God in Motion: A Critical Exploration of the Open Theism Debate

By Manuel Schmid

Open theism paints the picture of a flexible God who engages in a dynamic history with his free creatures, a history in which the future is not yet definitely known to God but rather unfolds as a range of open possibilities. As one might expect, this position has proven fractious. Though much of the noise surrounding the issue of God’s predestination and humanity’s freedom has quieted in recent years, the conversation is ongoing and a continual source of contention in evangelical circles. God in Motion is the first in-depth analysis of the biblical-hermeneutical questions driving the heated open theism debate. Unlike previous books on the open view of God, Manuel Schmid’s work does not take sides. Rather, God in Motion offers a qualified and critical look at the standard arguments of both the proponents and critics of open theism and suggests new perspectives.

Schmid proposes an alternate path to understanding what is at stake in this debate, bringing open theism into conversation with weighty representatives of German-language theology such as Karl Barth, Emil Brunner, Wolfhart Pannenberg, and Jürgen Moltmann. God in Motion shows ways out of the theological dead ends that have characterized the debate, especially regarding the biblical grounding of open theism, by giving careful consideration to lessons learned from the controversies of current theological discourse. In all of this analysis, Schmid conveys a passion for serious pursuit of a biblically, theologically, and philosophically coherent Christian doctrine of God for the twenty-first century.

Those wrestling with questions about biblical theology and eager to gain a more nuanced conception of God out of the richness of biblical texts and traditions will greatly benefit from God in Motion, as they follow Schmid past the polemics of theological controversy to fresh and challenging insights.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Baylor University Press
• Release date: Aug 10, 2022
• ISBN: 9781481314305

Book preview

Cover Page for God in Motion

God in Motion

God in Motion

A Critical Exploration of the Open Theism Debate

Manuel Schmid

translated by Alex Englander

Baylor University Press

English translation © 2021 by Baylor University Press

Waco, Texas 76798

All Rights Reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission in writing of Baylor University Press.

Cover and book design by Kasey McBeath

Cover art: time-lapse of stars above Kennedy Range, Gascoyne River, Australia, 2018, photograph courtesy of Unsplash/Brian McMahon

This English edition is revised and expanded from a previously published German edition: Gott ist ein Abenteurer: Der Offene Theismus und die Herausforderungen biblischer Gottesrede, Forschungen zur systematischen und ökumenischen Theologie, Band 167 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2019). Baylor University Press holds copyright and distribution rights for the English edition.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Schmid, Manuel, 1976- author. | Englander, Alex, translator.

Title: God in motion : a critical exploration of the open theism debate / Manuel Schmid, translated by Alex Englander.

Other titles: Gott ist ein Abenteurer. English

Description: Waco : Baylor University Press, 2021. | Includes bibliographical references. | Summary: Provides an assessment of the roots, methods, claims, and significance of Open Theism in North American evangelicalism, in conversation with contemporary German theology-- Provided by publisher.

Identifiers: LCCN 2021015470 (print) | LCCN 2021015471 (ebook) | ISBN 9781481314084 (hardcover) | ISBN 9781481314305 (epub) | ISBN 9781481314329 (pdf)

Subjects: LCSH: Open theism. | Free will and determinism--Religious aspects--Christianity. | God (Christianity)--Omniscience. | God (Christianity)--Omnipotence.

Classification: LCC BT83.587 .S3613 2021 (print) | LCC BT83.587 (ebook) | DDC 231--dc23

LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021015470

LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021015471

References to internet websites (URLs) were accurate at the time of writing. Neither the author nor Baylor University Press is responsible for URLs that may have expired or changed since the manuscript was prepared.

