I am very interested in how open and relational thought can be practically integrated into missional ecclesiologies; specifically within the context of a missional church planting community (or communitas) such as ours. How does open and relational thought influence postmodern missional growth, doxology and doctrine?

Thank God for systems of classification. It certainly helps the saints of the narrow way in identifying the birds of a feather who flock together and migrate to new theological colonies.

The winds of doctrine never cease to blow and new waves of teaching continue to toss about, but in all this the word of God is still quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart and
neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do. (Hebrews 4:12 - 13)

You assert that, “open and relational theologians place primary importance on the Bible for things related to God, salvation, and the big questions of life. Scripture is principally authoritative.”

Could you explain more in depth of how scripture is primary for open and relational theologians?

It helps that there are different ways of classification, yet it can also make things more complicated. The 33 years that Jesus lived on this earth was not just to show how awesome God is. I believe that God got sick of watching people screw up all the time so God finally sent Jesus so that we would see for ourselves and figure it out. The stories in the Bible about Jesus are so critical. The way He lived should be the number one example with how we should live. Granted, we cannot perform miracles like we read about in the Bible so we do also have to take into account the different time we live in. I agree with you that looking at that way of thinking would be helpful to understand God better.

Nice. I like and can identify with this. Mark

Thanks for your aticle.  Who would you say are the leading exponents of the evangelical open theology perspective?  What are the best reads available right now that unpack this theologically?

@ Paul - to your question about how open and relational theologies work in concert with missional thinking, I have a chapter in my book “Freedom of the Self: Kenosis, Cultural Identity and Mission at the Crossroads” which discusses that question in depth.  With particular attention to Pinnock, I draw out a theme of ‘missional openness’ as a missional frame for relational theologies that provide missional communities a bridge with a robust doctrine of theological anthropology and christology.

Tom, Al Truesdale has spoken of the “sufficiency of Scripture” as opposed to the “inerrancy of Scripture.” This is a good model for approaching the issue, and avoids getting caught up in the “Battle for the Bible” conceptual framework that has proven so fruitless.

I’m beginning to read Boyd’s “God of the Possible.” It’s stretching me—we’ll see.

show me where to put my John Hancock.

Whenever I hear someone explain a taxonomy or school of thought in regard to theology I am reminded of William Hordern’s statement, “all labels are liables.”  I tend to eschew titles and labels but this may be, in part, due to my continuing affiliation with the Stone-Campbell Movement which has proclaimed such ideas as “no creed but Christ, no name but Christian, no book but the Bible.”

There is also the dubious history I have had with Evangelicals. While I have had many wonderful and loving encounters with those who proudly wear the title “Evangelical,” I have also had venomous accusations and verbal attacks made against me by those who also proudly wear that same title. My experiences with those in the Mainline church have not been as acidic. Sure, the Maininers still have their own brand of fundamentalism but they tend to be, in my experience, less dogmatic about who is “in” and who is “out.”

Tom, you have given a very wide definition of evangelical. I wonder if the Carl Hendrys and the Millard Ericksons would be willing to use your understanding of Evangelical. But then again, reform may be part of your agenda.

In the end, I still avoid adjectives to the name Christian.

I appreciate how you define terms and ideas that exist yet sometimes do not have a lay definition. I agree with the fact that the community that we associate with effects our theology, however, I also believe that our theology should affect the community that we associate with. For those who do believe this it way, it is their responsibility to take their beliefs and live it out within their own faith community, instead of finding a community that only serves their personal needs.

I believe this article of yours is the first one I have almost fully agreed with. The only part where I differ is that I like to reason, experience, and Christian tradition on a more even field with scripture itself. Not to say they are necessarily equal as I believe each one is best in different areas. All that said, I am still young and inexperience in .theology and thus prone to misunderstanding

I agree that these three characteristics help provide an avenue of discovery in many other areas of study. And when we apply these to our understanding we are able to come to a better unbiased position I think.

I appreciate the receptive manner in which both open and relational theologians conduct themselves. According to your analysis it seems that there is a mutual allowance for times of discussion and debate. As you said it is important to avoid extreme relativism, and I believe these groups do so through a Christ like model.

I have just discovered who I might be in theological terms. Theology for me, has to make sense. This is why I always had trouble with the whole subjective idea of Entire Sanctification and Dispensationalism. Relational theology began with me after discovering Wynkoop’s “A Theology of Love” many years ago. So maybe, I’m an open evangelical relational in Theology.