Jaltus
March 30th 2003, 10:00 PM
Evangelical theology is not a monolithic entity. In fact, it is a fragmented system containing various viewpoints on issues even though there is a common ground of scriptural inerrancy. The natural question which one must ask is the one of cause: why is this true? What caused or allowed such a wide array of beliefs to filter in from the same biblical texts? The answer, in short, is hermeneutics is what divides. How one reads scripture is the most important question after determining what scripture is. One of the hermeneutical dividing lines comes from the specific texts that one group holds as normative over against what another group holds as normative. These normative sections of scripture are “control texts,” texts that decide how the Bible is read and interpreted.
This paper will deal with three important issues. The first, which will be traced throughout the course of the paper, is the concept of control texts. Since this will be constructive and descriptive, a working definition is called for, but it must also be a definition which can be nuanced after the investigation. Therefore, control texts will be defined for the moment as biblical passages that govern how other biblical passages are read and understood. Questions arising from this definition involve what type of texts should govern according to genre sensitivity and grammatical constructs, along with the issue of having a canon within the canon, but these issues will be dealt with later in this paper. The second matter is that this concept will be traced through the work of Clark Pinnock, John Sanders, and Gregory Boyd. The reason for this is because they hold common presuppositions and they are the leaders of the movement known as Open Theism, giving them common exegetical and theological aims. Each scholar will be looked at in terms of their stance on scripture and methodology (prescriptive), their actual practice (descriptive), and then a full critique including both positives and negatives of each author (analysis). The final issue is what Evangelical scholars can take from this investigation, both how to change in light of what the Open Theists do correctly and how to guard against their errors. A tentative definition of control texts will then be proposed derived from this discussion.
Clark Pinnock
Scripture and Method
One of the most colorful and creative theologians from the Evangelical tradition is Clark Pinnock. He has traveled from a staunch Calvinist stance to a classical Arminian position and beyond. He has always held to the same position on the authority of scripture, specifically he believes in inerrancy. He does, however, look to recover the usefulness of narratives, thereby widening (in his opinion) the understanding of inerrancy. This move stems from his firm belief in the value and authority of the Old Testament as it was used and understood by the apostles.
Important in Pinnock’s conception of scripture is his understanding of inspiration. He makes a clear distinction between the “mechanical analogies” of inspiration and a concept that allows for the full humanity of the Bible. Inspiration is what accounts for the divine aspect of the Bible without erasing the humanity of it. Pinnock especially thinks this divine activity should be seen as focused on the “preparation and production” of scripture. Derived from this understanding of how enscripturation works, Pinnock clearly draws a line between what is inspired and what is not, namely that texts can be inspired, but interpretation is not. This allows for the diversity of thought that happens within any part of the church, be it high church or low. It is through this process of conversation that he sees the importance of inspiration surfacing. As long as we realize how differences stem from what we understand scripture to be saying rather than the authority scripture itself has, there should always be a place for dialogue.
Methodologically speaking, Pinnock truly is a systematic theologian. He wants what he says to convey the gospel clearly, and he wants to interact with the current schools of thinking. Pinnock is very much a foundationalist and operates that way with no apology. He states that his four criteria for theology are scripture, tradition, reason (philosophy), and experience. He has no problem letting them freely mingle and work separately within his work.
Practice
Now that his methodology has been discussed, the next issue is to see how Clark Pinnock uses scripture. The overriding theme in any of Pinnock’s systematic work is that God is love. He outright states that this is his primary assumption in all the recent theological endeavors he has undertaken. The verse on which he bases this theological cornerstone is I John 4:8, which reads, “Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.” A quick perusal of his work shows that this verse often appears in his books. Pinnock even states that his idea of libertarian free will (LFW) stems from his conviction about God’s love, going so far as to say, “In a sense God needs our love because he has freely chosen to be a lover and needs us because he has chosen to have reciprocal love…” He even goes on to say that creation is itself an expression of love, of God wanting free creatures with which to interact. In order to give a philosophical backdrop to this starting point, Pinnock appeals to Kierkegaard’s notion of God’s passion being “to love and be loved.” Creation is not just about power, though it does show God’s power. It is truly about God wanting relationship because God is in fact love. This impacts the doctrine of God incredibly by taking away the near Deistic tendency of some to make the Triune God intimately connected with all of creation. This aspect of God wanting relationships then impacts how God is viewed temporally and it forces a reassessment of many divine attributes. Having “God is love” be a controlling text drastically impacts how one views God.
The next important issue is how Clark Pinnock deals with narrative texts. Explicitly stating how he wants to take the entire Bible as inerrant, Pinnock tends to give a much larger role than most theologians to scripture stories. His definition of inerrancy expands the bounds within which most Evangelicals try to stay. In order to take principles from the text about the driving issue of God’s interaction with the world, Pinnock naturally looks at narrative passages that describe scenes of man and God dealing with each other. Such passages as Genesis 22 and Exodus 32 become more prominent in building a theology proper. Jonah becomes a message only of God’s mercy and love. Job goes from being a quixotic book which commentators ignore to an integral part of salvation-history, showing God’s loving interaction with mankind. People are able to reject God’s will for their lives. It is narrative passages that actually show how God mingles with humanity in a loving give-and-take relationship. Since God is described this way, then biblically one cannot say God is not this way. If one denies the open relational view, one must then have solid reasoning for then a majority of the narrative passages of the Old Testament make very little sense.
That last point, the importance of the Old Testament narratives, leads us directly into the conflict between most Calvinist theologians and Open Theists such as Clark Pinnock. What about the language of accommodation? Normally called anthropomorphism, a major hermeneutical difference of Pinnock is that, while holding to the impossibility of ever fully comprehending the infinite God with a finite mind, he believes the language of the Bible is not a type of condescension enabling men to get a fleeting grasp of who God is. As Pinnock says,
“The dynamic metaphors have been viewed as accommodation to the human mind and not taken with full seriousness. They were given for the benefit, as Philo said, of those whose natural wit is dense and dull. Texts are taken for their psychological effect but not for their theological significance. Offense has been taken from the fact that they involve language drawn from the human sphere, but what other language is there? (How ironical that we who celebrate the incarnation of the Word should still balk at concrete images and that those who believe humankind is created in the image of God should balk at anthropomorphisms!)”