Contents

Preface and Acknowledgments

1 Introduction: Open Theism as a Biblical-Theological Reform Movement

1.1 Open Theism: A Historical Classification

1.2 A Systematic Sketch of Open Theism’s Central Motifs

1.3 Research History and Methodological Preliminaries

2 Exegetical Traces: The Biblical Motif of the Openness of God

Introduction and Survey

Differentiations and Controversies

2.1 Exegetical Foundations (The Motif of the Openness of God)

2.2 Biblical Counter-texts

2.3 Critical Reflection

3 Theological Interpretations: Controversies Surrounding the Openness of God

Introduction and Survey

Differentiations and Controversies

3.1 The Debate around the Hellenization Thesis

3.2 Approaches to the Anthropomorphism Problem

3.3 Critical Reflection

4 Systematic Classifications: From Biblical to Systematic Theology

Introduction and Summary

Differentiations and Controversies

4.1 Reformulations of Classical Divine Attributes

4.2 Critical Reflection

4.3 Comparisons with Recent German-Language Projects

5 Concluding Reflections: Open Theism as a Biblical-Theological Reform Movement

Biblical-Theological Considerations

Evaluation

6 Postscript: On the Culture of Dispute in Evangelicalism

6.1 Thoughts in Retrospect of a Heated Debate

6.2 On the Necessity of an Evangelical Tolerance of Ambiguity

6.3 The Distinction of Positions, Motives, and Consequences

6.4 Doing Justice to the First Part of the Term Culture of Dispute

Bibliography

Author Index

Subject Index

Preface and Acknowledgments

Open theism remains an open question. Though the debates over open theism have largely gone quiet, they have yet to be really settled. Moreover, as a theological concept, open theism deserves to be taken seriously and therefore also to be subjected to scrutiny, even criticism. That is the concern and goal of this book. I am not trying to contribute to the heated and fierce dispute over an open view of God, which kept U.S.-American evangelicalism, in particular, busy for more than a decade. Rather, this study looks with a temporal and geographical distance at open theism as a theological model and movement, and especially at the attempt to biblically-theologically substantiate and defend the idea of God’s openness.

I come to the subject of open theism as a European, more precisely as a Swiss Reformed theologian, and I cannot hide the fact that I have sympathies for this idiosyncratic concept. At least, I applaud the courage of the open theists to put up for discussion seemingly self-evident but often unquestioned and unsecured convictions of Christian, and especially of evangelical, theology (e.g., how God’s omnipotence and omniscience are to be understood, whether God can really be thought of as unchangeable, what relation there is between the freedom of God and the freedom of humanity, etc.).

In times in which only questions of politics and sexual ethics seem to be capable of arousing public interest and triggering passionate theological debates, open theism has managed to put central questions of the doctrine of God anew on the agenda. Whether one subscribes to open theism or not, it challenges us to a deeper examination of the biblical testimony to God, and it raises the question whether and how we as human beings can speak adequately of God at all (see the examination of the problem of anthropomorphism in this work). For these and other reasons I consider open theism a highly stimulating and profitable dialogue partner.

My present work, however, is not intended simply as an apology for open theism, but rather to explore the constitutive motives of open theism and thus to bring the discussion about the openness of God to a higher level of reflection. In the interest of academic probity, I will therefore develop the positions of open theists as well as those of their critics as clearly and fairly as possible and give my own critical assessment of both.

It is my express hope that, through this work, pastors, theologians, and interested lay people will be encouraged to reflect again on God himself and the biblical testimony to him. As a devoted Christian and preacher of the gospel, I am convinced that we must not rest on the insights of our forefathers (and mothers), but that we must continually set out anew theologically to discover God and bring him to the fore in the midst of our particular time. Here, open theists can help us identify foundational questions, even if we may not share their answers.

Moreover, I hope that we can learn from the polemical and aggressive debate around open theism to conduct future debates in a spirit of humility and willingness to learn, and to refrain from the kind of attacks that undermine the core of our message. The controversy over central topics of the doctrine of God, especially, should in tone and content reflect the nature of the God we confess.

This work would not have been conceivable without the theological companionship and personal friendship with Andreas Loos and Heinzpeter Hempelmann. The topic of the work as well as the courage to carry it out are largely due to their interest, their encouragement, and many late evening discussions, for which I thank both of them from the bottom of my heart.

The impetus to venture this project also goes back decisively to my doctoral supervisor, Professor Reinhold Bernhardt at the University of Basel. Over many years of my pastoral ministry, he repeatedly spoke to me about my original doctoral project and challenged me to (finally) tackle the matter. I am equally grateful to him for his encouragement and patient accompaniment of the work.

