I like this idea of Essential Kenosis. This is the God is see throughout the Bible. Further I see a God who does not necessarily know the future, a God that regrets choices He made, who sees people act in ways that never crossed His mind. I see a God who acts in love at every contact with His creation, although sometimes He gets frustrated with them. Thank you for this post.

Tom, thanks for the thoughtful post. I have to say I remain conflicted about God’s ability or inability to act. The process approach makes the most sense in dealing with evil. God did not intervene because God could not intervene. Is your Essential Kenosis a modified approach to this? God can and does intervene as long as it does not interfere with free will? If this is the case I can understand thankfulness. But I wrestle with the process approach (and my own theology) wondering if I can be thankful for anything other than, “thanks for trying, God. Better luck next time.” Perhaps I am presenting a caricature of the process understanding or maybe this is the wrong place to post this, but I long to find specific events in which I can clearly see God at work. Places in which I can say, “thank you God” and have a particular case in mind. As for now I content with the resurrection.  For this I am truly thankful.

Thanks for having me thinking on my week off! 

Paul and Curtis,

Thanks for the response!  I want to highlight the issue of “intervention.”

I don’t like to use that word, because it suggests that God invades a situation from the outside.  If God is always present and always involved, God would never need to intervene.

Essential kenosis is similar to some process models and quite different from others. One of the things it highlights is that some events more dramatically reveal God’s activity.  But it highlights these events by saying that they display a greater degree of complex creaturely cooperation.  In such instances, we are right to express sincere thanks to God.  God gets the lions share of our praise.  But we are also right to express our thanks to creatures for cooperating with God.

At our thanksgiving dinner, I may thank God for acting in ways to make possible a great tasting meal.  But I will also likely thank the chef.  Dual appreciation is part and parcel of essential kenosis theology, even though God is the ultimate source of all good things.

Tom

Tom,

In reading your “Thanksgiving without Scruples” I give thanks for you and your contribution to the Church and academy. Your life is an example of the “partnership” or “co-creation” that you describe.  As someone who embraces your free will argument, I often ask how much control do I have on my future, and how much does God have. In other words, if we are acting cooperatively, does one entity (God) action greater human activity, or visa versa?

Mark

Thanks for this interesting topic of free-will! Last sunday it was the topic of my sermon and I used the Bruce-Almighty DVD, where God permits Bruce to be Himself for a while, with one condition: do not touch the free will of men! Bruce will experience that he can’t use divine power to regain the love of his fiance after a brawl ... We read Luke 15, the parable of the lost son: God will rejoice like the father when we freely choose for Him!
Blessings Tom! Erik Groeneveld, Netherlands

Some interesting thoughts!  One of the difficulties I am having is distinguishing a point of difference from the self-limiting and essential kenosis in regards to God’s actions.  Is the position of essential kenosis that God cannot do some things or does not do some things?  Of course, this sounds like a discussion of whether Christ could have sinned. 

It seems that both the self-limiting and the essential kenosis positions both offer a God who does not act in some situations.  Essential kenosis seems to only offer a justification of why God chooses not to act.  Could the self limiting God also choose not to act for the same reasons?  Does essential kenosis offer a different view or is it really “just” a refinement?

Mark: I think God is the prime actor and most powerful being.  But I don’t think God is the sole actor in any situation.

Erik: Bruce Almighty is a great conversation starter.  I like to say to my students that the idea that God is powerful is the first thing in most people’s vision of God.  A movie called Bruce Omnibenevolent probably wouldn’t register in the public’s mind in the same way.

Billie: I claim that God cannot do some things. God cannot act illogically; and God cannot contradict God’s own nature.  Essential kenosis claims that giving freedom and agency to others is part of God’s loving nature.

I believe that God acts in EVERY situation. But those situations in which creatures do not cooperate are situations in which God’s acting is not as efficacious.

The difference between Essential Kenosis and other theories of God’s self-limitation is that EK says that God’s self-limitation is involuntary.  The problem with a voluntary self-limitation is that God could choose at any time to become un-self-limited.  And such a God should do so to prevent genuine evil.

