and the formation of “dialectical theology,” argued that the doctrine of the Trinity is not the gospel and is not something to preach. He rejected the idea that it is a revealed datum or the structure of revelation (a la Barth). For Brunner, the doctrine of the Trinity is a “defensive dogma”—a human creation intended to protect the deity of Jesus Christ and of the Holy Spirit while maintaining their distinctness from the Father. In other words, it’s a secondary language of faith, not primary.

 

            John Wesley believed strongly in the doctrine of the Trinity, but he did not insist on belief in it for recognizing someone as a Christian. He knew it perplexed many sincere and devout Christians such as John Milton and many other nonconformists (e.g., Isaac Newton!). [As an aside,] I would not be as generous as Wesley perhaps was with regard to "Arians", those who deny the deity of Jesus Christ. My struggle is with modalists (Sabellians) many of who seem genuinely confused about the doctrine of the Trinity. Some of them I know simply cannot seem to grasp how the doctrine of the Trinity is not belief in three gods. I do not have that problem. My problem is with understanding how a one-person God could be eternally love by nature and even how such a “monadic God” would not need a world for self-realization.

 

            Back to the main point here. What exactly is the status of the doctrine of the Trinity? Is it an essential of Christian faith such that anyone who does not confess it is not a Christian?

 

            I remember when I first started teaching theology, a student objected that I had not “explained the Trinity.” I tried to explain to him (and have ever since to numerous students) that one cannot “explain the Trinity.” But one can, and should try to understand and explain the doctrine of the Trinity. We must make a clear distinction between trinitarian dogma and the Trinity as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Sure, there’s a connection, but it has to be a tenuous one or else we fall into confusing our ideas about God with God himself.

 

            But how necessary is the doctrine of the Trinity?

 

            First, what is the doctrine of the Trinity? Without getting into waters too deep, let’s define it ecumenically and very generally. It is that God is one God eternally existing inseparably and equally as three “persons” (hypostases). But we must immediately qualify that by saying that “person” here, in this doctrine, does not mean what “person” means in everyday American English. Our culture is so individualistic that to us “person” almost automatically connotes “separate self as individual center of consciousness and will.” With Dr. Seuss, we believe the job of a “person” is not to “fit in” but to “stand out.” That creates havoc with the doctrine of God! We must explain that when we say three “persons” we do not mean “person” in the common, American cultural, individualistic sense. What we do mean is not clear.

 

            One way I express the doctrine of the Trinity to beginning theology students is that God is “one what and three whos.” Inadequate—yes. But a place to start. Actually, all expressions of the Trinity are inadequate. At their very best they differ only in degrees of technical precision. Technically, the classical doctrine of the Trinity is that God is “one ousia and three hypostases.” That’s usually translated “one substance and three subsistences” or “one substance and three persons.” (“Subsistence” is perhaps a better translation of “hypostasis” than “person” but the latter, if explained correctly, avoids the idea that the three are only relations or manifestations.”

 

            Who can blame someone for struggling with this seemingly arid formula applied to God? And yet who can blame the early Christians for inventing it as a rule to rule out false doctrines of God (such as Arianism and modalism)?

 

            Much to some, perhaps more, conservative folks’ chagrin, with Wesley I do not insist on affirmation of the doctrine of the Trinity for authentic Christianity.  It is a clumsy doctrine, no matter how it’s expressed. So is the hypostatic union doctrine of the Person of Christ. I see both as necessary for a correct understanding of revelation and am convinced that most, if not all, God-fearing, Bible-believing, Jesus-loving Christians actually do believe something like them even if in very confused ways. To be very specific, while I consider modalism a heresy, I consider it a minor one and am convinced that the vast majority of Christians who seem to believe it do not really understand its implications or the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. I have this sneaking suspicion that if I could sit down with them for an hour and talk it over I could dissuade them from their modalism and get them to affirm something like the doctrine of the Trinity even if not its formal language.

 

            Here I’m agreeing with both Barth (and Williams’ quote above) and Brunner. With Brunner I affirm that the doctrine of the Trinity is not “gospel.” Nor is it part of the gospel we preach. It is a human construct and a defensive one. That God is triune, however, is necessarily implied by the gospel we preach. The biblical story necessarily includes the existence of Father, Son and Holy Spirit and the unity of God as one God. [On the negative side,] anyone who denies the doctrine of the Trinity but affirms the gospel has some explaining to do [at least more than I do on my side of Trinitarianism]. I personally don’t think they’ll succeed without affirming the doctrine of the Trinity. But not everyone has arrived there yet. If they are truly God-fearing, Bible-believing, Jesus-loving Christians (i.e., gospel people who view reality through the biblical story and message) and keep on thinking about it long and hard enough, they will.