I would also like to thank the representatives of open theism, namely Gregory Boyd, John Sanders, Thomas Oord, and Richard Rice, for their willingness to answer my questions in extensive correspondence and numerous personal meetings.

Alex Englander has translated this book into English, and I am very grateful to him for his outstanding work. And of course, I would like to take this opportunity to thank Christoph Ramstein, who arranged the translation and helped me a lot with the fundraising.

Also, the leadership of my church and the community of International Christian Fellowship Basel in general should not remain unmentioned. They generously endured longer periods of my absence or divided attention to enable the completion of the work.

And finally, I would like to thank my wife Rahel, my children Louan and Lina, and my parents Martin and Heidi Schmid, as well as my friends Olivier Blauenstein, Ralf Dörpfeld, and Martin Benz for so many things which make life worth living.

1

Introduction

Open Theism as a Biblical-Theological Reform Movement

1.1 Open Theism: A Historical Classification

1.1.1 The Significance of Open Theism

When The Openness of God first appeared in 1994, none of its five authors could have expected the slim volume to provoke one of the most significant and heated debates in contemporary (primarily North American) evangelicalism. Looking back on its surprising impact, Clark Pinnock, author of the publication’s systematic centerpiece, reflected: I did not for a moment imagine in 1994 that our book on the openness of God would create such interest and provoke such controversy, particularly in the evangelical community.¹

To be sure, in the cowritten preface, the authors voiced their explicit intention that the book should transcend the boundaries of scholarly discourse and make their open view of God accessible to a wider public.² Yet, few anticipated that the book would be voted one of the books of the year by the journal Christianity Today, the leading organ of American evangelicalism, let alone that it would go through twelve editions. Just as little could anyone have foreseen that both its supporters and critics would soon come to share the view that the theological alternative it advocated was about to trigger an evangelical megashift.³

While remaining largely neglected within European theological discourse, in the years following The Openness of God’s publication, open theism became one of the most controversial and influential movements within North American evangelicalism. It attracted attention in several denominations and leading evangelical pastors and theologians felt that they had no choice but to take a position on the new movement.⁴

Looking back in 2012 at the theological controversies of the previous decade, Ed Stetzer, a professor of missiology and expert on evangelicalism, could assert that [t]hroughout the 90s and into the early 2000s, open theism dominated discussions on the doctrine of God.⁵ During this period (and beyond), the excitable, and at times acrimonious, debate around the open view of God produced hundreds of papers, online essays, and monographs. These contributions worked through its exegetical and hermeneutical, as well as its systematic and philosophical, aspects, and mobilized the participation of ever wider circles of the Anglophone academic community.⁶

In 2013, the open theist David Basinger summarized the development as follows: [W]hat was less than 20 years ago a theological perspective of interest primarily to conservative Protestant Christians is now a theological perspective widely discussed in both mainstream theological and philosophical circles. The source of this quotation supports its content: it stems from Basinger’s contribution to the philosophy of religion compendium Models of God and Alternative Ultimate Realities (2013) published by Springer.⁷ The anthology God: The Sources of Christian Theology, which has a strong focus on systematic theology, also includes a presentation of open theism, written by the late Clark Pinnock, amongst its contributions on new theological projects.⁸ One could also point to the volume Reason and Religious Belief published by Oxford University Press, one of the most widely distributed textbooks in the philosophy of religion in the United States; since the work’s 2003 revision, open theism has been a constant fixture amongst its chapters devoted to models for describing the relation between God and world.⁹

In his 2014 address to the American Academy of Religion (AAR), the open theist Richard Rice could accordingly point out, with some confidence, that the theological model put forward by himself and others had now become an established position on the theological landscape.¹⁰ Three of the five original authors of The Openness of God were assembled at the AAR to mark the occasion of the twentieth anniversary of its publication. Besides Richard Rice, John Sanders and David Basinger were also present, as well as the initiator of the Open and Relational Theologies Units at the AAR, Thomas Oord. Oord had not only created an established platform for open theists at the world’s largest gathering of theologians and philosophers of religion, but also numbers among the most innovative recent advocates of an open view of God.