This type of language mankind uses is the only type of language mankind has, given by God. Theology (or the biblical text) is naturally going to be in human ways, since that is in fact the only way people are able to talk about anything including God. Therefore, this concept of anthropomorphism is at best a misunderstanding, at worst a construct used to ignore passages that do not fit into one’s theological paradigm.
Critique
Clark Pinnock offers many challenges to the general way that Evangelical’s do theology. While many complain about his results, his methodology is both a strength and a weakness. His first major weakness is his use of “God is love” as his overarching paradigm. By using such a passage, it would only make sense if all “God is…” statements were also considered normative. However, that is not the case. In one of the more daring parts of his book, Pinnock declares that God enjoys having a body. In fact, he even posits that, since man is made in God’s image, God does indeed have some sort of physicality (other than the incarnation). However, if a control text is one in the form of “God is…,” it is difficult to ascertain why John 4:24, “God is spirit,” is ignored. How is he able to choose between passages that seem to explicitly state what or who God is? This is a major point of contention, showing an inconsistency in the practice of his method.
The next major issue is Pinnock’s handling of didactic or doctrinal sections. Such books as Romans and Colossians are often outweighed or overruled by narrative texts. Due to the way that God is pictured in narrative sections, the exegesis and understanding of doctrinal sections are adjusted to fit the narrative. Sections that talk about God making plans in time (Jeremiah 18:11; 29:11) control texts that talk of God making plans before the foundation of the world.(Ephesians 1:4). There really is no reason given as to why narratives should be placed before any other genre.
Clark Pinnock does offer positives for the Evangelical theologian. The first positive is his full backing of and compliance with the doctrine of inerrancy. He might not have conclusions which all would agree with, but one cannot fault him on his stance. Second is Pinnock’s “recovery” of narrative. Most theologians construct their theology based entirely on didactic or doctrinal passages, with the noted exception of the life of Christ. This is quite a glaring inconsistency. Through the sensitivity of Pinnock and those like him, the narrative sections, especially in the Old Testament, have been recovered and are once again valid areas from which to draw theology. While one may disagree on the extent of the conclusions able to be drawn from narrative passages, it is a wonderful thing to bring those sections back under the umbrella of inerrancy.
John Sanders
Scripture and Method
John Sanders is a theologian known for his comprehensiveness and cogency. While many do not necessarily agree with all he says, he is a solid contributor to Evangelical theology. Sanders is also a member of ETS, signing the statement on inerrancy annually. He holds to a threefold method in constructing theology. First, the concept must have consonance, meaning that it must be biblically sound and fit within the framework of Jesus’ own life. Second, the model must have conceptual intelligibility, meaning that what is said must have internal consistence. Third, the construct must adequately meet the demands of life, meaning the practical implications must be consistent with Christian experience. Essentially, these three criteria form a solid backbone to any theological work done by Sanders. He looks to be biblically sound, philosophically consistent, and practically intelligible.
Practice
John Sanders, much like Clark Pinnock, relies on the paradigm of “God is love.” He takes this as his overarching theme and as the strongest biblical theme on the doctrine of God. No matter what the discussion at hand, Sanders always stresses God’s love and His desire for relationship. In fact, Sanders critiques others for not putting love at the center, saying,
“Western theology has had a difficult time placing ‘God is love’ (I Jn 4:8) at center stage when discussing the divine attributes. Instead, it emphasizes the more abstract and impersonal attributes of omnipotence and omniscience. In my opinion this results from the failure to place the discussion of the divine nature under the category of a personal God carrying out a project…Discussions of God’s nature that begin with the notion of ‘absolute’ make it extremely difficult to speak of God’s love as anything other than mere beneficence, in which case God cares for us but not about us.”
This talk of absolutes limiting the discussion immediately rules out anything else being able to be on equal footing with love among the divine attributes. Sanders goes on to argue that the entire conception of God as love rules out, by the definition of love, any sort of compatibilist doctrine and leaves only the possibility of LFW. The entire model of God which Sanders backs is based on the control text of I John 4:8.
The next issue in Sanders’ handling of scripture is his use of narrative material as being normative. Interestingly enough, Sanders has much more play between narrative texts and didactic texts than Pinnock does. While Sanders does draw much of his concept of a relational God from the narrative texts, he does not limit his discussion to those texts nor does he fail to draw implications from didactic sections. Though freely allowing the interplay between these genres, he does start with narrative (since it describes the actions of God) rather than didactic in order to form his understanding of scripture. Once again, narrative passages are controlling the ways in which didactic or doctrinal passages are understood.
Sanders also delves into the issue of anthropomorphism. He begins with the explanation that any talk about God is going to be “tinged” with anthropomorphism since all language is
human. Sanders deals with the biblical argument for anthropomorphism, specifically looking at Numbers 23:19, I Samuel 15:29, and Hosea 11:9. While affirming the hiddenness and incomprehensibility of God for finite minds, Sanders nevertheless defends using anthropomorphic passages by observing that these verses are indeed part of the Bible and that Jesus was the ultimate anthropomorphism, God incarnate. Therefore, instead of this type of text being God where God condescends to our level in order that mankind can understand Him, all of scripture is seen to be at the same level of condescension. Sanders goes so far as to turn the issue on its head, rightly noting that man is made in God’s image. If this is true, then man is a theomorphism, and God therefore cannot be spoken of in anthropomorphic terms since man is made in His image in the first place. His conclusion, then, is that anthropomorphism is an improper term, but that all parts of scripture are equally valid for forming theology.
