Learner has one class left before spring break officially begins and he's fairly excited about the fact that, come 2 p.m. today, he gets to take a nine-day hiatus before he has to be in class again. Of course, spring break will not be like those trips in college (which he never made anyway) in which students completely lose their minds in some warmer climate, never cracking open a book; rather, Learner estimates that he needs to put in three solid hours/day of reading just to catch up. Somewhere in mid-February, he got behind and now seems a most opportune time to get back in the race.
And yet, he's not planning on being a bookworm all break - he and the family are going to the farm for the first half of the break, and Learner anticipates some long walks with his kids, a few movies with Mrs. Learner, and no traffic for miles around. Mrs. Learner has also communicated her anticipation of farm living for the next several days, as she is growing more and more enamored by most things rural (even though she can't properly pronounce that word).
Upon return to campus during the middle of next week, Learner has several personal appointments with a professor or two, some friends or three, and a movie night with one of his pastors to watch The Exorcist, which is the pastor's favorite flick. All this on top of that aforementioned three hours of study per day, and that will probably wrap up spring break, at least for this year.
Good news: Learner got a B+ on his open theism paper, a fine mark from this particular professor (who is a good writer himself, and very critical of bad writing). Also, Learner's favorite prof asked him if he would serve as his teaching assistant this summer/next year, so Learner was rather thrilled about this invitation and opportunity.
All in all (and realizing there are still miles to go before the semester's over), Learner feels pretty good about heading into the break. He continues to enjoy the seminary experience and - surprise, surprise - is even beginning to wonder if the pastorate might be how God is leading him more and more. Thankfully, several years will pass before any of that needs to be confirmed, but Learner does wonder if that might be the best use of him as a whole person.
Then again, he says, there's always blogging...
Friday, March 24, 2006
Monday, March 13, 2006
Learner's Take on Open Theism
It's a bit long for this medium, but here's Learner's paper on open theism, as presented in the book, The Openness of God:
“God gives us a role in shaping what the future will be.
He is flexible and does not insist on doing things his way.
God will adjust his own plans because he is sensitive
to what humans think and do.”
- The Openness of God
“What is man that you are mindful of him,
and the son of man that you care for him?”
- Psalm 8
Imagine you are an ant. As ants are small, so are you. Busy and hard-working, but small.
Now imagine that I am god of the ants – the Yahweh of yard bugs, so to speak. And suppose that you, as an ant, know that I am your god, that I made you, and that I have also made a way for us to communicate. But here’s the rub: I began with some goals in mind for the world, ones that your ancestors rebelled against and chose apart from. As a result, I can’t achieve my goals without you, and you can’t achieve yours without me.
But, I have an idea. Perhaps we can work this out together, you, from your perspective, helping me, from mine, run the world. You tell me what you want to do and, in good faith, I promise not to categorically override your desires. I’ll even promise to limit what I know about the future or might have once wanted to sovereignly bring about. Never mind the differences between us (you, an ant; me, your god). This will simply display how much you mean to me as I respect your decisions, as well as how almighty of a god I am in being able to adjust and still make it all work.
So, where do we start? What do you want? Tell me what you think.
I’m open.
Is this an accurate perspective of the relationship that exists between God and humanity? Are we capable of such partnership with God? Is God really open to us in this way? In The Openness of God, the answer to all three questions is an unqualified “yes”. But does this description of line up with the historic understanding of the Scriptures?
I would say not. Instead, the authors have developed a biblical worldview that begins with an anthropology of those created, and then builds a theology of their Creator. The result is a system that looks at life through the wrong end of a telescope: God seems smaller, man seems bigger, and any differences between the two don’t seem to matter.
The Appeal of Open Theism
What is the appeal of open theism as a theological system? In a word, I think it is an imagined “equality” – humanity’s with God’s – that implies a sharing of opportunity, respect, influence, and benefit, all of which are values atop our culture’s list of ideals.
Theologically speaking, our presuming to be equal partners with God resonates with our American egalitarian tendencies, seemingly elevating our role and importance in the universe and putting us on more of a level playing field with the God who created it. This, we reason, is good for both parties, as it conceivably helps our spiritual self-esteem while painting God as more approachable and personal than perhaps otherwise thought.
Another attaction of open theism that the authors put forth is that, on a practical level, this open view of God is the working perspective a majority of evangelicals (consciously or unconsciously) hold, as evidenced by how they pray to and petition God:
“(The open) view resonates deeply with the traditional Christian devotional life. Biblical personalism is widespread among believers, for it allows for a real relationship with God. When we address God in prayer we commonly believe that we are entering into a genuine dialogue and that the future is not settled…If we remember that it presents in a systematic way what most Christians already practice in their devotional lives, then it will not seem strange at all…" (8)
In other words, the authors are saying that because Christians tend to pray with the hope that the future is not settled, indeed, it must not be; thus, the outcome of the world and our lives within it come as much from humanity’s desires for it as from God’s.