Even this brief account of open theism’s reception history indicates the extent of its influence, at least on evangelical scholarly discourse in the United States of America—and thus its significance for the church. In the following section, I shall present a concise outline of the origins and development of this theological reform movement and explore its confessional roots. I shall also introduce its chief representatives in a little more detail.

1.1.2 The History of Open Theism

The history of open theism begins long before the publication of The Openness of God in 1994, before it had become a distinct theological movement or school of thought. In the course of the 1970s and early 1980s, those who would later emerge as open theism’s main representatives were already developing the core ideas of their theological model. Following Dennis W. Jowers, we can regard this period as the formative phase in open theism’s history (ca. 1975–1994), while the following decade covers its phase of controversy (1994–2004).¹¹ Jowers’ division should be supplemented by a phase of consolidation, beginning around 2004, after the volume of the initial debate had died down a little.

To be more precise, the formative phase designates the period during which open theism’s future advocates first began to develop an alternative view of God and his relation to the world—a model which sought to avoid the deterministic implications of traditional classical theology and to distance itself from the strong conservative Calvinistic current of North American evangelicalism.

The systematic theologians who count among the pioneers of an open view of God are Clark Pinnock (1937–2010), Richard Rice (1944–), John Sanders (1956–), and the philosophers of religion David Basinger (1947–) and William Hasker (1935–). Somewhat later, Gregory Boyd (1957–) also joined the group. The concept of the openness of God derives from a short study by Richard Rice, which itself appeared under the title The Openness of God fourteen years before the appearance of the coauthored work of the same title.¹² The subtitle of Rice’s book—The Relationship of Divine Foreknowledge and Human Free Will—points to the reason why open theism would later become so well known: its questioning of God’s exhaustive definitive foreknowledge in favor of the idea of an authentic history of God with his creatures that, precisely because of its openness, is also hazardous for God himself.

Rice’s work caught the attention of Clark Pinnock, who, in the course of his own highly multifaceted intellectual and theological development, had arrived at very similar conclusions regarding the doctrine of providence and the relationship between God and world.¹³ Pinnock introduced Rice to the younger John Sanders, and thus three of The Openness of God’s five authors were already in contact with one another by the mid-1980s.¹⁴ It was not long before they noticed the similarities between their own approaches and those of William Hasker and David Basinger. Hasker and Basinger, pursuing a path strongly influenced by analytic philosophy, had come to believe in the openness of the future and the authenticity of God’s shared history with his creation.¹⁵ After a short while, the network established between these pioneers led to numerous individual and joint publications and to the development of a theological companionship, which eventually resulted in the publication of The Openness of God (1994).¹⁶

We can regard this book as the true founding manifesto of open theism, and it also marks the beginning of its phase of controversy.¹⁷ Appearing in 1994, it elaborates the open view of God in five chapters devoted respectively to its biblical justification (Richard Rice), its forerunners in the history of theology (John Sanders), its consequences for systematic theology (Clark Pinnock), its philosophical plausibility (William Hasker) and, finally, its practical implications (David Basinger). The model of a dynamic, interactive history, into which God enters for the sake of his love of mankind, and which even for God implies a moment of unpredictability and uncontrollability, was immediately met with massive resistance within North American evangelicalism. Three reviewers in the evangelical magazine Christianity Today immediately wrote crushing critiques of this supposed biblical challenge to the traditional understanding of God (the book’s subtitle).¹⁸

If such prominent treatment by America’s most widely read Christian journal contributed to open theism’s fame, it also formed the prelude to a series of remarkably acrimonious publications which lambasted open theism and its advocates in a decidedly inquisitorial fashion. The titles of these publications alone give a taste of the state of alarm into which the conservative-Calvinist wing of American evangelicalism has been placed, and indicates a need not only to show the open view of God to be mistaken, but to condemn it as heretical: Norman Geisler’s engagement with open theism was entitled Creating God in the Image of Man? The New Open View of God: Neo-Theism’s Dangerous Drift (1997), Bruce Ware’s book-length critique was called God’s Lesser Glory: The Diminished God of Open Theism (2000), and an essay collection edited by John Piper bore the title Beyond the Bounds: Open Theism and the Undermining of Biblical Christianity (2003).¹⁹ In particular, it was the idea that future events could remain (partly) unknown to the biblical God which amounted, for so many readers, to a denial of the omniscience of God and a betrayal of his divinity as such.