First off let me say that I do find this idea of ‘Essential Kenosis’ to be interesting and certainly thought provoking. However I find that I struggle with what it says about God if we really follow it through to the end. It seems to me that when talking about God I want to say that God really is more than just the most powerful being. I fear that this line of thinking limits God in what God can do and how God interacts with creation. As I try to process this I am not sure how to reconcile this view with various scriptures like the story of God hardening Pharaoh’s heart, or even what to do with the end times and judgment where it seems that God comes in love and power and really does say ‘Enough’  in order make everything right. Events like this seem to indicate that God is more than just the most powerful being, but that God is not limited in what God can do, other than what is against His nature of course.
Secondly when we talk about the problem of evil I wonder if too often we are short sighted. It would seem to me that if God really did intervene and stop genuine evil from happening, then God would be taking away from our free will. It seems to me that if God’s desire really is that we love him with our heart soul and mind then this love cannot be forced. It would seem that while God can act preveniently in drawing all to Himself, that it would make sense that God would limit Himself in order that are response to His grace may be authentic and not coerced. So it is here that I guess I don’t see the trouble in saying that God self limits Himself in order to invite humanity into authentic relationships.

In this discussion of what God can and cannot do, I agree that Essential Kenosis theology is what makes things easiest for us to process.  I dont think that I have a big problem with saying that God self-limited HImself to give us free will.  My question is what evidence in Scripture, Tradition, and Experience do we have that would line up with the idea that God can completely controls us?  It seems there is quite alot of evidence in favor of self limitation or EK, but not the other position.

I am now trying to think of a situation where God has forced one to act whether in Sctipture or my experience and i cant really think of any. Other than maybe the Pharaoh passage that Shaun discussed which is up for differing interpretation…Jesus calming the storm could be an example of completely controlling natural events.  If He can do that, why doesnt He stop natural disasters today that kill thousands?

Also, concerning the future, I have heard the argument that God can know the future exhaustively, and we can still have free will at the same time.  What would an open theist say to that?

First of all, I agree that we have much to be thankful for.

I am thankful for this new understanding of the kind of Love that would be willing to self-limit God’s self so that we might have the freedom to make a decision for God.

“Essential Kenosis”(in theory) seems reasonable to me. Although He is (in some ways) different from the all-powerful and all-knowing God that I heard about in Sunday School classes growing up, I am comfortable with the shift in vocabulary. God, who makes the most loving decision in every instance, self-limits God’s self so that humanity might be empowered to respond. This seems reasonable.

My question (echoing the voice of my peers) is this: What about the practical implications? Was God implementing this “loving self-limitation” when He hardened Pharaoh’s heart or had entire people groups wiped out in the Old Testament? I understand the argument from author (that maybe, just maybe the stories are muffled. This gets into the issue of inerrancy…) - but I am still hard-pressed to see evidence of the loving, self-limited God in some of the instances in the Bible. Then again, there are some instances (also mentioned by my peers) where God seems to take matters into His hands. Where is the consistency?

I would really love to believe that the open theology, “Essential Kenosis” is true. I am so willing to believe it in theory. But in the presence of burning children…? What would I have to say to them?

Tom,

You are right; “intervene” is the wrong word. But I’m not sure what the right word is. Whether we say God acts, helps, or whatever it still has the feeling of God, at some points in time, doing more or less.  The question of why more or why less is the issue for me.  I am thankful, this is true, but at other times I am frustrated that the situation does not give me something (or someone) to be thankful for (or to).  I hope this doesn’t read like therapy, just working out my theology with fear and trembling. I think I have finally resolved myself to the fact that God does not act in any supernatural ways. Perhaps the resurrection was the last, or perhaps only, true miracle.  I am thankful that God is drawing the entire world to God’s self but this is an attitude of thankfulness, and general feeling of gratitude. In some ways this is much better. While I am thankful I am healthy and live in OC California I would hate to think I was singled out for this while others were chosen to be ill or left to live in Haiti or São Paulo.

And regarding your thankfulness to the chef and God I am reminded of Bart Simpson’s prayer, “Dear God. We paid for all this stuff ourselves, so thanks for nothing.” Oh that Simpson theology.

Tom,

You use the term “creatures” in discussing EK.  This implies that you’re not just talking about humankind.  Also your posting on morality of animals implies that you are extending these concepts to the animal world.  My concern for this is that it implies there is, for example, something evil about a lion stalking and killing its prey or about parasitic wasps laying their eggs in the body of a caterpillar. Clearly that is not a very loving thing for these creatures to do.  I cannot see there is any choice for the lion or the wasp.  They are just living their lives within the context of the innate qualities with which they have been endowed.  They have been endowed with those qualities within the context of the eternal balance between God’s sovereignty and creation’s freedom.  I think you know from a recent discussion that there are those who think “evil” in creation is one of the great mysteries yet to be explained.  You probably also know that I don’t think it is evil at all.  It is the processes of life being manifest in a world never removed from God’s Presence, but also in a manner endowed with freedom—a freedom that parallels the human freedom we experience in our lives.