Critique
Sanders makes a strong case for understanding God as love, which fits in snugly with his relational framework. However, his stress on the love of God undermines other characteristics of God, namely holiness. Taking under the umbrella of holiness such items as God’s goodness, moral purity, and otherness, it is easy to see why such issues do not intrude upon what Sanders is trying to accomplish. Even when dealing with eschatology, Sanders avoids the issue of judgment. By working on the concept of God as love, issues such as wrath and judgment can be pushed aside in order to make a stronger case. The problem with this is it turns God into a sort of Santa Claus figure, always looking for our happiness and not necessarily our moral good. Admittedly, this objection can be deflected by a more full understanding of love, but that is not the kind of picture painted by Sanders. The God constructed by him seemingly eliminates the room for chastisement and discipline. While God is love, God is also “Holy, holy, holy” (Revelation 4:8), something that should fit within Sanders control texts, but does not seem to be there.
Another major problem in Sanders’ work is his reliance on the life of Jesus. While at first glance it seems as if one should consider that a strength, the problem is that it eliminates a large portion of the New Testament. In dealing with the doctrine of God in the New Testament, Sanders intentionally limits himself to the life of Jesus, along with some scattered teachings of Christ. He says,
“In this chapter I do not attempt to cover all of the New Testament in demonstrating that God enters into genuine give-and-take relations with humans – relationships in which God takes risks. Rather, I focus on the person and work of Jesus, for it is in Jesus that God does something radically different in terms of the divine – human relationship.”
The only time he strays from this set course is to overcome objections, using the life of Christ as a foil for such passages as Romans 9-11. While Christology is a centerpoint of theology, it should not be determinative in how the entire Bible is read. While stating and actual having sections of interplay between genres, Sanders’ tendency is to take narrative passages and use them to overcome or reinterpret didactic passages. This also occurs in his handling of anthropomorphism in that he tries to explain away the concept by talking about human language as metaphoric and dealing by analogy with the entire concept of God. However, there is a world of difference between divine accommodation and true anthropomorphism. Since God is beyond comprehension (something Sanders admits to as stated above), then by necessity some attributes or actions of God will be indescribable in human language, so metaphor must be used. While Sanders does address this, he still misses the thrust of the issue. He tries to argue this away by saying that metaphoric language either is literally the thing signified or only loosely connected, and then positing a middle path which he chooses for himself. That neglects that such things as omnipotence are well beyond what any metaphor can deal with in a realistic fashion. Though taking the biblical text seriously, Sanders does miss nuancing by trying to chart an intermediate course based on narrative sections of scripture.
John Sanders does offer some positive counterpoints to his weaknesses. While showing a strong reliance on narrative passages, he does bring the person of Christ to the forefront of the discussion of theology proper. It is an often overlooked aspect of theology that Christ in His incarnation is still part of the Trinity and should be treated as such. This means, hermeneutically, that Sanders is consistent in keeping his Trinitarian convictions throughout his reading of scripture, that when one person of the Trinity is acting, it is God acting. Included in this reading of scripture is his recovery of narrative passages from theological obscurity and
pushing them to the forefront of systematics. In addition, Sanders offers his method up front, showing a conviction in that construct that the effects on Christian living are also an important factor in reading scripture. Theology is not just an intellectual exercise. While not being able to bring together all biblical material, John Sanders offers a balanced view of scripture, even if one questions some of his conclusions.
Gregory Boyd
Scripture and Method
Gregory Boyd is known for his controversial views and his sensitive style of writing. One can truly sense his pastoral spirit when reading through many of his works. Boyd, being a former member of ETS, has stated most strongly his belief in inerrancy. Boyd was driven to embrace his theological stance by biblical convictions, concepts forced onto him by his reading of scripture. He makes it very clear that he sticks closely to the biblical text in order to derive theology, not clinging to his preconceived notions. He explicitly states that he is trying to balance all the different passages of scripture in order to reach a place where each passage is able to speak for itself, not being overwhelmed by other passages. Thus his method is biblical investigation and reading each text in isolation before allowing the play of intertextuality to take place. This does not mean, however, that he rules out extra-biblical works from having some sort of influence on how scripture is read.
Practice
As with both of the other theologians examined, Gregory Boyd makes use of I John 4:8. Boyd says that God’s triune nature is love. Boyd posits that God created out of love, and even that God condemns out of love. Since love can only come from a free will relationship, then God allows people to choose which way to go. Some freely choose to be with Him forever, and some freely choose hell. It is due to God’s love that creatures, therefore, are able to go to hell. If He did not let them go to hell, Boyd argues, then He would either have to destroy something He made to be eternal or override LFW, both of which would be wrong. Boyd sums it up by saying,
“Thus, while the content of what rebels will must be detested, judged, and exposed as being the nothingness that it is – for this content is incompatible both with God’s love and with his right as Creator to define reality – the fact that free beings choose this unreality is not incompatible with God’s love. So also we may now understand how it is out of God’s love for these rebel creatures that he eternally grants them the dignity of choosing this.”
It is God’s love that allows the freedom which sinners take advantage of, according to Boyd. The goal of all creation is love and having a loving relationship with God.
Gregory Boyd also uses narrative to help for his theological model. While this is consistent with the other two theologians discussed above, Boyd goes a step further and includes pagan myths in his understanding of how the world relates to God. He even states that biblical authors understood evil as essentially a spiritual war. This tends to give more weight to narrative passages (like Daniel 10) rather than doctrinal passages (like Romans 1-3). A quick
scan through Boyd’s book brings home the idea that his theology is based more on narrative passages than on didactic or doctrinal. Boyd’s model of praying in times of trouble is based almost entirely on the story of Job. Of the 19 passages in the appendix of God of the Possible defending in more detail the Openness model, all 19 are narrative. Gregory Boyd uses narrative sections of scripture nearly to the exclusion of didactic passages when constructing his theology.