Open theists have not only defended themselves against such criticism in numerous clarificatory essays, but have also provided several additional detailed presentations of their views.²⁰ Yet this has by no means dampened the controversies surrounding open theism. In the years following these publications, it has continued to make waves not only within the realm of theological and philosophical discourse, but also within church politics.

One of the first individuals to be affected by the controversies was not in fact one of the authors of The Openness of God, but a Baptist pastor and professor of systematic theology, Gregory Boyd: Boyd had come independently to adopt a perspective on the God-world relation that was congruent with open theism; he had made this public before coming into personal contact with any of its other representatives.²¹ By publicizing his views, he provoked the opposition of John Piper, a professor at the same denominational university. Piper saw in Boyd’s thought a danger to the true faith. He pursued an action against Boyd to have him removed from his duties, a process which garnered considerable publicity.²² In the end, after this demoralizing confrontation had dragged on for several years, Boyd resigned his position in 2002 of his own initiative.²³

As members of the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS), the largest society of evangelical theologians and philosophers of religion in the United States of America, John Sanders and Clark Pinnock had to undergo similar experiences.²⁴ At the turn of the century, the objections against the two open theists culminated in a veritable heresy trial and Sanders only barely escaped ejection from the ETS in the final membership vote of 2003.²⁵ He was more profoundly affected by his dismissal from the evangelical Huntington University on the grounds of the supposedly untenable nature of his views—a fate from which the open theist William Hasker was somehow spared, despite teaching at the same institution.²⁶

To a certain extent, Sanders’ fate at Huntington University can be seen as a delayed consequence of the heated debates of the previous years. Yet, by this stage, there were several indications that the ecclesio-political conflicts had begun to abate, and the genuine theological and philosophical questions thrown up by open theism were finally able to take center stage. Various publications from the mid-2000s evidence a new willingness on the part of open theism’s critics to refrain from unnecessary polemic, and to engage instead with the project in a serious and nuanced manner.²⁷ In this phase of consolidation, the representatives of open theism found ever more opportunities to deepen their project, as well as to develop more decisive critical arguments, which were needed in particular to address problematics within analytic philosophy—for example, the question of the epistemological and ontological status of the future, and of the compatibility of freedom and foreknowledge. Primarily Hasker and Basinger, and to a lesser extent Boyd and Sanders, devoted themselves to these topics in the first decade of the new millennium.²⁸

It is in this most recent chapter in the history of open theism that Thomas Oord (1965–) arrived on the scene as a representative of the second generation. In his dissertation, published in 2001, Oord engaged with Clark Pinnock’s thought and showed himself to be an adherent of a theology of the love of God of expressly open theist inspiration.²⁹ In the following years, Oord made significant contributions to the movement, both as an organizer of various theological, philosophical, and interdisciplinary conferences on open theism and as an editor of several volumes of essays, which have ensured that open theism’s concerns maintain a presence within the North American church and academy.³⁰

1.1.3 The Roots of Open Theism

As is clear even from this brief historical review, open theism is very much an evangelical phenomenon. More precisely, it belongs to the recent history of North American evangelicalism. To be sure, in the course of its development, the project of articulating an open view of God has found a range of advocates and critics beyond evangelical circles and has increasingly attracted interest across continental boundaries. Yet, both open theism’s creative center and the debates it has provoked remain firmly rooted in U.S. evangelicalism.

All five authors of the pathbreaking The Openness of God (1994), as well as Thomas Oord, grew up within the North American evangelical milieu and, in spite of numerous tensions and disagreements, retain their commitment to it. Gregory Boyd, a child of Catholic parents, had already attached himself to the Pentecostal movement in his youth, and later (like most of open theism’s main representatives) found his theological and spiritual home within evangelicalism’s left wing.³¹ Some familiarity with this ecclesial and sociological context is therefore indispensable to any understanding of the open view of God as an independent theological movement. It is only against this background that we can attain a clear view of its advocates’ specific concerns, modes of argumentation, and hermeneutical presuppositions, not to mention the peculiar vehemence of their critics.

