Disclaimer:
I wrote this paper almost two years ago.
There are a few points on which I would argue with myself, now, because
I have shifted a little further toward open theism than I was when I wrote
this. I considered making significant
edits, but then I thought to myself, “Maybe I should let this one stand as it
is and write another piece interacting with it, in the near future.” So that’s what I’m doing…
So… On God and Love and Dependence
***
Our theology shapes and informs our actions. "Theology can perpetuate the illness or
it can capacitate the cure" (Keller, 2003, 7). One of the most predominant views of God, in
the western worldview of religion as a whole, is that of the omni-God, a God
whose very nature is that of omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence. Belief in a God like this, if there is nothing
else, leaves room for many disturbing questions ranging from the problem of
evil, to pain, to prayers that seem to be left unanswered. The voluble but shallow response to such
questions seems to be that the God we have is a God who knows what is best and
works in the world for our good and for the good of others, even when we cannot
see it. The answer to the gut wrenching
question, "why," is almost always that we must just have faith, or adequate faith, or more faith. This is lacking
in the face of suffering, particularly when faithful people continue to
experience devastation. Perhaps the
omni-attributes that we have ascribed to God come from our own human struggle
for power and do not begin to touch on the heart of who God is. If this is the case, God must be someone
different than we originally expected. This
is not such a stretch, since throughout history this theory holds as true, but
it is difficult to deconstruct our own assumptions, starting over with very
little understanding of who God is. If,
as Kearney suggests, "We will find the solution to the wrong
interpretation of religion through the right interpretation" (Kearney,
Lecture Week 7), then, "Discernment is crucial, some things we can embrace
but other things we must eschew" (Pinnock, 2001, 116). Is it possible that God's love has limited
God in such a way that God has chosen to sometimes be dependent on people? This paper will explore the dependency of
God, particularly in regard to God's nature of love and God's choice to empower
us with free will.
God
is love. But, what is love? There are not enough words in the English
language to define such a term. In Greek,
we can talk of eros, philia, agape, storge.
Which is God? The clear cut,
Sunday School answer is always, "agape". God is unconditional love. God is a love of well wishing and benevolence
and even a love that remains constant when unrequited. Yes, God is agape. But perhaps we do not give God enough credit
for being love in all its various forms.
Open
theism allows God to also be philia, entering into friendship with human
beings, with creation. "As
individuals we are significant in God's eyes... the things we do and say, the
decisions and choices we make, and our prayers all help shape the future. Open theology affirms that life and our
life-decisions really do matter" (Oord, 2010, 91). There are examples in Scripture that seem to
confirm this as truth. In Exodus, God
declares that God will destroy the Israelites when they craft the golden calf,
but Moses begs God for mercy, and God relents.
In II Kings, God sends Isaiah to tell Hezekiah that he should get his
house in order, because he is going to die, definitively and soon, but when
Hezekiah cries out in prayer, weeping bitterly, God heals him and extends his
life for fifteen more years. Perhaps the
most disquieting moment, though, in light of an omnipotent God comes when,
"The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his
heart was deeply troubled" (Genesis 6:6, NIV, 2011). At this point, God was prepared to destroy
all of humanity, but even then there was one, Noah, who found favor, and God
began again, through him. Clearly, God
can change God's mind, and I am left to ponder whether this occurs with greater
frequency than we might imagine.
Two
important questions surface from these biblical accounts. First, how can an all-knowing God change his
mind? And second, how important is human
participation in the future that is to be?
Open theology affirms that God knows every possibility but cannot know
which future will come to pass. This
makes sense in some regard and may even explain how God could come to regret a
decision, knowing that a regrettable possibility existed but, perhaps, hoping
for something better. Put very powerfully,
"A cloud of missed possibilities envelops every beginning: it is always this beginning, this universe, and not
some other. Decision lacks
innocence. Around its narrations gather
histories of grievance: what possibilities were excluded?" (Keller, 2003, 160). It is overwhelming to consider that God risks
so much when God allows us to have free choice.
Traditionally, God's act of imbuing this power of choice is considered a
necessary part of fulfilling God's nature of love. While I am in agreement with this premise, it
also seems as if the act of allowing for free will is one of humility on God's
part. Described in one work, the virtue
of humility is equated with permission, "the great one should consult
with, request permission from, the small one" (Keller, 2003, 174). Additionally, "God makes himself
dependent on the prayers of his people... God loves to move in response to our
prayers. Our failure to pray impacts the
world negatively" (Pinnock, 2001, 135).
Clearly, this is the case in the aforementioned passages of
Scripture. People pray. God responds.
Jesus teaches us to pray, so prayer is an expected part of Christian
spiritual formation, and it only makes sense that this is so if prayer actually
matters. "Why pray if prayer
changes nothing?" (Pinnock, 2001, 137).
Taking it a step further, though, I have often wondered, why do anything if nothing can be changed, if
the future is already set?
Do
our human actions, reactions, and interactions actually make a difference in
the world and the coming kingdom? Are we
just casual friends of God, or is there something much deeper? Controversial
theologians sometimes allow for eros, at least in regard to creation. Does this God of love actually work in
intimate partnership with us, not merely engaging in a dance of responses, but
actually creating in tandem? What do we
really mean when we speak of an omnipresent God? Perhaps this term moves beyond a God who is
looking on, somewhere above time and space, and instead describes a pervasive
God, one who, "cannot
be absent from any molecule, membrane or mucus of the creation" (Keller,
2003, 23). Even "John Wesley
preached that 'God is in all things,' indeed 'pervades and actuates the whole
created frame, and is in a true sense the Soul of the Universe" (Keller, 2003,
23). And yet it is not a possessive kind
of love. "Nothing is further from Eros than possession" (Kearney,
2001, 66). This is the God who depends
on us for the incarnation and the God who allows us to enter into covenant. "God does not choose to be alone. He wills the creature to co-exist with him
and to stand alongside him as the beloved covenant partner. This is our core identity - to be loved by
God" (Pinnock, 2001, 125). This is
fascinating. God's core identity is
love, and ours is to be loved. God "values freedom, not so much as an
end in itself, but as an instrument to make possible what he really longs for,
love" (Pinnock, 2001, 126).