They go on to say that, as partners, humanity must have had equal knowledge and influence concerning this outcome, not only in the unfolding of the historical biblical narrative, but also in the creation of it, for (somehow), “God knows everything but is still learning what the world is becoming.” (125)
Oh, the Humanity
Indeed, the open view of God might comfort humanity, resolving the perceived tension between God’s sovereignty (though without foreknowledge) and man’s free will. Anthropologically speaking, this view appeals to humanity’s need to feel wanted, not to mention our American values of charting our own course and being able to make up for previous mistakes (i.e. the Fall) by working our way back to some position of influence.
Biblically and traditionally speaking, though, open theism holds a higher view of man and a lower view of God than I believe it can or should, at least when compared to the past 5,000 years of Christian orthodoxy and teaching on our human nature. For if…
“…orthodoxy is that understanding of God, Jesus Christ, and human nature such that the gospel story of redemption in Christ is preserved in a manner faithful to its ancient telling…” (from class notes)
…then we may be indeed be in partnership with God – and it may have been at his initiation and invitation – but we are not equal with him, for we stand in debt to his perfection and holiness because of our sin and need for redemption. While God freely provided such redemption in the saving work of Christ, this redemption does not restore us to a level equal with God, but rather only to that of our initial (and perfect) humanity in Adam, who, even as a partner with God, was still quite subject to him in the Garden.
The God of the Scriptures
Though Psalm 8 does record God making man “a little lower than the heavenly beings,” our idea should be that this gap is at least as significant as the one between you as an ant and me as your god, if not much, much greater. Contrary to open theism, the Scriptures clearly teach that God is sovereign and independent (Daniel 4:35); that God is immutable and eternal (Psalm 102:26-27); that God is omniscient and all-knowing (Hebrews 4:13); that God is indeed all this and more, regardless of whether or not we as his created humanity agree that he can be, should be, or is.
Though the open view of God may in some ways seem more appealing to or descriptive of fallen humanity and our perspective of what our place in the universe might be, the independent, eternal, and all-knowing God of the Scriptures is still the one to whom we must appeal. For while the traditional Christian perspective of both God and man does not deny the reality of humanity’s free will co-existing alongside or within God’s sovereignty somehow, it does not confuse the former with the latter, either.
“God gives us a role in shaping what the future will be.
He is flexible and does not insist on doing things his way.
God will adjust his own plans because he is sensitive
to what humans think and do.”
- The Openness of God
“What is man that you are mindful of him,
and the son of man that you care for him?”
- Psalm 8
Imagine you are an ant. As ants are small, so are you. Busy and hard-working, but small.
Now imagine that I am god of the ants – the Yahweh of yard bugs, so to speak. And suppose that you, as an ant, know that I am your god, that I made you, and that I have also made a way for us to communicate. But here’s the rub: I began with some goals in mind for the world, ones that your ancestors rebelled against and chose apart from. As a result, I can’t achieve my goals without you, and you can’t achieve yours without me.
But, I have an idea. Perhaps we can work this out together, you, from your perspective, helping me, from mine, run the world. You tell me what you want to do and, in good faith, I promise not to categorically override your desires. I’ll even promise to limit what I know about the future or might have once wanted to sovereignly bring about. Never mind the differences between us (you, an ant; me, your god). This will simply display how much you mean to me as I respect your decisions, as well as how almighty of a god I am in being able to adjust and still make it all work.
So, where do we start? What do you want? Tell me what you think.
I’m open.
Is this an accurate perspective of the relationship that exists between God and humanity? Are we capable of such partnership with God? Is God really open to us in this way? In The Openness of God, the answer to all three questions is an unqualified “yes”. But does this description of line up with the historic understanding of the Scriptures?
I would say not. Instead, the authors have developed a biblical worldview that begins with an anthropology of those created, and then builds a theology of their Creator. The result is a system that looks at life through the wrong end of a telescope: God seems smaller, man seems bigger, and any differences between the two don’t seem to matter.
The Appeal of Open Theism
What is the appeal of open theism as a theological system? In a word, I think it is an imagined “equality” – humanity’s with God’s – that implies a sharing of opportunity, respect, influence, and benefit, all of which are values atop our culture’s list of ideals.
Theologically speaking, our presuming to be equal partners with God resonates with our American egalitarian tendencies, seemingly elevating our role and importance in the universe and putting us on more of a level playing field with the God who created it. This, we reason, is good for both parties, as it conceivably helps our spiritual self-esteem while painting God as more approachable and personal than perhaps otherwise thought.