First and foremost, it is important to note that evangelicalism is so vast as to be almost unsurveyable. The World Christian Database counts just under one billion evangelical Christians worldwide for 2015 (including Pentecostal and charismatic communities) and estimates that there are—depending upon the scope of the respective definitions of evangelicalism—80 to 120 million evangelical in the United States of America alone (corresponding to ca. 25–40 percent of the total population).³² Unlike the Catholic Church, for example, evangelicalism is not an identifiable confession or corporate entity, but rather an extremely diverse and diffuse phenomenon, which can be described as a multilayered and fissiparous network of thousands of denominations, independent communities, intercongregational works, missionary societies, umbrella groups, newspapers, publishers, media enterprises, conferences, and educational establishments.³³ These have certain forms of piety and fundamental beliefs in common, amongst which deference to the Bible as the binding and reliable word of God and the missionary commitment to spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ throughout the world feature prominently.³⁴ Since these are hardly unique characteristics, a more nuanced conception of the movement requires some historical anchoring.

Contemporary evangelicalism’s countless manifestations reach back (directly or indirectly) to the series of Protestant revival movements known as the Great Awakening which took place in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century England and North America.³⁵ These revivalist movements had a lasting effect on the religious and social development of the United States, and in turn integrated impulses from (at least) two historical currents in a manner that has resulted in enduring tensions: On the one hand, the Great Awakening fed on pietistic-Arminian influences with roots in German and Dutch Protestantism; on the other hand, many of the protagonists and adherents of the awakening drew upon a puritan-Calvinist heritage reaching back to the Swiss Reformation and Anglicanism.³⁶

Although the biblical and evangelical piety common to both Pietism and Puritanism facilitated the amalgamation of these background factors in the course of these awakenings, we should ignore neither vital theological differences nor the different weightings these different strands respectively assign to spiritual experience and doctrinal orthodoxy.³⁷ Thus, large sections of conservative, dogmatically constituted evangelicalism to this day remain shaped by a variety of Calvinist Puritanism which, as mediated by the revivalist preachers Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield, places God’s sovereignty and the total depravity of man at the center of its understanding of the faith.

By contrast, many of the more pragmatic and experience-oriented (e.g., Pentecostal-charismatic) branches of evangelicalism are close to the thought of the Dutch reformer Jacobus Arminius, as mediated by the founding father of Methodism, John Wesley. Arminius’ thought renounced Calvinist doctrine in order to lend a new importance to God’s unconditional love and human freedom. Against this background, Roger Olson describes evangelicalism as an unstable compound composed of two incompatible traditions and traces back evangelicalism’s multiple controversies, condemnations, and bouts of trench warfare in the second half of the twentieth century to these still unreconciled components.³⁸

We should therefore understand open theism in the context of this tension-filled history and present of North American evangelicalism. Further, we should not view open theism as merely an important case study of the (still) increasing polarization within evangelicalism, a process which began in the 1970s. It must instead be understood as an essential accelerator of this polarization: the controversy around open theism precipitated a hardening of the old battle lines between evangelicalism’s left wing of pietist-Arminian orientation and the right wing shaped by Puritanism and Calvinism. And it did so to a previously unseen degree.³⁹

For, first, open theism represents a radical accentuation of just those foundational beliefs of Arminian theology that have always met with the greatest opposition from the conservative camp, namely, the primacy of love among God’s attributes and an insistence on human freedom. Gregory Boyd himself calls the open view of God an in-house Arminian dispute about the most coherent and credible notion of creaturely freedom.⁴⁰ Clark Pinnock, too, introduces his presentation of open theism with the declaration that he wants to push the revision of classical theology begun by Arminianism one step further, in order to give it greater coherence.⁴¹

Critics of open theism feel that such remarks only confirm their judgment that traditional Arminianism already finds itself in a theologically fatal position, and that open theistic ultra-Arminianism serves only to show still more clearly where an absolutization of God’s love and a glorification of human freedom ultimately leads—namely, to a denial of God’s holiness, sovereignty, and power to shape history.⁴² Olson cites the claims of two leading figures of conservative Calvinist evangelicalism that even if they did not (yet?) share the open view of God, Arminians were still all headed there.⁴³

