Thomas Jay Oord is a theologian, philosopher, and scholar of multi-disciplinary studies. He is a best-selling and award-winning author, having written or edited more than twenty-five books. A twelve-time Faculty Award-winning professor, Oord teaches at institutions around the globe, and is the director of the Center for Open and Relational Theology. To find out more about him or view more of his works, visit his website or the Center for Open and Relational Theology.
This was originally presented at the 20th Anniversary Celebration of the Publishing of The Openness of God, at the American Academy of Religion in November 2014, in San Diego, CA.
SUMMARY
Oord expresses his appreciation for The Openness of God, examines the present state of open theology, and speculates about what its future might hold. He offers five reasons why he thinks the lines between open theology and process theology will continue to blur in the coming years.
I begin by expressing a deep debt of gratitude to the authors of The Openness of God, three of whom are with us today. What a powerful book this has been in my own life and in the lives of many Christians like me who were not satisfied with what Clark Pinnock called “conventional” theism.
I encountered the book not long after it was published in 1994. It confirmed many of my own intuitions, as one raised in the Arminian/Wesleyan/Holiness tradition. Since reading it, I’ve encountered many people who after reading the book said, “That’s something like what I’ve been thinking, but I thought I was the only one!” Openness writers expressed those ideas in biblical language typical of the Christian tradition in general and my own evangelical-Wesleyan tradition in particular. And more specifically, as Dave Basinger has mentioned, The Openness of God created more space for Evangelicals like me to deny classic views of God’s foreknowledge.
I want to talk very briefly today about the future of open theology. Richard Rice, John Sanders, and David Basinger have already made some comments related to the future. Of course, open theists like us who think the future is not yet knowable by God should be the first to admit they don’t know what the future will be! But I intend to look at the present state of open theology, as I see it, and speculate about what the future might be in light of what I see currently occurring.
Philosophy
Open theology has made an impact in a variety of academic disciplines, schools of thought, and ways of thinking. Some of its greatest success has been in analytic philosophy circles. Thanks to the efforts of many, including David Basinger and Bill Hasker, it is common for an openist philosopher to be given hearing at philosophy of religion conferences. Some do not specifically self-identify as openist philosophers, but their views of God’s relation to time and foreknowledge place them in the openist camp.
In the future, however, I speculate that openness ideas will continue to expand in analytic philosopher circles but grow more rapidly among theistic philosophers of religion captivated by Continentalist philosophy. Such philosophers may not embrace the label “openist” philosopher, but the fundamental drive of Continentalist philosophy, as I see it, is overturning oppressive structures, systems, and ideas. An open view fits naturally with such liberating concerns, because liberationist philosophies seem to presuppose agency, potential novelty, a measure of iconoclasm, and forward movement though time.
Liberation
Speaking of liberation, open theology seems to have enjoyed less influence among the wide swath of theological perspectives I put under the general category of liberationist theologies. Whether such theologies have gender, ethnic, or political concerns, I know only a few self-identifying openness theologians thinking through openness implications for liberationist theologies. I think this lack of influence has more to do with the sociological and cultural positions of prominent opennist thinkers thus far and not anything inherent in liberation theology. But TC Moore is right when he talks about Open theology’s need for greater ethnic, cultural, and gender diversity.
My hunch is that the future of openness theology will be strongly influenced by liberation theologians of various types. I think this in part because of the inherent openness intuitions of liberationist thinking. But I also think openness thinking will expand because of blossoming interest in liberationist theologies among peoples of diverse cultural, sexual, and political orientations.
Science
The open view of God has a strong representation in the contemporary science and theology discussion. As Bethany noted, openness advocates in the UK like John Polkinghorne, Keith Ward, and Arthur Peacocke are known for their denial of classical divine foreknowledge. In the U.S., prominent scholars such as Philip Clayton, Ian Barbour, John Haught, and others deny classical foreknowledge and embrace the basic theology advanced by the Openness of God authors.
Richard Rice has already mentioned the 2007 and 2008 conferences on science and open theology. These Templeton funded events brought together for the first time many American openness thinkers with the intent was to think about openness categories in relation to science. What struck me most was the eagerness of openness thinkers to engage scientific issues and the general scientific endeavor. Openness theology has implicit and explicit appreciation of empiricism and epistemological realism, which I think makes open theology a natural conversation partner with contemporary sciences.
Ethics
Does open theology incline one toward a particular stance on ethics? I think it does, although I know very few who have argued this carefully. John Sanders’s paper on the virtues of open theism takes a significant step in that direction.
In my view, love will be at the center of an openness ethic. So too will be the kind of moral responsibility that only comes when one believes creaturely action has genuine influence upon all others and God. Open theology’s emphasis upon a persuasive noncontrolling God may undermine the kind of justification that religious leaders like the one Bethany encountered give for their overpowering leadership styles. An openness ethic will encourage empathy, vulnerability, listening, and suffering love.
A few have begun to ask what Openness Theology might contribute to the global crisis of our time: climate change. Sharon Harvey’s work comes to mind, as does Michael Lodahl’s. But much more must be done, at least by Evangelically-oriented open theologians.