 

 

Postscript:

 

Some years ago I spoke on this subject to a group of Christian college presidents. Afterwards, one of them (very well-known conservative evangelical) took my president aside and advised him to “investigate” me with a view to possibly firing me – not for denying the Trinity but for arguing that the DOCTRINE of the Trinity is less than essential for being a Christian. Now there’s a good example of what I consider "fundamentalism" – not only insisting that a person believe correct doctrine but that he exclude others who don’t believe correct doctrine in the same way. Fortunately my president did not agree.

 

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

 

 

Important Modern (English Language) Books about the Trinity

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2013/05/1812/

 

by Roger Olson

May 2, 2013

Comments

 

            Here I’m following up on my recent post about the doctrine of the Trinity. I’m often asked to recommend books about Christian doctrinal themes, so here is my list of “favorite books” about the Trinity.  I’m limiting the list to English language (some are translations) and published within the last century. The focus of the list is on even more recent publications. I am dividing the list into two categories: primary works and secondary works.

 

Primary works are ones that focus on the Trinity and secondary works are those that focus on other theologians’ ideas about the Trinity. Feel free to recommend others. (I am consciously excluding from my list works I consider heretical such as Norman Pittenger’s The Divine Triunity—which is based on process thought.) I have put an asterisk beside the one book in each list that I think you should read if you can only read one. (Of course, out of sheer humility I avoided “asterisking” my own!)

 

Primary

 

Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics I/1 and IV/1

Leonardo Boff, The Trinity and Society

David Brown, The Divine Trinity

Stanley J. Grenz, The Social God and the Relational Self

Leonard Hodgson, The Doctrine of the Trinity

Robert Jenson, The Triune Identity

Eberhard Jüngel, God as the Mystery of the World

*Walter Kasper, The God of Jesus Christ

Catherine Mowry LaCugna, God for Us

Jürgen Moltmann, The Trinity and the Kingdom

A. Okechukwu Ogbonnaya, On Communitarian Divinity

Karl Rahner, The Trinity

Cyril Richardson, The Doctrine of the Trinity

Claude Welch, In This Name

 

Secondary

 

Chung-Hyun Baik, The Holy Trinity—God for God and God for Us

Bertrand de Margerie, The Christian Trinity in History

Stanley J. Grenz, Rediscovering the Triune God

Colin E. Gunton, The Promise of Trinitarian Theology

William J. Hill, The Three-Personed God

Eberhard Jüngel, The Doctrine of the Trinity (God’s Being Is in Becoming)

Roger E. Olson and Christopher Hall, The Trinity

*Ted Peters, God as Trinity

John Thompson, Modern Trinitarian Perspectives

Peter Toon and James D. Spiceland, One God in Trinity

 

 

 

R.E. Slater - The Glory of the Lord (psalm)

The Great Pyramids of Giza, Egypt

The Glory of the Lord
by R.E. Slater

Where is thy glory now O Kings of Egypt?
Where is the glory of the tombs of thy people?
For dust thou art and to dust thou hast returned,
And naught but the Lord doth sustain.

Who rules over the heavens and earth,
Who commands the seas and all that is in them,
Who raises up mountains and lays low
Those who by pride would stride the earth.

Who rule not by wisdom nor by mercy,
But by brute strength and vain glory,
To these the Lord of the heavens commands,
Bow down and lay low all ye nations of the earth.

For I am the Lord your God,
Maker of the heavens and the earth,
Whose forgiveness is unmeasured,
Whose joy is boundless as the stars.

Whose glory arises on the wings of the dawn,
Who strideth the earth seeking wisdom's mercy,
That peace might reign over the land of the living,
Before all nations of men full of sin and ruin.

For you, O Lord, art enthroned forever,
You are remembered throughout all generations,
Even as your years endure through all generations,
May all the kings of the earth fear your just name.

O Lord, we lie as a broken people,
Spent before the hot mid-day sun,
All our works lie in toil's upheaval,
Worn out like perishable garments.

O Lord, hear the prayers of the destitute,
Despise not the prayers of your children,
Who lament in sin's grief and lie stricken before you,
Whithered upon the dark days of mortal distress.

