Evangelical theologians reject `open theism'

Christian Century, Dec 12, 2001 by Eric Gorski

Taking a stand in line with their conservative core, members of the Evangelical Theological Society have approved a resolution rejecting "open theism"--the belief that God does not fully know the future because people have been given the freedom to help shape it through their decisions.

The society was far from united, however, on how to deal with the small number of scholars in their ranks who advocate open theism, which has been called heretical by some and enlightening by others. The issue dominated discussion at the society's 53rd annual meeting in mid-November at Colorado Springs.

The resolution, approved by roughly 70 percent of the 360 society members who cast ballots on November 16, states, "We believe the Bible clearly teaches that God has complete, accurate and infallible knowledge of all events past, present and future, including all future decisions and actions of free moral agents." About 18 percent of voting members opposed it and another 11 percent abstained.

Resolution supporters characterized it as a "snapshot" of the society's opinion that would be used to guide future decisions. Critics called the vote a precursor to excluding open theists. Still others complained the movement was far too new for members to take a stand on it. Wayne Grudem, a member of the society's executive committee, which wrote the resolution, called it a "gentle nudge" for open theists either to change their minds or "seriously consider leaving." Grudem, who teaches at Phoenix Theological Seminary, and others say open theism undermines the central evangelical belief of biblical inerrancy.

Open theism, also called free-will theism, was introduced to a broader public in 1994 with the publication of The Openness of God by five evangelical scholars, including its editor, Clark Pinnock. The book's back-cover self-description says God desires "responsive relationships" with his creatures. "While it rejects process theology, the book asserts that such classical doctrines as God's immutability, impassability and foreknowledge demand reconsideration."

Dozens of books and articles on this issue--pro and con--have appeared since then. The issue caused a rift in the 900-congregation Baptist General Conference, which in 1999 narrowly rejected a motion challenging open theism. Open theism has found some favor with Pentecostals who view it in terms of a spirited give-and-take with God.

John Sanders, a leading proponent of open theism and professor at Huntington (Indiana) College, has written that "God does not control everything that happens. Rather, he is open to receiving input from his creatures. In loving dialogue, God invites us to participate with him to bring the future into being."

Speaking at the annual meeting, Sanders defended open theism as part of a tradition of reform in church thought. He said evangelicals have demonized other evangelicals over issues such as women in clergy and dialogue with the Catholic Church, and open theism is "today's enemy that must be destroyed." He called those trying to squelch open theism the "evangelical Taliban." Sanders said "open theism may not be more than a footnote in historical theology. We may be wrong." But he said its possibilities should be explored.

Bruce Ware of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, countered that open theism undermines the deity of both God and Jesus. He argued that under the openness view, substitutionary atonement--the belief that Jesus died for the sins of everyone--wouldn't be possible because Jesus could not have known at the time of his death who would be conceived and live in the future. Author of God's Lesser Glory: The Diminished God of Open Theism, Ware said the death and resurrection of Jesus as part of God's plan would be uncertain under open theism. He said that lacking exhaustive knowledge of human affairs and future events renders God "strikingly similar to pretender deities."

Speaking to the 1,800 people at the meeting, ETS President Darrell Bock urged members to "go slow" when considering the open-theism question. The debate about the resolution ran past midnight on the eve of the vote.

Much discussion focused on the timing and motivations behind the resolution. William Lane Craig of the Talbot School of Theology in La Mirada, California, called the resolution "a transparent attempt to set the table to throw these folks out later"--something the executive committee denied. A motion by ETS President-elect David Howard of Bethel Theological Seminary to delay the vote one year was defeated 176-126.

After the vote, three major open-theism scholars who presented papers at the meeting--Sanders, Gregory Boyd of Bethel (Minnesota) College, and Pinnock of McMaster Divinity College in Hamilton, Ontario--said the vote won't cause them to leave the theological society or change their course of study. Pinnock said the resolution was a mistake. "They probably hurt the society," he said. "The society exists for open discussion. What are they going to do now?"