Grassroots
I think the future of open theology will be largely shaped by those whom TC Moore said are at the grass roots. General features of open theology resonate deeply with laity and pastors. The conversations occurring on the internet and in local churches give me great hope that open theology will continue spread. We must continue to ponder how we might foster, support, and encourage this aspect of open theology.
Process Theology
I want to conclude my remarks with comments about the relationship between open theology and process theology. In Evangelical circles, openness theologians have primarily argued with or against theologians informed by the Calvinist theological perspective. In those discussions, open theologians have often worked hard to distinguish themselves from process theology on a number of points.
The formal conversation between open theologians and process theologians began in 1997, when the Center for Process Studies brought together for discussion self-identifying openness thinkers and self-identifying process thinkers. I was a graduate student at Claremont during this time, and I what I remember most from those meetings was the common Christian piety both the process “liberals” and openness “evangelicals” shared. In fact, many of the process thinkers shared personal stories of growing up in Evangelical traditions only to leave after finding open and relational ideas attractive.
In 1998, many of the openness thinkers returned to Claremont for the Center for Process Studies Whitehead conference. The papers given by David Griffin, William Hasker, Richard Rice, Nancy Howell, and David Wheeler comprised the book, Searching for an Adequate God, edited by Clark Pinnock and John Cobb. Griffin, Hasker, Howell, Rice, and Wheeler
While the authors of The Openness of God worked diligently to distinguish their view from process theology and while many self-identifying openness thinkers from Evangelical communities continue to make these distinctions today, my hunch is that the future of openness theology will involve more blurring of lines between the two theological perspectives. I doubt the two will ever entirely collapse into one perspective, but I expect the overlap and hybridization to increase. I offer five reasons I think the lines between open theology and process theology will continue to blur in future years:
- It is difficult to identify the “essence” of open theology. As a number of internet communities dedicated to openness theology have discovered, significant diversity abounds about central issues like Christology, eschatology, ethics, biblical inspiration, and even divine power. The closest thing to an essence in open theology is a rejection of the classical view of divine foreknowledge and insistence that the future is open even for God. Openness thinkers themselves have alternative ways among themselves of talking about God’s omniscience and relation to the future. Alan Rhoda and William Hasker, for instance, are both prominent openness philosophers with different views of how to conceptualize God’s omniscience. Likewise, it’s difficult if not impossible to find an essence of process theology. John Cobb
- The second reason I think open and process lines will blur pertains to how theologians self-identify. Some self-identifying process theists – such as Philip Clayton and Joseph Bracken – affirm views of original creation (creatio ex nihilo) and divine power that some self-identifying open theologians think characterize open theology. And some self-identifying open and relational theists affirm views of original creation and divine power that some process theologians think characterize process theology. Consequently, on this key issue, the boundaries blur.
- The third reason I think the lines will blur between open and process theology is probably more of a recommendation than anything else. Christian history suggests that those who make it their goal to define and then protect the essence of a view are conservatives whose theology often fails to survive or be widely influential. Protecting and promulgating a concise set of propositions can be effective in the short term and with those whose basic orientation is to conserve. But for those unsatisfied with the status quo, a theological tradition is better served to promote a few basic intuitions that might capture the imaginations of young and emerging theologians who are creative, passionate, intelligent, and activist-minded. I think David Basinger is wise, for instance, when he says he has “no interest in trying to preserve a set of core essential openness beliefs.”
- The fourth reason I think open theology and process theologies will blur pertains to a phenomenon many call “post-evangelicalism.” A shrinking number of young Christians raised in the Evangelical tradition want to self-identify as Evangelicals. They still love Jesus and still think theology and the Church are important. But their reluctance stems for a variety of social, cultural, and political reasons. It also comes from an openness to blur boundaries, push envelopes, and color beyond the standard Evangelically-authorized lines. Bryan Stone “I’m a democrat”
- The final reason I think open theology and process theologies will blur pertains to a substantive issue several have mentioned already today: theodicy. Although the openness theodicy offered by the authors of The Openness of God sounded far better than conventional theodicies that claimed God foreordained and foreknew evil, in The Openness of God and in other books written by openness theologians, many openness thinkers admit open theology as they formulate it doesn’t resolve the problem of evil like process theology can. William Hasker, David Basinger, John Sanders, Greg Boyd, and Richard Rice have done work in this area. John Sanders’s book, The God Who Risks has been especially influential. And my own essential kenosis proposal might be seen as an attempt to bridge – what Bethany called “a creative approach” – the theodicy gap between openness and process theologies.
Let me conclude:
I could be completely wrong about all that I have said so far. In fact, that’s one strength of open theology: it fits our experiences of reality, including the experience of being wrong about our predictions about what might occur. But even false prediction can become resources God might use when calling us into the ever new reality we call our moment by moment, open and relational existence.
May God bless us all and open theists in particular in our endeavors to follow the Apostle Paul’s advice to imitate God, as beloved children, and live a life of love as Christ loved us.