O Lord, remember the cries of your servants,
That we might dwell in your glory and praise,
Though the heavens be rolled up like a scroll,
Though the earth passes like an evening shadow.

For you, O Lord, art enthroned forever,
You are remembered throughout all generations,
Even as your years endure through all generations,
May we, your servants, dwell securely in your holy name.

R.E. Slater
April 6, 2013

@copyright R.E. Slater Publications

all rights reserved

Psalm 102
English Standard Version (ESV)

Do Not Hide Your Face from Me

A Prayer of one afflicted, when he is faint and pours out his complaint before the Lord.

102 Hear my prayer, O Lord;
let my cry come to you!
² Do not hide your face from me
in the day of my distress!
Incline your ear to me;
answer me speedily in the day when I call!

³ For my days pass away like smoke,
and my bones burn like a furnace.
⁴ My heart is struck down like grass and has withered;
I forget to eat my bread.
⁵ Because of my loud groaning
my bones cling to my flesh.
⁶ I am like a desert owl of the wilderness,
like an owl^[a] of the waste places;
⁷ I lie awake;
I am like a lonely sparrow on the housetop.
⁸ All the day my enemies taunt me;
those who deride me use my name for a curse.
⁹ For I eat ashes like bread
and mingle tears with my drink,
¹⁰ because of your indignation and anger;
for you have taken me up and thrown me down.
¹¹ My days are like an evening shadow;
I wither away like grass.

¹² But you, O Lord, are enthroned forever;
you are remembered throughout all generations.
¹³ You will arise and have pity on Zion;
it is the time to favor her;
the appointed time has come.
¹⁴ For your servants hold her stones dear
and have pity on her dust.
¹⁵ Nations will fear the name of the Lord,
and all the kings of the earth will fear your glory.
¹⁶ For the Lord builds up Zion;
he appears in his glory;
¹⁷ he regards the prayer of the destitute
and does not despise their prayer.

¹⁸ Let this be recorded for a generation to come,
so that a people yet to be created may praise the Lord:
¹⁹ that he looked down from his holy height;
from heaven the Lord looked at the earth,
²⁰ to hear the groans of the prisoners,
to set free those who were doomed to die,
²¹ that they may declare in Zion the name of the Lord,
and in Jerusalem his praise,
²² when peoples gather together,
and kingdoms, to worship the Lord.

²³ He has broken my strength in midcourse;
he has shortened my days.
²⁴ “O my God,” I say, “take me not away
in the midst of my days—
you whose years endure
throughout all generations!”

²⁵ Of old you laid the foundation of the earth,
and the heavens are the work of your hands.
²⁶ They will perish, but you will remain;
they will all wear out like a garment.
You will change them like a robe, and they will pass away,
²⁷ but you are the same, and your years have no end.
²⁸ The children of your servants shall dwell secure;
their offspring shall be established before you.

Footnotes:

1. Psalm 102:6 The precise identity of these birds is uncertain

Meet Aloys - Creating Community Through Water Projects

 

http://20liters.org/?p=3027

 

 

  "During home visits we were encouraged by the amount of liter-sharing and good relations between families. We learned that filters truly were making a difference and felt the positive

impact through people's stories." - Aloys

 

 

When it comes to tackling a problem as big as the water crisis, you need dedicated leaders by your side—even if some of them are on the other side of the world. For 20 Liters, one of those leaders is Aloys Nsabimana, who was recently promoted to Water Project Manager for Masaka and Gahanga.

 

For years, Aloys has been involved with 20 Liters as a volunteer, and his hard work and passion lead to his promotion. His new role will comprise many duties, including community relations, recruitment of volunteers, assisting with the selection of filter recipients, and project follow-up. This is no small task, as 2,400 filters are planned to be installed over the next few months.

 

Aloys will also be reporting to us periodically with news, stories, stats, and lessons learned—right from the heart of Masaka and Gahanga. See his progress report below.

 

 

 

http://20liters.org/?p=3027


 

What We Mean and Don't Mean When We Talk About God's Sovereignty

A Non-Calvinist, Relational View of God’s Sovereignty

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2013/04/a-non-calivinist-relational-view-of-gods-sovereignty/

 

by Roger Olson

April 14, 2013

Comments

 

As I gave this talk at this week’s Missio Alliance gathering in Alexandria, Virginia. For those who are watching me carefully (from the Arminian camp) I must say I make no claim for this being “the” Arminian view. It is simply my view and I’m an Arminian. 

