Biblical Theology and Openness – 2

In my last post, I introduced some striking quotes which argue that we should take seriously those passages in the Bible which present God as one who changes his mind, finds things out, and reacts to and bargains with man. What is all the more interesting is that these arguments come from those who do not themselves profess to be open theists. John Goldingay distances himself from the label “open theist” and the system of belief typically associated with that label in his Old Testament Theology Seminar material “Does the God of the Bible Have Surprises?” preferring instead to call himself a “renegade English Episcopalian professor of Old Testament.” (The reader can establish their own opinions by accessing his material here.) I heard Terrence Fretheim reject the label “open theist” in the question and answer session following the lectures mentioned in my previous post. That session was not available online when I last checked. As for Enns, he says in his book,

I am taking some time to lay out this issue, because, as I write this, a current theological debate in evangelical Christianity concerns the so-called openness of God. . . . Despite appearances, what I am addressing is not immediately relevant to that debate. (Inspiration and Incarnation,105-06).

I introduce all of this because I find it incredibly stimulating and worthy of discussion. Though Fretheim has been expressing what might be considered an open view of God long before there even was an Open Theism, Enns and Goldingay enter this discussion rather late in the game. Their works follow the vote that threatened to expel open theists from participating in the Evangelical Theological Society. (Both Enns and Goldingay profess to be evangelicals.) Knowing that Open Theism has not received a great amount of respect in the academic community (my own observations), these men take passages that often appear to belong to open theists and use them in remarkably similar ways, without adopting or espousing an open theistic system of belief.

I do not think it is helpful to assume these men are deluded and call them closet open theists; rather, I believe that we must pursue their own understanding about how their statements about God are intelligible in light of their own theological paradigms.  Labels are easy to throw around; judgments even easier. Understanding others is very difficult and demonstrates a quality of scholarship and character worthy of the label Christian. It may be that we finally conclude these men delude themselves and hold self contradictory positions. However, without a great deal of reflection and dialogue, we could not fairly arrive at such a conclusion.

It should be recognized that up till this point, all the major works produced on Open Theism are largely works of systematic theology. For example, John Sanders book,  now in its second edition, is subtitled “A Theology of Divine Providence , ” and Clark Pinnock’s book is subtitled “A Theology of God’s Openness. ” (Fretheim’’s recent Old Testament Theology could be considered the exception, but this would conflict with the fact already stated, Fretheim himself rejects being labeled an open theist.) Though I may be speaking too soon, seeing that Open Theism is relatively new in the academic world of theology, my own observations lead me to conclude that these attempts to make Open Theism a competing systematic theology with Arminianism and Calvinism are not succeeding.

But what Fretheim, Goldingay, and Enns seem to be doing is something other than an exercise in systematic theology. Their academic interests lie within the field of biblical theology, and their work appears to be shaped largely by the contours and concerns of biblical theology. What I struggle to understand (and what it seems like some of these guys may also struggle with) is how to keep from divorcing the God of biblical theology from the God of systematic theology. As they say, “If it walks like a duck, and if it quacks like a duck, it must be a duck.” I don’t think that these men are necessarily ignoring this. Take for example Enns when he writes:

I feel bound to talk about God in the way(s) the Bible does, even if I am not comfortable with it. The Bible really does have authority if we let it speak, and not when we–intentionally or unintentionally–suspend what the Bible says about God in some places while we work out our speculations about what God is “really” like, perhaps by accenting other portions of the Bible that are more amenable to our thinking. God gave us the Bible so we could read it, not so we can ferret our way behind it to see how things really are. (Inspiration and Incarnation, 106)

I like Enns quote here, but I admit to having the most difficult time with making sense of what Enns says in light of what he signs. I was raised in what I have said is a militantly non-creedal tradition, so I simply cannot speak to the nature of creedal Christianity. I am not creed-less, nor is my tradition, but unwritten creeds are of an entirely different nature.

I think Fretheim and Goldingay are perhaps more accessable to me in understanding how all of this works for them. In my next post, I plan to flesh out what I see them doing in the biblical theological arena and my own concerns for what this means for systematic theology.

To be continued…

References

Enns, Peter. Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005.