Boyd’s take on anthropomorphism is much less rigorous and nuanced than either the constructs of Clark Pinnock or John Sanders. What it boils down to for Boyd, is that he takes all of scripture at face value and so anthropomorphism essentially does not exist. His definition is,
“A depiction of God in human terms. The Bible is full of anthropomorphic depictions of God, but, I argue, language about God changing his mind, speaking of the future in a subjunctive mode, or being surprised or disappointed are not among them. These expressions are just as literal as expressions of God being loving, faithful, or holy. The point is important to the trinitarian warfare theodicy in that it is founded on a dynamic understanding of God who interacts with his creation on a moment-by-moment basis.”
Boyd also gives four arguments against understanding texts about God changing as being anthropomorphic, only one of which should be mentioned. His argument is that those who take these passages as anthropomorphic create a canon-within-the-canon. If these passages are God accommodating Himself to our understanding, how is it that people are able to “properly” understand them? This line of argumentation, Boyd suggests, is self-refuting since if God designed the passages in order for readers to understand them in one way, how can people claim to understand them in another? Anthropomorphism is therefore not a viable category for understanding how the Bible functions in relating God to humankind.
Critique
Gregory Boyd has a lot to say which is derived from the Open View of God. While he does have some strong points, he also has some glaring weaknesses. His first weakness is that, due to his staunch stance on the love of God being the controlling factor for all other parts of theology proper, it is difficult to see how judgment fits into his texts. While he does say that God will judge those who work against Him, Boyd offers no convincing reason as to why God would not, out of His love, forgive the unsaved instead of condemning them. If God is love over and above anything else, then God is not as wrathful as loving, not as judgmental as loving, and not as holy as loving. Therefore, the other attributes of God can be overridden since God is more love than anything else.
The next major problem with Boyd is his inconsistency. As stated above, he believes in inerrancy, yet he also thinks that the only way to understand the ethos of the Bible is to understand how nonbiblical cultures operate. This is, at the very least, a difficulty. He is also inconsistent in terms of how he views certain texts. On the one hand, he says,
“It is true that according to the open view things can happen in our lives that God didn’t plan or foreknow with certainty (though he always foreknew they were possible). This means that in the open view things can happen to us that have no overarching divine purpose. In this view, ‘trusting in God’ provides no assurance that everything that happens to us will reflect his divine purposes, for there are other agents who also have the power to affect us, just as we have the power to affect others. This, it must be admitted, can for some be a scary thought.”
Only two pages later he says, “[Openness] affirms that whatever happens, God will work with us to bring a redemptive purpose out of the event (Rom. 8:28).” These are two very contradictory statements in that one affirms God will work out all things for the good of believers and the other denies the same thing. While the second statement can be nuanced to say that God only works with people to try to achieve good, but that defeats what Romans 8:28 says anyway. It is also difficult to understand what parts of scripture are anthropomorphic for Boyd, or if any are at all. He gives a definition for anthropomorphism in one book, and then denies that there is such a thing in another. Boyd is inconsistent in what he says both from one book to another and within a single book.
While there are weaknesses in what Gregory Boyd does, there are also some strengths. Boyd is more than willing to admit that there are sections of scripture that are problems for his side of the debate. He also takes narrative portions of scripture very seriously and tries to determine from the actual text he is studying whether or not a pericope should be considered anthropomorphic instead of necessarily using an outside text to come to that conclusion. The most important issue that Boyd embodies is his willingness to let scripture be the driving force of his theological model. Though disagreeing with where he ends, it is hard to fault where he begins.
The Evangelical Theologian and Control Texts
Positives
Overall, there are many good things to take from what these three prominent theologians are doing. The first important thing that an Evangelical theologian can learn from them is to take narrative portions of scripture seriously. Clark Pinnock, John Sanders, and Gregory Boyd all take into account narrative passages when constructing their theology. Too often Evangelicals run to didactic passages or doctrinal passages in order to formulate a theological stance without taking time to consider how this would affect their understanding of certain narrative sections, or even using these passages to overturn the obvious meaning of a narrative section.
Second, each of these three authors shows a strong belief in inerrancy. Though many do not agree with their interpretation of scripture, it is difficult to see how one can fault their high regard for scripture. Even the opponents of Open Theism acknowledge their use of scripture. This is a fundamental premise of being an Evangelical and should not be overlooked in discussions on the issue of Open Theism.
Third, all of these writers show a willingness to converse on the topic and a willingness to change. In the exchange in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, each of these authors talked about the need for further discussion on the topic. Though most theologians choose a position and stay there, Pinnock, Sanders, and Boyd all show some hint that they would change their stance if it could be shown unbiblical.
Negatives
While there are many good things to take from Clark Pinnock, John Sanders, and Gregory Boyd, there are also a few things in their example that should be avoided. The first problem is the inconsistency with the “God is...” passages. All three agree that God is love, but then neglect such issues as God is holy, or spirit, or just. If one is going to specify a control passage with a specific formula quite evident, then it is problematic to ignore texts of the exact same formula with only a single word change. Therefore, in order to be consistent, passages with the same grammatical formula should be given equal theological and hermeneutical weight.
The second issue is the use of didactic and doctrinal passages by the authors. While each of them claims to try to balance their view of scripture and to reclaim narrative such that it is on an equal playing field, all three overbalance and use narrative texts to control other genres. This can be clearly seen in the above discussions on each author. Coupled with this issue of genre priority is the general paucity of didactic texts which in fact backed the proposals of each writer. While they each go into detail refuting their oppositions’ interpretation of specific texts, they also rarely use those types of texts in a constructive way.