 

Comment

This subject has been long overdue and short on recognition until

now. Many thanks to Roger Olson for this post. Additionally, I will

post mine own comments as necessary through the body of this article.

- R.E. Slater (res)

 

 

My office phone rang and I answered it. A stern voice said “Is this Roger Olson?” who which I confessed. The man introduced himself as pastor of Baptist church in the state, implying that he was a constituent of the seminary where I teach. Anyway, I got the message. “I hear you don’t believe in God’s sovereignty,” he declared. I responded “Oh, really? What do you mean by ‘God’s sovereignty’?” He said “You, know. God is in control of everything.” I decided to play with him a little. “Oh, so you believe God caused the holocaust and every other evil event in human history? That God is the author of sin and evil?” There was a long pause. Then he said “Well, no.” “Then do you believe in God’s sovereignty?” I asked. He mumbled something about just wanting to “make sure” and hung up.

 

My experience, based on teaching Christian theology in churches and three Christian universities over thirty-one years, is that many, perhaps most, Christians don’t know what they mean when they talk about “God’s sovereignty”—beyond “God is in control.” My concern has been to help Christians think reflectively about God’s sovereignty and arrive at beliefs about it that are biblically sound and intelligible.

 

My own view of God’s sovereignty is what I call “relational.” I believe in God’s “relational sovereignty.” What I want to do here, today, is explain what I mean by that and invite you to consider it as an alternative to the view of God’s sovereignty currently enjoying great popularity—the Augustinian-Calvinist view that I call, for lack of any more descriptive term, “divine determinism.” It could rightly be called “non-relational sovereignty.” Thousands of Christian young people are adopting it, often without critically reflecting on what it implies and without knowing any alternatives to it.

 

I identify with a different movement in contemporary theology called “Relational Theology” or “Relational Theism.” There’s no single “guru” of the movement and it’s not nearly as popular or easy to identify and describe. But it also has biblical roots and historical precedents.

 

In 2012 thirty theologians, nearly all self-identified evangelicals, wrote chapters in a book entitled Relational Theology: A Contemporary Introduction edited by Brint Montgomery, Thomas Jay Oord, and Karen Winslow. It was published by Point Loma Press, an imprint of Wipf and Stock publishers. The volume covers many issues of Christian theology and practice from a “relational point of view.”

 

It’s an excellent little book and I can recommend it highly as an introduction to contemporary Relational Theology—especially that segment of it that is evangelical. Most of the authors, maybe all of them, are Wesleyans in the evangelical tradition (or evangelicals in the Wesleyan tradition). However, one weakness I find in the book is the lack of a chapter on God’s sovereignty from a relational perspective. That is a gap I hope to fill here.

 

Everyone familiar with current religious movements knows about the “Young, Restless, Reformed” movement led by John Piper, Mark Driscoll, Matt Chandler and Louie Giglio (among others). Some call its theology “neo-Calvinism.” It’s actually a contemporary form of the theology of Jonathan Edwards, John Piper’s favorite theologian. Anyone who has studied Edwards or Piper knows they have a distinctive view of God’s sovereignty. It’s enjoying great popularity, especially among twenty-something Christians. According to it, whatever happens is planned, ordained and governed by God. Another way of saying that is that God foreordains and renders certain everything that happens without exception. As John Piper has said, according to his view, if a dirty bomb were to land in downtown Minneapolis, that would be from God.

 

Many people simply believe this view is what is meant by “God’s sovereignty” and anything else is a denial of God’s sovereignty. If God is not the all-determining reality, then he is not sovereign. Or, as Reformed theologian R. C. Sproul likes to say, if there is one maverick molecule in the universe, God is not God. Or, as British Calvinist Paul Helm says, not only every atom and molecule but also every thought and intention is under the control of God.

 

My purpose today is not to expound this wildly popular view of God’s sovereignty or spend a lot of time critiquing it. I will do both briefly. My purpose is to expound and defend an alternative perspective on God’s sovereignty that I believe is more appealing—biblically, rationally and experientially. And it has historical appeal as well, even if it has been throughout much of Christian history a “minority report,” so to speak.

 

At risk of over simplifying, I will argue that there are three main views of God’s sovereignty in Christian theology. That is to say, in spite of many variations, all views tend to “come home” to one of these. Think of them as large tents under which people with different interpretations of them gather, talk, and debate. They are divine determinism, relational theism, and mediating views. The third, “mediating views,” have much in common with each other and so represent a single over-arching view even if they emphasize singular points differently.