Could
it be that if we refuse to cooperate with God the timing of things may be
different than originally planned, but eventually someone will partner with God in such a way that God's promises
will be fulfilled? Or perhaps it is as
simple as this: "There are some things that must happen and many things
that may happen. And there are many
things that just happen... But, when they happen, (God's) sovereignty is such
that he can take them into his overall purpose for the world" (Pinnock,
2001, 186). It is possible
that we may become distracted by our human expectations for the world, but
God's purpose is clear. God's purpose,
God's very essence, is love, and God displays that love, in its purest form,
through redemption.
Which
leads us to yet another kind of love, and even
open theism does not seem to allow it. What
can be said of storge. If God is love, is God not all love? This includes the protective love of a parent, the
love that says, "no," and even sometimes the love that says
"yes" to things that are impossible.
Storge is the love that puts up with humanity because we are family, and
the love that may even create new things, perhaps from nothing at all. Some argue that, "The ex
nihilo doctrine constructed as orthodoxy itself the pure dualism of originating
Logos and prevenient Nothing" (Keller, 2003, 10). Except, even when there is nothing, there is
still God, the God of impossibilities, the God of miracles and
resurrection. There is surely still the
God of prevenient grace. I have struggled deeply with the question,
"Is there never a situation in which God 'pulls rank' and acts on God's
own?" Perhaps the best answer to
this question is that God is un-ranked, to begin with. It is tempting to try to understand God on human
terms, but life and faith are more than just a game with power players.
While
it would be irresponsible to ignore the question of theology, making God
synonymous with myth and chance and inconsistent with all measures of reason
and logic, it seems acceptable to allow for some
degree of mystery. What if we delete the
theos from theology? Is it possible that
we can fall too far on the side of the equation that insists that God work in
cooperation with creation, at all times?
"Transcendence can... become too transcendent. If removed entirely from historical being,
God can become so unknowable and invisible as to escape all identification whatsoever"
(Kearney, 2001, 31). If this is the
case, is there any need for God, at all?
"If we delete the theos
from theology, what does it leave? A
logos alone, a regimen of secular monologoi, from which mystery, prophecy, and
the love that is stronger than death have evaporated? An elite post-theism, which shuns all
theologies of social and symbolic struggle?" (Keller, 2003, 172).
The
struggle is real, but there is something we must not forget about God. "God remains faithful to the creation
project and has committed himself to redeem it" (Pinnock, 2001, 138). God always keeps the covenant. We see it in Abraham. We see it in Jesus. Even the greatest evil, death, cannot break
the promises that God has made. It has
no sting, because God is the God of the miraculous, the God of love so great it
encompasses resurrection. Maybe God's
omnipotence does not uniquely qualify God to act without us, but God offers a
gift that no one else can. "The
promise is granted unconditionally, as pure gift. But God is reminding his people that they are
free to accept or refuse this gift. A
gift cannot be imposed; it can only be offered" (Kearney, 2001, 29). God's gift is enormously compelling.
"Through
self-sacrifice, the intensity of God's love is expressed and provides for the
reconciliation of the world. God does
not relish suffering but he does enjoy the restored relationships made possible
by it" (Pinnock, 2001, 138). God's
love is raw and unnerving, impossible even.
It is the love of a servant who wants nothing but the very best for
others, for us, even though this costs everything. It is an unselfish love that is willing to
move with us, in us, and even around us, if that is what is necessary for
redemption to take place.
So,
to answer the question, "Is God ever
dependent," I would have to say yes, but to answer the question, "Is
God always dependent," I would
venture to say no. I think these are
questions that require discernment and grace.
Because of God's very nature of love, there are some things that God
cannot do and still remain who God is.
Freedom is necessary in love, and freedom "entails risk in the
event that love is not reciprocated" (Pinnock, 2001, 132). But our freedom will never negate God's
promise and plan for redemption for anyone who can and will be redeemed. "God will overcome wickedness through
his wisdom, power, and resourcefulness.
He allows the creature to wreak havoc on the world for a time but not
forever. The gift of freedom was not
unlimited in scope or duration and therefore the power to do evil is
finite" (Pinnock, 2001, 139). God
does not force humanity to do much, but there is one thing. "The only thing God forces us to do is
to become" (Luce Irigaray in Keller, 2003, 225). The future is wide open for us to become
everything we were intended to be as we seek to join God in God's redemptive
work.
Works Cited
Holy
Bible.
Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011. Print.
Kearney,
Richard. Interview with David
Cayley. Recording. Toronto, April 20, 2010.
Kearney,
Richard. The God Who May Be: A Hermeneutics of Religion. Bloomington:
Indiana UP, 2001. Print.
Keller,
Catherine. Face of the Deep: A Theology of Becoming. London: Routledge,
2003. Print.
Oord,
Thomas Jay. The Nature of Love: A Theology. St. Louis, MO: Chalice,
2010. Print.
Pinnock,
Clark H. Most Moved Mover: A Theology of God's Openness. Carlisle,
Cumbria, UK: Paternoster, 2001. Print.
