A Classical Response to Relational Theism (Kindle version). My doctoral dissertation was published a few weeks ago, by Pickwick (the monograph series imprint of Wipf&Stock). The writing of this book was not an academic exercise, but a personal quest to offer an account of the classical doctrine of God that robustly counters an open/relational model of God. I see the open/relational model of God as the by-product of modern theology shifting away from the Great Tradition of the Christian faith. That might sound overly direct, arrogant, or dogmatic. So be it. Ivory tower discourse isn't my forte. There is a clarion call to retrieve the classic doctrine of God because the God being promoted in various strands of Evangelicalism is too small, unlike the glorious God revealed in the pages Scripture. With the problems and godless ideologies that we contend with in our current milieu, the God we need is the big God of the Bible, who declares himself as the One, True, and Transcendent Sovereign Lord of heaven and earth.
For those interested in this project, below is the preface to the book, which lays out its structure and content. I hope it is a helpful contribution in the recovery of the classical doctrines of the Great Tradition.
Preface
The classical doctrine of God expresses that the God of the Bible is triune, a se, simple, immutable, impassible, eternal, and the sovereign Lord over his creation, which he created from himself. Modern streams of theology continue to promote a doctrine of God that sharply contrasts the classical view—the traditional view of God in Christian theism. Contemporary strands of Evangelical theology, guided by a socially oriented philosophy, no longer see the God who is; rather, it sees God as the one who is becoming. Therefore, a critical response to such a theology is needed. And that is the intention of this study: to critically evaluate a current contemporary theological model representative of a view of God as becoming, with attention to shared key Christian doctrines and commitments to scriptural teachings, formulated from a view of God who is.
This study explores the method and content in the Evangelical process model of relational theism as advanced in the writings of Thomas Jay Oord. Oord identifies as an open/relational Evangelical theologian from the Wesleyan tradition. Oord’s theology is the focus of this study because I think he offers the most consistent model of open/relational theology that advocates the primacy of divine-human relationality in the nature of God. And while Oord offers the most consistent form of open/relational theism, Oord’s theology further opposes the classical view of God than articulated in the general stream of open theism. Oord’s move is not a short step out of the bounds of the classical view of the Christian tradition; rather it is a giant leap, in that open theism affirms the classical doctrines of God’s unilateral sovereignty (though modified to account for libertarian human freewill) and creatio ex nihilo. Oord rejects both in his relational model. However, Oord affirms key teachings of the Christian tradition that classical theists affirm as well, which were formulated from a classical view (i.e., classical metaphysics). The Christian doctrines affirmed between Oord’s brand of relational/open theology and classical theism, while both are metaphysically opposed to each other, presents a need for an evaluative study.
The specific aim of this study is to evaluate and critique Oord’s relational model of divine providence, identifying the internal inconsistencies within Oord’s philosophical and theological framework, problems in his methodology, and clearing up misconceptions he and the process tradition have of classical theism, while constructively showing that the general sense of Scripture agrees more with classical theism than process theism, as it pertains to divine power. The flow of the study is as follows.
Chapter 1 introduces the reader to the historical landscape, the relational turn in modern Evangelicalism, in which open theism developed, observing the foundation of process theology, which undergirded its development. Then the doctrinal commonalities and distinctions shared between open theology and process theology are identified, thus forming the backdrop in which Oord emerges. And then Oord’s theological and philosophical upbringings are outlined, observing the notable differences between Oord’s theology and prevailing views of open and process theologies. And lastly, the aim, scope, and methodology of the study are outlined.
Chapter 2 evaluates the coherency of Oord’s process philosophy/ metaphysic and his claims based on this construct with other doctrines of the Christian tradition. I argue that Oord’s assumption of God’s necessary relatedness to his creation conflicts with the orthodox doctrines of the Trinity and divine simplicity, which he affirms. I also identify inconsistencies in his doctrine of creation that disqualify it as a biblical doctrine because it collapses the Creator-creature distinction. While Oord claims his process metaphysic situates love in a more centralized manner than classical theism, it disrupts the coherency and framework of the traditional model of Christian theism (e.g., Creator–creature distinction, essence and attributes of God, and the Trinity) he seeks to retain. And then I will touch on Oord’s process notion of divine power, with a brief critique, which I will elaborate on further in chapter 5 in my evaluation of Oord’s doctrine of providence.
Chapter 3 evaluates and critiques Oord’s divine-love theology. And from my evaluation of Oord’s doctrine of love, I conclude that his attempt to formulate a uniform definition of love from Scripture was unsuccessful, in that his methods failed to account for the diverse contexts of love found in the Bible. He admitted on the out-set of his endeavor that the Bible does not articulate a monolithic definition of love, but he claimed that one general meaning of love dominates the biblical witness. While he argued for a scriptural definition of love, his methods were flawed because he limited his scope to the biblical texts that supported a philosophically contrived definition of love, rendering his model of love inadequate.
Chapter 4 compares and contrasts the process and classical approach to interpreting metaphysical statements in Scripture. The intention of the chapter purposed to establish an interpretive foundation, in substantiating that the interpretation of the biblical text generally agrees more with a classical metaphysic than that of process theology.
Chapter 5 examines the apex of Oord’s Evangelical process theology: Essential Kenosis, which functions as a relational model of divine providence but also an ontological expression of God. Essential Kenosis affirms involuntary divine self-limitation, which means that God is necessarily self-giving. And Essential Kenosis is Oord’s solution to the problem of evil. My evaluation sought to determine the adequacy of Oord’s model of divine providence based on questions pertaining to its biblical comprehensiveness as a doctrine of providence. Oord states that God exclusively uses compelling power to persuade local, physical bodies to exert direct, physical influence, which I refute through scriptural examples that demonstrate God’s power is not restricted to persuasion only, while constructively demonstrating that the general sense of Scripture agrees more with classical theism than process theism, as it pertains to divine power. In conclusion, my findings demonstrated that Oord’s relational model was unsuccessful in constructing a robust and supportive account for the complexities and nuances of the doctrinal themes presented in Scripture.
Chapter 6 briefly reflects on the importance of classical theology in the Christian tradition, followed by a restating of the intention of my study, summarizing the key distinctions between Oord’s theology and a classical view, delineating an enumerated account of the results determined by this study, and a conclusion statement.
Happy reading!
~ Romans 11:36
Comments