Another attaction of open theism that the authors put forth is that, on a practical level, this open view of God is the working perspective a majority of evangelicals (consciously or unconsciously) hold, as evidenced by how they pray to and petition God:
“(The open) view resonates deeply with the traditional Christian devotional life. Biblical personalism is widespread among believers, for it allows for a real relationship with God. When we address God in prayer we commonly believe that we are entering into a genuine dialogue and that the future is not settled…If we remember that it presents in a systematic way what most Christians already practice in their devotional lives, then it will not seem strange at all…" (8)
In other words, the authors are saying that because Christians tend to pray with the hope that the future is not settled, indeed, it must not be; thus, the outcome of the world and our lives within it come as much from humanity’s desires for it as from God’s.
They go on to say that, as partners, humanity must have had equal knowledge and influence concerning this outcome, not only in the unfolding of the historical biblical narrative, but also in the creation of it, for (somehow), “God knows everything but is still learning what the world is becoming.” (125)
Oh, the Humanity
Indeed, the open view of God might comfort humanity, resolving the perceived tension between God’s sovereignty (though without foreknowledge) and man’s free will. Anthropologically speaking, this view appeals to humanity’s need to feel wanted, not to mention our American values of charting our own course and being able to make up for previous mistakes (i.e. the Fall) by working our way back to some position of influence.
Biblically and traditionally speaking, though, open theism holds a higher view of man and a lower view of God than I believe it can or should, at least when compared to the past 5,000 years of Christian orthodoxy and teaching on our human nature. For if…
“…orthodoxy is that understanding of God, Jesus Christ, and human nature such that the gospel story of redemption in Christ is preserved in a manner faithful to its ancient telling…” (from class notes)
…then we may be indeed be in partnership with God – and it may have been at his initiation and invitation – but we are not equal with him, for we stand in debt to his perfection and holiness because of our sin and need for redemption. While God freely provided such redemption in the saving work of Christ, this redemption does not restore us to a level equal with God, but rather only to that of our initial (and perfect) humanity in Adam, who, even as a partner with God, was still quite subject to him in the Garden.
The God of the Scriptures
Though Psalm 8 does record God making man “a little lower than the heavenly beings,” our idea should be that this gap is at least as significant as the one between you as an ant and me as your god, if not much, much greater. Contrary to open theism, the Scriptures clearly teach that God is sovereign and independent (Daniel 4:35); that God is immutable and eternal (Psalm 102:26-27); that God is omniscient and all-knowing (Hebrews 4:13); that God is indeed all this and more, regardless of whether or not we as his created humanity agree that he can be, should be, or is.
Though the open view of God may in some ways seem more appealing to or descriptive of fallen humanity and our perspective of what our place in the universe might be, the independent, eternal, and all-knowing God of the Scriptures is still the one to whom we must appeal. For while the traditional Christian perspective of both God and man does not deny the reality of humanity’s free will co-existing alongside or within God’s sovereignty somehow, it does not confuse the former with the latter, either.
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
Mid-Terms
You'll pardon the lack of posts of late as Learner has been ambushed by an early mid-term week and I've not seen much of him as a result.
Last we talked, he was looking down the barrel of preparing and preaching his first sermon for his Homiletics class, writing three individual reflection papers on several books he was trying to finish, composing a four-page paper on the view of humanity from an open theism perspective, and researching and making an initial proposal for his big Covenant Theology paper due later this semester.
The good news is he only has one actual mid-term exam (Gospels), which is in an envelope in his bag, waiting for him to pull out, open, and give himself two hours between now and a week's passing to take. Getting through this exam and literally a month's backlog of reading should put him on top of things again.
As if he ever were.
Last we talked, he was looking down the barrel of preparing and preaching his first sermon for his Homiletics class, writing three individual reflection papers on several books he was trying to finish, composing a four-page paper on the view of humanity from an open theism perspective, and researching and making an initial proposal for his big Covenant Theology paper due later this semester.
The good news is he only has one actual mid-term exam (Gospels), which is in an envelope in his bag, waiting for him to pull out, open, and give himself two hours between now and a week's passing to take. Getting through this exam and literally a month's backlog of reading should put him on top of things again.
As if he ever were.
Thursday, March 02, 2006
Learner's Creed
For his Apologetics and Outreach class, Learner had to hand in today a paragraph/half page of what it is he believes. This would have been easy enough, but the caveat was he could not use traditional "Christianese" to communicate his beliefs. It's hardly brilliant, but this is what he sent me when I asked him if I could read his creed:
I believe there is a God in the universe who existed before the universe did.Guess it makes sense.
I believe this God is creative, and the world we experience and the people we are serve as evidence of his creativity.
As good as it all started out, I believe we screwed up what God wanted by wanting what only we wanted – not just in the beginning, but also now.
Nevertheless, I believe God is loving and planned for our mistake, not to mock our imperfection but to illustrate his love for us.
And I believe God showed us love, even when it hurt.
I believe we don’t deserve God’s love, but I’m grateful for it.
I believe I need God’s love. I also believe that I need God.
I believe God is still around, and I believe God isn’t me.
And I believe this means something. God says the same thing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)