Finally, the authors have a tendency to promote a very mixed view of what anthropomorphism is. While this is a difficult concept to deal with, it is also something that cannot be defined away. That God is too large a concept to be contained by human language is not up for debate, but the degree with which He can be described is. That is where the three theologians are internally inconsistent, discarding definitions from one page to the next. They start off denying that anthropomorphism exists, then they admit that language calls for such a thing when talking about God, but they deny that the passages which they wish to use are anthropomorphic without giving an example of what then would be anthropomorphic in their opinions. It leaves one to wonder if they can indeed give a definition that actually works.
This paper will deal with three important issues. The first, which will be traced throughout the course of the paper, is the concept of control texts. Since this will be constructive and descriptive, a working definition is called for, but it must also be a definition which can be nuanced after the investigation. Therefore, control texts will be defined for the moment as biblical passages that govern how other biblical passages are read and understood. Questions arising from this definition involve what type of texts should govern according to genre sensitivity and grammatical constructs, along with the issue of having a canon within the canon, but these issues will be dealt with later in this paper. The second matter is that this concept will be traced through the work of Clark Pinnock, John Sanders, and Gregory Boyd. The reason for this is because they hold common presuppositions and they are the leaders of the movement known as Open Theism, giving them common exegetical and theological aims. Each scholar will be looked at in terms of their stance on scripture and methodology (prescriptive), their actual practice (descriptive), and then a full critique including both positives and negatives of each author (analysis). The final issue is what Evangelical scholars can take from this investigation, both how to change in light of what the Open Theists do correctly and how to guard against their errors. A tentative definition of control texts will then be proposed derived from this discussion.
Clark Pinnock
Scripture and Method
One of the most colorful and creative theologians from the Evangelical tradition is Clark Pinnock. He has traveled from a staunch Calvinist stance to a classical Arminian position and beyond. He has always held to the same position on the authority of scripture, specifically he believes in inerrancy. He does, however, look to recover the usefulness of narratives, thereby widening (in his opinion) the understanding of inerrancy. This move stems from his firm belief in the value and authority of the Old Testament as it was used and understood by the apostles.
Important in Pinnock’s conception of scripture is his understanding of inspiration. He makes a clear distinction between the “mechanical analogies” of inspiration and a concept that allows for the full humanity of the Bible. Inspiration is what accounts for the divine aspect of the Bible without erasing the humanity of it. Pinnock especially thinks this divine activity should be seen as focused on the “preparation and production” of scripture. Derived from this understanding of how enscripturation works, Pinnock clearly draws a line between what is inspired and what is not, namely that texts can be inspired, but interpretation is not. This allows for the diversity of thought that happens within any part of the church, be it high church or low. It is through this process of conversation that he sees the importance of inspiration surfacing. As long as we realize how differences stem from what we understand scripture to be saying rather than the authority scripture itself has, there should always be a place for dialogue.
Methodologically speaking, Pinnock truly is a systematic theologian. He wants what he says to convey the gospel clearly, and he wants to interact with the current schools of thinking. Pinnock is very much a foundationalist and operates that way with no apology. He states that his four criteria for theology are scripture, tradition, reason (philosophy), and experience. He has no problem letting them freely mingle and work separately within his work.
Practice
Now that his methodology has been discussed, the next issue is to see how Clark Pinnock uses scripture. The overriding theme in any of Pinnock’s systematic work is that God is love. He outright states that this is his primary assumption in all the recent theological endeavors he has undertaken. The verse on which he bases this theological cornerstone is I John 4:8, which reads, “Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.” A quick perusal of his work shows that this verse often appears in his books. Pinnock even states that his idea of libertarian free will (LFW) stems from his conviction about God’s love, going so far as to say, “In a sense God needs our love because he has freely chosen to be a lover and needs us because he has chosen to have reciprocal love…” He even goes on to say that creation is itself an expression of love, of God wanting free creatures with which to interact. In order to give a philosophical backdrop to this starting point, Pinnock appeals to Kierkegaard’s notion of God’s passion being “to love and be loved.” Creation is not just about power, though it does show God’s power. It is truly about God wanting relationship because God is in fact love. This impacts the doctrine of God incredibly by taking away the near Deistic tendency of some to make the Triune God intimately connected with all of creation. This aspect of God wanting relationships then impacts how God is viewed temporally and it forces a reassessment of many divine attributes. Having “God is love” be a controlling text drastically impacts how one views God.
The next important issue is how Clark Pinnock deals with narrative texts. Explicitly stating how he wants to take the entire Bible as inerrant, Pinnock tends to give a much larger role than most theologians to scripture stories. His definition of inerrancy expands the bounds within which most Evangelicals try to stay. In order to take principles from the text about the driving issue of God’s interaction with the world, Pinnock naturally looks at narrative passages that describe scenes of man and God dealing with each other. Such passages as Genesis 22 and Exodus 32 become more prominent in building a theology proper. Jonah becomes a message only of God’s mercy and love. Job goes from being a quixotic book which commentators ignore to an integral part of salvation-history, showing God’s loving interaction with mankind. People are able to reject God’s will for their lives. It is narrative passages that actually show how God mingles with humanity in a loving give-and-take relationship. Since God is described this way, then biblically one cannot say God is not this way. If one denies the open relational view, one must then have solid reasoning for then a majority of the narrative passages of the Old Testament make very little sense.
That last point, the importance of the Old Testament narratives, leads us directly into the conflict between most Calvinist theologians and Open Theists such as Clark Pinnock. What about the language of accommodation? Normally called anthropomorphism, a major hermeneutical difference of Pinnock is that, while holding to the impossibility of ever fully comprehending the infinite God with a finite mind, he believes the language of the Bible is not a type of condescension enabling men to get a fleeting grasp of who God is. As Pinnock says,
“The dynamic metaphors have been viewed as accommodation to the human mind and not taken with full seriousness. They were given for the benefit, as Philo said, of those whose natural wit is dense and dull. Texts are taken for their psychological effect but not for their theological significance. Offense has been taken from the fact that they involve language drawn from the human sphere, but what other language is there? (How ironical that we who celebrate the incarnation of the Word should still balk at concrete images and that those who believe humankind is created in the image of God should balk at anthropomorphisms!)”