Divine Determinism

 

I begin with divine determinism which I actually began describing above. According to all versions of it, all events are traceable back to God who controls history down to every detail according to a blueprint. God has never taken a risk. God micromanages history and individuals’ lives. Nothing surprises God. Nothing can happen that is contrary to God’s will.

 

Now, of course, there are many versions of divine determinism. Hardly any advocate of that view likes my label for it. Sproul, for example, adamantly rejects “determinism” as a descriptor of his view. However, a quick look at any major English dictionary will reveal why it’s a fair descriptor. By whatever means, even if through “secondary causes,” God determines what will happen and that determination is as Helm says “fine grained.” Nothing at all escapes it.

 

Some proponents of divine determinism make use of something called “middle knowledge” to attempt to reconcile it with free will. Others reject that tactic. Some attempt to define free will compatibilistically, that is as simply doing what you want to do even if you could not do otherwise. Others reject free will altogether. Some admit that this view makes God the author of sin and evil; others adamantly reject that, appealing to God’s permission rather than authorship of sin and evil. However, when pressed, they say that God’s permission of sin and evil is “effectual permission.” In any case, God still plans and renders them certain.


Relational Theism

 

The second view of God’s sovereignty, the one I plan to expound here, is relational theism. Oord, one of the editors and authors of Relational Theology, defines it this way: “At its core, relational theology affirms two key ideas: 1. God affects creatures in various ways. Instead of being aloof and detached, God is active and involved in relationship with others. God relates to us, and that makes an essential difference. 2. Creatures affect God in various ways. While God’s nature is unchanging, creatures influence the loving and living Creator of the universe. We relate to God, and creation makes a difference to God.” (p. 2) Another author, Barry Callen, says of relational theism (or theology) that it focuses on “the interactivity or mutuality of the God-human relationship. God is understood to be truly personal, loving, and not manipulative. The interaction of the wills of Creator and creature are real.” (p. 7)

 

Relational theism or [relational] theology comes in many varieties, some of them quite incompatible at points. All share in common, however, belief that creatures can and do actually affect God. The relationship between creatures, especially human persons, and God is two-way. God is, as Dutch theologian Hendrikus Berkhof said, the “defenseless superior power” within a genuine covenant relationship with us whose immutability is not impervious to influence but “changeable faithfulness.” According to relational theism, the God-human relationship is reciprocal, mutual, interactive. God is not Aristotle’s “Thought thinking Itself” or Aquinas’ “Pure Actuality” without potentiality. Rather, God is Pinnock’s “Most Moved Mover”—the superior power who allows creatures to resist him and becomes vulnerable and open to harm as well as joy

 

One of the best descriptions of relational theism, I believe, is found in Thomas Torrance’s little book Space, Time, and Incarnation:

 

The world…is made open to God through its intersection in the axis of Creation-Incarnation. … But what of the same relationship the other way round, in the openness of God for the world that He has made? Does the intersection of His reality with our this-worldly reality in Jesus Christ mean anything for God? We have noted already that it means that space and time are affirmed as real for God in the actuality of His relations with us, which binds us to space and time, so that neither we nor God can contract out of them. Does this not mean that God has so opened Himself to our world that our this-worldly experiences have import for Him in such a way, for example, that we must think of Him as taking our hurt and pain into Himself? (p. 74)

 

In sum, then, relational theology or theism is any view that imports the creation into the life of God so that God is in some way dependent on it for the whole or part of his experience [for which he designed and planned at the beginning of creation in order to establish living, willful, relationships with himself. Perhaps the word "dependent" is a bit harsh in view of God's all-glorious sovereignty, however, it is a very good, and necessary word to us, because it informs us that God is in a very real, two-way, living relationship with us. A relationship that calls forth the older, classical term of the "divine-human" cooperative. But rather than calling ourselves into a "cooperative" with the divine, God says "I love you," and because of this divine love, I wish to be in holy communion with you, where we each depend upon the other, according to the limiting sense of our being in relationship to his own.Where the infinite, all powerful One desires to limit himself in accordance to our own creative limitations bounded by sin and a corruptible free will. Where through Jesus the Creator becomes the Incarnated Creator, experiencing with us our own limitations, corruptibility, and life in general. Whose passion runs towards us even as our own passion runs to meet him, and holy fellowship, eternal and soaring, meet in lockstep with one another. This is what is meant by a dependent relationship. A relationship where each depends upon the other's love - both God and man. To one another's joy and boundless, living relationship. - res]....