For many representatives of this wing of evangelicalism, open theism therefore casts a doubtful light on Arminianism as a whole. And even if by no means all Arminian theologians recognize open theism as a version of their own approach, numerous conservative Calvinist critics consider themselves entitled not only to embark on polemical forays against representatives of an open view of God, but also to make broad attacks on Arminianism in general.⁴⁴

At the same time, open theism should not be seen simply as the victim of intra-evangelical prejudices and quarrels; it represents a self-conscious, head-on attack on the understanding of God and the world adopted by those who would become and remain its critics. Open theists, who mainly came from a moderate Arminian context, were confronted in the course of their studies with the conservative Calvinist theology that dominated the evangelical educational institutions of the time.

This strand of evangelicalism had implications for the practice of faith that were sufficiently unacceptable to them that they felt compelled to work out an alternative vision.⁴⁵ John Sanders, for example, describes the feeling of disconcertment that crept up on him at the start of his university studies when he was faced with the representation of a controlling, predetermining God, wholly unimpressed by human initiatives. He describes how this alienation led to the decision to oppose such theological determinism with the model of a liberating, adventurous God who is closer to human beings.⁴⁶

The accentuation of deterministic beliefs in the emergent (neo-)Calvinism of the final decades of the twentieth century, combined with the hegemonic conduct of its representatives in academic evangelical circles, constitute the negative context, so to speak, of the discovery of open theism. If the scale and tone of the critique which met the open view of God was as disproportionate as it was unsettling—the Arminian theologian Roger Olson has gone on the record as saying that the controversies surrounding open theism were in retrospect the most dismaying and disillusioning thing that he had experienced in fifty-some years of being an evangelical⁴⁷—open theism itself was nevertheless headed for confrontation from the beginning. It grew out of the historical tensions within evangelicalism and, as a radical Arminian counterproject to Calvinist determinism, contributed to bringing them into the present day.⁴⁸

1.1.4 The Influence of Process Theology

The concrete shape ultimately assumed by the open view of God was derived not only from its accentuation of central concerns of Arminian theology, but also from the formative influence of process thought. Most of open theism’s leading advocates came into contact with process theology at the start of their theological careers, and were evidently just as drawn to the basic concerns of its intellectual outlook as they were repelled by the conservative evangelical version of reformed theology. Clark Pinnock and Gregory Boyd, for example, engaged intensively with the work of Charles Hartshorne, and both open theists make clear, especially in their early publications, how they aim to profit from Hartshorne’s conception of a dynamic, interactive relation between God and world and intend to occupy a middle position, so to speak, between classical and neo-classical (process-theological) theism.⁴⁹

John Sanders, too, has shown a great interest in Hartshorne’s work (as well as in the project of the Boston personalist Edgar Brightman),⁵⁰ while Richard Rice received an important impetus to the development of his own theological approach when he was studying under the Chicago process theologian and student of Hartshorne, Schubert Ogden.⁵¹ Several of William Hasker’s and David Basinger’s philosophical essays also document their intensive engagement with process theology.⁵² Finally, Thomas Oord graduated from the Center for Process Studies in California, the undisputed center of contemporary process philosophy, and gained his doctorate under the supervision of the renowned process theologians David Ray Griffin, John B. Cobb, and Majorie Hewitt Suchocki.⁵³

Yet, as open theism became better known, its relation to process theology proved to be peculiarly ambivalent, particularly during the controversial phase of its history. On the one hand, the inspiration that open theism’s advocates drew from their engagement with Hartshorne, Ogden, and other protagonists of process theology is tangible. In searching for a theological conception that escaped the deterministic implications of classical theological projects and did justice both to God’s loving will and to creation’s historicity and freedom, the budding open theists found kindred spirits in the process theologians.