This type of language mankind uses is the only type of language mankind has, given by God. Theology (or the biblical text) is naturally going to be in human ways, since that is in fact the only way people are able to talk about anything including God. Therefore, this concept of anthropomorphism is at best a misunderstanding, at worst a construct used to ignore passages that do not fit into one’s theological paradigm.
Critique
Clark Pinnock offers many challenges to the general way that Evangelical’s do theology. While many complain about his results, his methodology is both a strength and a weakness. His first major weakness is his use of “God is love” as his overarching paradigm. By using such a passage, it would only make sense if all “God is…” statements were also considered normative. However, that is not the case. In one of the more daring parts of his book, Pinnock declares that God enjoys having a body. In fact, he even posits that, since man is made in God’s image, God does indeed have some sort of physicality (other than the incarnation). However, if a control text is one in the form of “God is…,” it is difficult to ascertain why John 4:24, “God is spirit,” is ignored. How is he able to choose between passages that seem to explicitly state what or who God is? This is a major point of contention, showing an inconsistency in the practice of his method.
The next major issue is Pinnock’s handling of didactic or doctrinal sections. Such books as Romans and Colossians are often outweighed or overruled by narrative texts. Due to the way that God is pictured in narrative sections, the exegesis and understanding of doctrinal sections are adjusted to fit the narrative. Sections that talk about God making plans in time (Jeremiah 18:11; 29:11) control texts that talk of God making plans before the foundation of the world.(Ephesians 1:4). There really is no reason given as to why narratives should be placed before any other genre.
Clark Pinnock does offer positives for the Evangelical theologian. The first positive is his full backing of and compliance with the doctrine of inerrancy. He might not have conclusions which all would agree with, but one cannot fault him on his stance. Second is Pinnock’s “recovery” of narrative. Most theologians construct their theology based entirely on didactic or doctrinal passages, with the noted exception of the life of Christ. This is quite a glaring inconsistency. Through the sensitivity of Pinnock and those like him, the narrative sections, especially in the Old Testament, have been recovered and are once again valid areas from which to draw theology. While one may disagree on the extent of the conclusions able to be drawn from narrative passages, it is a wonderful thing to bring those sections back under the umbrella of inerrancy.
John Sanders
Scripture and Method
John Sanders is a theologian known for his comprehensiveness and cogency. While many do not necessarily agree with all he says, he is a solid contributor to Evangelical theology. Sanders is also a member of ETS, signing the statement on inerrancy annually. He holds to a threefold method in constructing theology. First, the concept must have consonance, meaning that it must be biblically sound and fit within the framework of Jesus’ own life. Second, the model must have conceptual intelligibility, meaning that what is said must have internal consistence. Third, the construct must adequately meet the demands of life, meaning the practical implications must be consistent with Christian experience. Essentially, these three criteria form a solid backbone to any theological work done by Sanders. He looks to be biblically sound, philosophically consistent, and practically intelligible.
Practice
John Sanders, much like Clark Pinnock, relies on the paradigm of “God is love.” He takes this as his overarching theme and as the strongest biblical theme on the doctrine of God. No matter what the discussion at hand, Sanders always stresses God’s love and His desire for relationship. In fact, Sanders critiques others for not putting love at the center, saying,
“Western theology has had a difficult time placing ‘God is love’ (I Jn 4:8) at center stage when discussing the divine attributes. Instead, it emphasizes the more abstract and impersonal attributes of omnipotence and omniscience. In my opinion this results from the failure to place the discussion of the divine nature under the category of a personal God carrying out a project…Discussions of God’s nature that begin with the notion of ‘absolute’ make it extremely difficult to speak of God’s love as anything other than mere beneficence, in which case God cares for us but not about us.”
This talk of absolutes limiting the discussion immediately rules out anything else being able to be on equal footing with love among the divine attributes. Sanders goes on to argue that the entire conception of God as love rules out, by the definition of love, any sort of compatibilist doctrine and leaves only the possibility of LFW. The entire model of God which Sanders backs is based on the control text of I John 4:8.
The next issue in Sanders’ handling of scripture is his use of narrative material as being normative. Interestingly enough, Sanders has much more play between narrative texts and didactic texts than Pinnock does. While Sanders does draw much of his concept of a relational God from the narrative texts, he does not limit his discussion to those texts nor does he fail to draw implications from didactic sections. Though freely allowing the interplay between these genres, he does start with narrative (since it describes the actions of God) rather than didactic in order to form his understanding of scripture. Once again, narrative passages are controlling the ways in which didactic or doctrinal passages are understood.
Sanders also delves into the issue of anthropomorphism. He begins with the explanation that any talk about God is going to be “tinged” with anthropomorphism since all language is
human. Sanders deals with the biblical argument for anthropomorphism, specifically looking at Numbers 23:19, I Samuel 15:29, and Hosea 11:9. While affirming the hiddenness and incomprehensibility of God for finite minds, Sanders nevertheless defends using anthropomorphic passages by observing that these verses are indeed part of the Bible and that Jesus was the ultimate anthropomorphism, God incarnate. Therefore, instead of this type of text being God where God condescends to our level in order that mankind can understand Him, all of scripture is seen to be at the same level of condescension. Sanders goes so far as to turn the issue on its head, rightly noting that man is made in God’s image. If this is true, then man is a theomorphism, and God therefore cannot be spoken of in anthropomorphic terms since man is made in His image in the first place. His conclusion, then, is that anthropomorphism is an improper term, but that all parts of scripture are equally valid for forming theology.