 

... The implications of this for a view of God’s sovereignty are enormous and takes it away from divine determinism. As I will be spending the second half of this talk exploring this view of sovereignty I’ll settle now for what I have said about relational theism in general.


Mediating Sovereignty

 

The third main Christian view of God’s sovereignty is what I call, for lack of a better term, mediating. These are views that attempt to combine, usually with some appeal to paradox, divine determinism with relational theism. An excellent example is the late evangelical theologian Donald Bloesch. Throughout his career Bloesch boldly expressed and defended the paradoxical nature of Christianity following Kierkegaard and Barth. In his book The Evangelical Renaissance he declared that:

 

God knows the course of the future and the fulfillment of the future... (I prefer to think of God as actively bringing the future to fruition, so that he has an idea how this will occur - i.e., through his own sacrifice - but that the how, when and where of it is open to change and fulfillment. This then keeps to an Open definition of theology and not its more classical component of austere direction and non-relational force. - res)..., but this must not be taken to mean that He literally knows every single event even before it happens. It means that He knows every alternative and the way in which His children may well respond to the decisions that confront them. The plan of God is predetermined, but the way in which He realizes it is dependent partly on the free cooperation of His subjects. This does not detract from His omnipotence, for it means that He is so powerful that He is willing to attain His objectives by allowing a certain room for freedom of action on the part of man. (p. 53)

 

This may sound relational or deterministic and Bloesch reveled in that ambiguity. “The plan of God is predetermined” is deterministic; “The way in which He realizes it is dependent partly on the…cooperation of His subjects” is relational.

 

I think that many theologians and non-theologically trained Christians alike tend to embrace a kind of ambiguous, paradoxical view of God’s sovereignty. I often hear the same person say “Oh, well, God knows what he’s doing” and “People have free will, you know” in different circumstances—the former to comfort in grief and the latter to get God off the hook when evil raises its ugly head.

 

Relational theology or theism lends itself to a particular view of God’s sovereignty that is neither deterministic nor paradoxical. Divine determinism of any type cannot explain how God is good in any meaningful sense or how people are responsible for the evil they do. Mediating theology, theologies of paradox, cannot explain the consistency of God’s comprehensive, meticulous providence with genuine free will and prayer playing a role in the outworking of God’s plan. Relational sovereignty, which is what I will call the view of God’s sovereignty derived from relational theism, seeks and finds consistency and flexibility.

 

*I will further add the important, necessary component of Open theology as I had mentioned immediately above... "open theology" simply means that nothing is known for sure, and that the future is as open with God as it is with ourselves. However, what is known by God is his plan of redemption. A redemption that will be large enough, and flexible enough, to reform, renew, reclaim, revitalize, reform, and resurrect this old world back to its original design of uncorrupted communion with Himself.

 

And yet, God's plan of redemption does not lessen his relationship with us, as free willed beings, but enhances it, giving to it its living, unknown quality of formation. In itself, it was a plan as much known to Himself as was his plan of creation that included indeterminacy in its creative fabric, and human free will in its sentient aspect. Each aspect was accounted for, and planned for, including the corruption of sin that would surely come at the moment of its initialization. In effect, God knew that to create would, at the last, involve himself in his own creation through personal sacrifice and redemption (the "heart ache" side of it as expressed in relational terms, sic the book of Hosea).

 

Hence, by coupling relational theology with open theology (e.g., "the future is more open than it is known," in a sense) the paradoxical nature that Dr. Olson refers to can be appropriately removed. We live in an Open relationship and an Open future... just as real as any relationships we have in our own lives with loved ones, living organizations, ministries, and evolving friendships. At the same time, these concepts remove the more classical definition of unmoved, austere, sovereignty that bears with it a closed future already preknown and laid out deterministically without necessity of our intimate involvement. And because we have open relationships and open futures than our bible and our faith becomes open and evolving as well, requiring our necessary apprehension and interaction to each.

 

Finally, for more discussion on these subject matters, please refer to the sidebars along the right side of this web journal under "An Emerging Theology," "An Open Faith and Open Theology," and the several categories found under "Theism."