Indeed, the Arminian wing of evangelicalism in general exhibits a remarkable affinity to process thought.⁵⁴ And if open theists are notably sparing in their adoption of typical process-theological terminology—aside from Boyd’s dissertation, one will find in their works very few references to key process-theological concepts such as initial aim, aesthetic satisfaction, creative synthesis, primordial and consequent nature of God, etc.—one can nevertheless identify many of the associated ideas in their presentation of an open view of God. The idea of an interactive synergy between God and world, and the qualification of this dynamic as a realization of uncontrolling love, were particularly influential. Further, the concomitant modifications of God’s omnipotence, omniscience, and immutability in process theology are to a large extent reproduced by open theists, even if they also (in contrast to process theology) hold fast to creatio ex nihilo and to the possibility of God’s at least occasional unilateral intervention.⁵⁵

Nevertheless, open theists have betrayed an increasing desire to distance themselves from process thought, with a vehemence that is hardly justified in light of the obvious similarities between the two projects. If Gregory Boyd could still thank Charles Hartshorne in the foreword to his dissertation for his decisive influence on his own understanding of God and could recognize the process-theological viewpoint as correct,⁵⁶ in God of the Possible (2000), he resists any attempt to place open theism in the proximity of process theology, saying that the two models in fact have little in common.⁵⁷ Clark Pinnock, for his part, is at pains to show in Most Moved Mover that the open view of God is based upon Wesleyan-Arminian thought, and not upon more recent and doubtless heterodox process theology,⁵⁸ while John Sanders emphasizes how he had developed the essential features of his viewpoint before having any contact with process theology.⁵⁹

Even Roger Olson allows himself to claim that the parallels between open theism and process theology are coincidental.⁶⁰ Such efforts to establish clear blue water between process theology and open theism can be explained only against the background of the massive campaign of allegations, not to mention of institutional and denominational exclusion, to which open theism’s main advocates were subjected during the movement’s phase of controversy. The association with process theology, widely condemned as unbiblical amongst evangelicals, would only have abetted the already virulent allegations of heterodoxy. Open theists therefore tried to emphasize their differences with this recognized heresy, especially during this period.⁶¹

By contrast, Thomas Oord, who first gained publicity with his relational and open theology after the main controversies had abated, was able to express himself in a way that was strikingly free of such caution: he not only openly announced his sympathy for the central insights of his process theologian teachers, but also expressed the expectation that the boundaries separating process-theological and open theist models would gradually be erased.⁶²

Beyond the influence of the aforementioned process theologians, William Hasker and David Basinger also profited from notable members of the Oxford school of divine temporality and from advocates of the free will defense who shared central concerns with process-theological projects.⁶³ In particular, the ideas of the British logicians and philosophers of religion Arthur Prior, Peter Geach, John Lucas, and Richard Swinburne, on the ontological and epistemological status of future events, strengthened Hasker and Basinger in their conviction that exhaustive definite foreknowledge is incompatible with the freedom of creatures and that God ought rather to be understood as a participant within an unpredictable history.⁶⁴

Moreover, as pioneers of a free will theodicy, both Alvin Plantinga and Richard Swinburne inspired open theists’ engagement with the problem of evil and set out the path towards the solution that would eventually be taken by the open view of God.⁶⁵ At least from the viewpoint of philosophical theology, these exhaust the lines of direct influence. Other scholars and schools of thought occasionally cited as forerunners and predecessors of open theism—e.g., antique and contemporary critics of divine omniscience and immutability, such as Calcidius, Jules Lequier, and Lorenzo McCabe, or movements like Socinianism or Unitarianism—cannot be verified as actual sources of inspiration. Such putative sources are clearly points of connection that have been established retrospectively by both supporters and opponents of open theism, either to discredit (as in the case of Socinianism, for example) or to strengthen the open view of God.⁶⁶

Setting to one side their self-declared remoteness from process thought—motivated, as we have seen, more by anxiety than substance—and concentrating on the philosophical core of the open view of God, Pinnock’s and Boyd’s original intention to formulate an alternative to or compromise between classical and neo-classical theism comes to fulfillment in their model of the openness of God.⁶⁷ The fact that open theism has been criticized by classical theists as a poorly disguised variant of process theology,⁶⁸ and by process theologians in turn as a mere modification of classical theism,⁶⁹