Critique
Sanders makes a strong case for understanding God as love, which fits in snugly with his relational framework. However, his stress on the love of God undermines other characteristics of God, namely holiness. Taking under the umbrella of holiness such items as God’s goodness, moral purity, and otherness, it is easy to see why such issues do not intrude upon what Sanders is trying to accomplish. Even when dealing with eschatology, Sanders avoids the issue of judgment. By working on the concept of God as love, issues such as wrath and judgment can be pushed aside in order to make a stronger case. The problem with this is it turns God into a sort of Santa Claus figure, always looking for our happiness and not necessarily our moral good. Admittedly, this objection can be deflected by a more full understanding of love, but that is not the kind of picture painted by Sanders. The God constructed by him seemingly eliminates the room for chastisement and discipline. While God is love, God is also “Holy, holy, holy” (Revelation 4:8), something that should fit within Sanders control texts, but does not seem to be there.
Another major problem in Sanders’ work is his reliance on the life of Jesus. While at first glance it seems as if one should consider that a strength, the problem is that it eliminates a large portion of the New Testament. In dealing with the doctrine of God in the New Testament, Sanders intentionally limits himself to the life of Jesus, along with some scattered teachings of Christ. He says,
“In this chapter I do not attempt to cover all of the New Testament in demonstrating that God enters into genuine give-and-take relations with humans – relationships in which God takes risks. Rather, I focus on the person and work of Jesus, for it is in Jesus that God does something radically different in terms of the divine – human relationship.”
The only time he strays from this set course is to overcome objections, using the life of Christ as a foil for such passages as Romans 9-11. While Christology is a centerpoint of theology, it should not be determinative in how the entire Bible is read. While stating and actual having sections of interplay between genres, Sanders’ tendency is to take narrative passages and use them to overcome or reinterpret didactic passages. This also occurs in his handling of anthropomorphism in that he tries to explain away the concept by talking about human language as metaphoric and dealing by analogy with the entire concept of God. However, there is a world of difference between divine accommodation and true anthropomorphism. Since God is beyond comprehension (something Sanders admits to as stated above), then by necessity some attributes or actions of God will be indescribable in human language, so metaphor must be used. While Sanders does address this, he still misses the thrust of the issue. He tries to argue this away by saying that metaphoric language either is literally the thing signified or only loosely connected, and then positing a middle path which he chooses for himself. That neglects that such things as omnipotence are well beyond what any metaphor can deal with in a realistic fashion. Though taking the biblical text seriously, Sanders does miss nuancing by trying to chart an intermediate course based on narrative sections of scripture.
John Sanders does offer some positive counterpoints to his weaknesses. While showing a strong reliance on narrative passages, he does bring the person of Christ to the forefront of the discussion of theology proper. It is an often overlooked aspect of theology that Christ in His incarnation is still part of the Trinity and should be treated as such. This means, hermeneutically, that Sanders is consistent in keeping his Trinitarian convictions throughout his reading of scripture, that when one person of the Trinity is acting, it is God acting. Included in this reading of scripture is his recovery of narrative passages from theological obscurity and
pushing them to the forefront of systematics. In addition, Sanders offers his method up front, showing a conviction in that construct that the effects on Christian living are also an important factor in reading scripture. Theology is not just an intellectual exercise. While not being able to bring together all biblical material, John Sanders offers a balanced view of scripture, even if one questions some of his conclusions.
Gregory Boyd
Scripture and Method
Gregory Boyd is known for his controversial views and his sensitive style of writing. One can truly sense his pastoral spirit when reading through many of his works. Boyd, being a former member of ETS, has stated most strongly his belief in inerrancy. Boyd was driven to embrace his theological stance by biblical convictions, concepts forced onto him by his reading of scripture. He makes it very clear that he sticks closely to the biblical text in order to derive theology, not clinging to his preconceived notions. He explicitly states that he is trying to balance all the different passages of scripture in order to reach a place where each passage is able to speak for itself, not being overwhelmed by other passages. Thus his method is biblical investigation and reading each text in isolation before allowing the play of intertextuality to take place. This does not mean, however, that he rules out extra-biblical works from having some sort of influence on how scripture is read.
Practice
As with both of the other theologians examined, Gregory Boyd makes use of I John 4:8. Boyd says that God’s triune nature is love. Boyd posits that God created out of love, and even that God condemns out of love. Since love can only come from a free will relationship, then God allows people to choose which way to go. Some freely choose to be with Him forever, and some freely choose hell. It is due to God’s love that creatures, therefore, are able to go to hell. If He did not let them go to hell, Boyd argues, then He would either have to destroy something He made to be eternal or override LFW, both of which would be wrong. Boyd sums it up by saying,
“Thus, while the content of what rebels will must be detested, judged, and exposed as being the nothingness that it is – for this content is incompatible both with God’s love and with his right as Creator to define reality – the fact that free beings choose this unreality is not incompatible with God’s love. So also we may now understand how it is out of God’s love for these rebel creatures that he eternally grants them the dignity of choosing this.”
It is God’s love that allows the freedom which sinners take advantage of, according to Boyd. The goal of all creation is love and having a loving relationship with God.
Gregory Boyd also uses narrative to help for his theological model. While this is consistent with the other two theologians discussed above, Boyd goes a step further and includes pagan myths in his understanding of how the world relates to God. He even states that biblical authors understood evil as essentially a spiritual war. This tends to give more weight to narrative passages (like Daniel 10) rather than doctrinal passages (like Romans 1-3). A quick
scan through Boyd’s book brings home the idea that his theology is based more on narrative passages than on didactic or doctrinal. Boyd’s model of praying in times of trouble is based almost entirely on the story of Job. Of the 19 passages in the appendix of God of the Possible defending in more detail the Openness model, all 19 are narrative. Gregory Boyd uses narrative sections of scripture nearly to the exclusion of didactic passages when constructing his theology.