 

- res

 

Index to past articles on "An Emerging Theology"

 

Index to Past Articles on "An Open Faith and Open Theology"

 

[sidebars] Categories of Theism - Intro, Definitions, Open, Process, Relational

 
 

 

The Matter of Process Theology

 

... What I want to outline for you and recommend to you is a non-process, narrative-based, relational view of God’s sovereignty. It is not rooted in process theology which, while relational, detracts too much from God’s transcendence. Process theology is one form of relational theology, but not all relational theology is process. Process theology denies God’s omnipotence which is its main failing. From that flow other flaws such as its denial of any eschatological resolution to the struggles of history and eventual end to evil and innocent suffering. Process theology, in my opinion, sacrifices too much of the biblical portrait of God and, in the process, robs us of hope for the world. It is right in much of what it affirms but wrong in much of what it denies. It rightly affirms God’s vulnerability and the partial openness of the future; it wrongly denies God’s power to intervene in human affairs to rescue, heal and defeat evil.

 

*One may think of process theology as the extreme to Calvinistic doctrine, where relational/open theology would lie in the middle between both positions. For myself, the term "process" I like a lot... it gives to the Christian the idea of God's resident movement through time and history... but like Dr. Olson, I have mine own reservations of it. However, it was because of process theology that I became cognizant to the idea of relational theology. Apparently, there was a debate whether process theology should be known as "relational-process theology" back in the early days of its formation - and when discovering that aspect of it, I immediately grabbed hold of the revolutionizing idea of "relational theology" and began to develop it. Months later, I happily came to discover additional advocates of this same position (a point you will discover when reading of my journey through my past documents here on this site).

 

Overall, I find great sympathy towards Process Theology, but at the same time have found that it re-engineers a lot of past Christian orthodoxy - which is not necessarily a bad thing to do - but just how it is done and towards what ends it intends (similar to Dr. Olson's comment above). Along with process theology has come the many helpful ideas found in Emergent and Postmodern thought as well. Certainly foreign to classical thought, however, nonetheless relevant and important to discuss in our understanding of who God is, what he is doing through Christ, and what the mission of the church is and should be.

 

Especially so if the church is to continue to bear a contemporary, relevant gospel to the world.... Where old-line classicism must be updated and not left unscrutinized to a more historically mature and educated world. Hence, it is the task of today's theologian to do just that in today's global, industrialized, technological societies. Consequently, it is my intention to continue to sift through process theology to discover biblical fundamentals that may be kept, while disregarding any unnecessary corollaries, assumptions, or surmises, that are non-central to its overall structure (a syncretisim if you will to Christian orthodoxy). And with the overall mindset of creating a more relevant Christian theology giving to us a better understanding of our living faith and hope in Jesus our Lord and Savior.

 

- res

 

ps - "Narrative Theology" has also arise as one of those undated ideas to undertanding God and our faith as Dr. Olson goes on to explain.... More can be found on this under the sidebar "Hermeneutics as a Meta-Narrative."


The Matter of Narrative Theology

... No doubt some critics will regard my own non-process, narrative-based, relational view of God’s sovereignty as an unstable middle ground between divine determinism and process theology. I hope to show that it is not unstable or incoherent and preserves the best of both of those alternative perspectives while avoiding their fatal flaws.

 

Rather than focusing on proof texts of Scripture or philosophies, this relational view of God’s sovereignty arises out of and is justified by a synoptic, canonical, holistic vision of God drawn from the biblical narrative. Obviously I do not have time now even to summarize “narrative theology,” but I will mention a few of its major points.

 

Narrative theology regards stories and symbols as vehicles of truth. The Bible contains propositions, but it is not primarily a book of propositions. It is primarily a book of stories and symbols from which propositions can be drawn. The Bible is the story of one great “theodrama.” Its purpose is to identify God for us and transform us. Transformation is its first and highest purpose though it does also contain information.

 

Narrative theology refuses to treat the Bible as a “not-yet-systematized systematic theology” which is how I believe too much conservative evangelical theology treats it. No system can replace the Bible which always has new light to reveal and more truth into which to guide us.

 

Narrative theology resists too much philosophical speculation into matters beyond our possible experience and beyond the biblical narrative which is not about God-in-himself but about God-with-us. Narrative theology resists metaphysical compliments paid to God that cannot rest on the portrayal of God in his own story.

 

Finally, narrative theology insists on taking the whole biblical story into account when theology attempts to derive truth about God.

 

A relational view of God’s sovereignty begins not with philosophical a prioris such as “God is by definition the being greater than which none can be conceived” or “If there’s one maverick molecule in the universe, God is not God” but with God as the personal, loving, self-involving, passionate, relational Yahweh of Israel and Father of Jesus Christ.

 

This God is not aloof or self-sufficient in himself or impassible. His deity, as Barth taught us, is no prison. And as Jürgen Moltmann has taught us, his death on the cross is not a contradiction of his deity but the most profound revelation of it. And that because this God is Love.

 

Does this all mean that God needs us? Not at all. This God could have lived forever satisfied with the communal love shared between Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but he chose to become vulnerable in relation to the world he created out of the overflowing of that love. Is that just a metaphysical compliment unnecessarily paid to God or a truth necessary to the biblical story of God with us? I would argue it is the latter. A God who literally needs the world is a pathetic God hardly worthy of worship.

 

The key insight for a non-process relational view of God’s sovereignty is that God is sovereign over his sovereignty. The missio dei is God’s choice to involve himself intimately with the world so as to be affected by it. That choice is rooted in God’s love and desire for reciprocal love freely offered by his human creatures. None of this detracts in any way from God’s sovereignty because God is sovereign over his sovereignty. To say that God can’t be vulnerable, can’t limit himself, can’t restrain his power to make room for other powers, is, ironically, to deny God’s sovereignty.

 

Allow me to use the words of Torrance again to express this view of God and God’s sovereignty. Contrary to classical theism,

 

If God is merely impassible He has not made room for Himself in our agonied existence, and if He is merely immutable He has neither place nor time for frail evanescent creatures in His unchanging existence. But the God who has revealed Himself in Jesus Christ as sharing our lot is the God who is really free to make Himself poor, that we through His poverty might be made rich, the God invariant in love but not impassible, constant in faithfulness but not immutable. (p. 75)

 

There is a doctrine of God’s sovereignty subtly included in those phrases about God’s vulnerability. Torrance’s vulnerable God cannot be the all-determining reality of classical theism and Calvinism. Such a God has not really made room for us in his existence, his life, whatever certain neo-Calvinists might say. Rather, the God of Torrance and relational theism is the God who makes himself partially dependent on his human partners so that our history becomes his, too.


Conclusion of the Matter

What does that mean, then, for God’s sovereignty? First, the relational God of the biblical story is not, to quote Baptist theologian E. Frank Tupper, a “do anything, anytime, anywhere kind of God.” (A Scandalous Providence, p. 335 ) Second, however, the relational God of the biblical story is a powerful God who lures, persuades, cajoles and occasionally overrides the wills of people. He is the “superior defenseless power” in the covenant relationship he has established with us.

 

I argue that such a view of God’s sovereignty, one that sees God as truly relational with us, that views us as genuine partners with and sometimes against God, can support and give impetus to commitment to participation in the mission of God. The picture of God as invulnerable, static, unmoved, all-determining derived from much traditional Reformed theology, for example, undermines participation in the mission of God towards God’s kingdom because it makes our participation with God superfluous. We are then seen as pawns rather than knights.

 

Am I, then, advocating so-called “open theism?” Not necessarily, although I think that’s far superior to classical theism in many ways. Relational theism and its attendant view of God’s sovereignty are larger than just open theism which is one form of relational theism. The view I have outlined here goes back at least to German mediating theologian I. A. Dorner in the middle of the 19^th century who helped Protestant theology complete the Reformation by reconstructing the doctrine of God inherited and left virtually untouched by the Reformers. According to Dorner, God is historical with us and we are created co-creators of history with God. Listen to Dorner after he has expressed his view of God’s ethical immutability in which he changes in relation to creatures, not in his nature but in his “thoughts and his will”:

 

To be sure, God does not hand over the reins of government to the faithful; but neither does he want to make them automatons [robots], beings resigned to a determined will. From the very beginning, he has preferred to give his friends a joint knowledge of what he wills to do…and to deal historico-temporally through them as his instruments, which as personalities may co-determine his will and counsel. (Quoted in Claude Welch, God and Incarnation, p. 116)

 

This is, so far as I have discovered, the best brief theological expression of a truly relational view of God’s sovereignty that I have found in Christian thought. The only correction I would offer is to the use of the word “instruments” for created personalities that “co-determine” God’s will and counsel. To contemporary ears, anyway, “instruments” sounds like “pawns” which is clearly not what Dorner intended.

 

Finally, in sum, then, a relational view of God’s sovereignty is one that regards God’s will as settled in terms of the intentions of his character but open and flexible in terms of the ways in which he acts because he allows himself to be acted upon. Only such a view of God’s sovereignty does justice to the whole of the biblical drama, to God as personal, to human persons as responsible actors and potential partners with God in God’s mission.