Boyd’s take on anthropomorphism is much less rigorous and nuanced than either the constructs of Clark Pinnock or John Sanders. What it boils down to for Boyd, is that he takes all of scripture at face value and so anthropomorphism essentially does not exist. His definition is,
“A depiction of God in human terms. The Bible is full of anthropomorphic depictions of God, but, I argue, language about God changing his mind, speaking of the future in a subjunctive mode, or being surprised or disappointed are not among them. These expressions are just as literal as expressions of God being loving, faithful, or holy. The point is important to the trinitarian warfare theodicy in that it is founded on a dynamic understanding of God who interacts with his creation on a moment-by-moment basis.”
Boyd also gives four arguments against understanding texts about God changing as being anthropomorphic, only one of which should be mentioned. His argument is that those who take these passages as anthropomorphic create a canon-within-the-canon. If these passages are God accommodating Himself to our understanding, how is it that people are able to “properly” understand them? This line of argumentation, Boyd suggests, is self-refuting since if God designed the passages in order for readers to understand them in one way, how can people claim to understand them in another? Anthropomorphism is therefore not a viable category for understanding how the Bible functions in relating God to humankind.
Critique
Gregory Boyd has a lot to say which is derived from the Open View of God. While he does have some strong points, he also has some glaring weaknesses. His first weakness is that, due to his staunch stance on the love of God being the controlling factor for all other parts of theology proper, it is difficult to see how judgment fits into his texts. While he does say that God will judge those who work against Him, Boyd offers no convincing reason as to why God would not, out of His love, forgive the unsaved instead of condemning them. If God is love over and above anything else, then God is not as wrathful as loving, not as judgmental as loving, and not as holy as loving. Therefore, the other attributes of God can be overridden since God is more love than anything else.
The next major problem with Boyd is his inconsistency. As stated above, he believes in inerrancy, yet he also thinks that the only way to understand the ethos of the Bible is to understand how nonbiblical cultures operate. This is, at the very least, a difficulty. He is also inconsistent in terms of how he views certain texts. On the one hand, he says,
“It is true that according to the open view things can happen in our lives that God didn’t plan or foreknow with certainty (though he always foreknew they were possible). This means that in the open view things can happen to us that have no overarching divine purpose. In this view, ‘trusting in God’ provides no assurance that everything that happens to us will reflect his divine purposes, for there are other agents who also have the power to affect us, just as we have the power to affect others. This, it must be admitted, can for some be a scary thought.”
Only two pages later he says, “[Openness] affirms that whatever happens, God will work with us to bring a redemptive purpose out of the event (Rom. 8:28).” These are two very contradictory statements in that one affirms God will work out all things for the good of believers and the other denies the same thing. While the second statement can be nuanced to say that God only works with people to try to achieve good, but that defeats what Romans 8:28 says anyway. It is also difficult to understand what parts of scripture are anthropomorphic for Boyd, or if any are at all. He gives a definition for anthropomorphism in one book, and then denies that there is such a thing in another. Boyd is inconsistent in what he says both from one book to another and within a single book.
While there are weaknesses in what Gregory Boyd does, there are also some strengths. Boyd is more than willing to admit that there are sections of scripture that are problems for his side of the debate. He also takes narrative portions of scripture very seriously and tries to determine from the actual text he is studying whether or not a pericope should be considered anthropomorphic instead of necessarily using an outside text to come to that conclusion. The most important issue that Boyd embodies is his willingness to let scripture be the driving force of his theological model. Though disagreeing with where he ends, it is hard to fault where he begins.
The Evangelical Theologian and Control Texts
Positives
Overall, there are many good things to take from what these three prominent theologians are doing. The first important thing that an Evangelical theologian can learn from them is to take narrative portions of scripture seriously. Clark Pinnock, John Sanders, and Gregory Boyd all take into account narrative passages when constructing their theology. Too often Evangelicals run to didactic passages or doctrinal passages in order to formulate a theological stance without taking time to consider how this would affect their understanding of certain narrative sections, or even using these passages to overturn the obvious meaning of a narrative section.
Second, each of these three authors shows a strong belief in inerrancy. Though many do not agree with their interpretation of scripture, it is difficult to see how one can fault their high regard for scripture. Even the opponents of Open Theism acknowledge their use of scripture. This is a fundamental premise of being an Evangelical and should not be overlooked in discussions on the issue of Open Theism.
Third, all of these writers show a willingness to converse on the topic and a willingness to change. In the exchange in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, each of these authors talked about the need for further discussion on the topic. Though most theologians choose a position and stay there, Pinnock, Sanders, and Boyd all show some hint that they would change their stance if it could be shown unbiblical.
Negatives
While there are many good things to take from Clark Pinnock, John Sanders, and Gregory Boyd, there are also a few things in their example that should be avoided. The first problem is the inconsistency with the “God is...” passages. All three agree that God is love, but then neglect such issues as God is holy, or spirit, or just. If one is going to specify a control passage with a specific formula quite evident, then it is problematic to ignore texts of the exact same formula with only a single word change. Therefore, in order to be consistent, passages with the same grammatical formula should be given equal theological and hermeneutical weight.
The second issue is the use of didactic and doctrinal passages by the authors. While each of them claims to try to balance their view of scripture and to reclaim narrative such that it is on an equal playing field, all three overbalance and use narrative texts to control other genres. This can be clearly seen in the above discussions on each author. Coupled with this issue of genre priority is the general paucity of didactic texts which in fact backed the proposals of each writer. While they each go into detail refuting their oppositions’ interpretation of specific texts, they also rarely use those types of texts in a constructive way.
Finally, the authors have a tendency to promote a very mixed view of what anthropomorphism is. While this is a difficult concept to deal with, it is also something that cannot be defined away. That God is too large a concept to be contained by human language is not up for debate, but the degree with which He can be described is. That is where the three theologians are internally inconsistent, discarding definitions from one page to the next. They start off denying that anthropomorphism exists, then they admit that language calls for such a thing when talking about God, but they deny that the passages which they wish to use are anthropomorphic without giving an example of what then would be anthropomorphic in their opinions. It leaves one to wonder if they can indeed give a definition that actually works.