Since I am just a biologist, I love the fact that you’re thinking and writing about these matters.  As you know it is issues like this which cause the Church to be so hesitant to accept that about which there is no doubt—life arose through the process of evolution.

I am thankful for your posting regardless of whether that thankfulness occurs within the context of EK or some other context yet to be explained.

Blessings,
Darrel

Dr. Oord, thank you for the offering of this blog…I’ve enjoyed what I have seen/feel and look forward to visiting often. Thank you, also, for your own willingness to risk in favor of love and truth…

The kenosis or ‘emptying’ of God is clearly essential to God’s loving nature, but equally esstential, it seems to me, is the ‘gift’inside the emptying, which is given freely (by choice) and not from necessity (i.e., God simply being the most powerful personage in a closed process we call the universe).

If this is the only universe possible (the one,as we know it) and God is incapable of transcending the material order because the Divine lives (essentially-necessarily) inside the universe and acts as the loving-holy One who draws all events (emerging persons) to holy-love then I agree, you have fundamentally addressed the issue of evil.  God co-participates in the natural evil and co-creates inside human/angelic evil choise, always redemptively.  Is that what you mean by essential?

My difficulty with such an interpretation is: 1) Biblical-historical; this person is not the God of Israel or of the Church and; 2) Leads to a concept of redemption without the willful (choice filled) emptying of suffering love, and 3) Leaves no room for a Transcendent Being whose existence is the breath and essential life of the universe as we experience it and other possible narratives we know nothing of, as yet.

1) While I have deep appreciation for process theology/philosophy (God inside a closed system or universe), I remain troubled that co-creative events are the essence or DNA of existence.  The God of the Word and Church is Trinitarian precisely because personage (Being) pre-cedes or is foundational to events (emerging experience). The miracles of the Old/New Testament require transcendance of Being and choice.  They also raise all the ‘evil’ issues (yet unresolved).

2) It seems to me, that Biblical Redemption involves both co-creative emergence (Previenient Presence in all) and a transcendent Personage (outside of the moral evil at least) acting within (Kenosis or emptying) to draw by love Beings back to sanity (wholeness-holy-love) and not simply forward to an emerging and evolving ‘ideal’ of love. Shaun’s point that power cannot affect or effect this ‘drawing into redemption’, only love can may indeed be the best reason for God’s self-limitation.  It is a costly grace indeed, but if God has it all worked out (into a future or universe beyond our experience) where in all are saved, perhaps it is worthy of it.

3) May I suggest that the ‘essential’ nature of kenosis may be in the dual capacity of a Being whose very existence is required both inside/outside the box (universe).  Just as our humanity (including real choice) is the result of the ‘soul-fulness’ of our life being imprinted upon each cell of our material body/brain… so God’s transcendence (from beyone this universe) is necessary to our emerging personages as eternal and holy-love.  The ‘wholly other’ (rudolph Otto’s numinous) of God’s presence inside the system of materiality is what allows for humans to know in the sense of what we call ‘spirit’ and animals & humans in what we call ‘soul’. Without God’s Creative Otherness the presence of God (Collossians 1) would have no real meaning.  We breath-feel-love-even hate because God lives beyond and within.

God’s transcenance lived inside (kenosis) gives possibility to all that is (good/bad) and the moment God says ‘enough’, this universe ceases to be.  Grace is exactly that - time for beings of promise to realize (know) the One who is inside (by free choice) the box, sustaining all possibilities.

If that is so, then God is the bull in the china closet and cannot ‘act upon’ the universe often, only within. Power cannot create a ‘free and loving person’, only love. But power is what sustains the possibility.  Also, the only redemptive presence is to ‘act from within personages’ (i.e. - Israel-Church as expressions of the weakness of God (Jesus) choosing to draw all of reality into His own experience.)

My thots… Thanks, Terry

Wow!  These are great responses!  I don’t have time to go into a detailed response. But here are few thoughts:

Shaun - The idea of essential kenosis is that God involuntarily self-limits out of a nature of love. I think this overcomes the theoretical aspect of the problem of evil, while still allowing that God is the Redeemer.

Tyler - An open theist would say God knows all of the possible futures, but God doesn’t know with absolute certainty which of all these futures will definitely come to be. The problem with saying that God knows exactly what will happen in the future is that this means the future is settled, concrete, fixed. A fixed future is incompatible with genuine free will.

Curtis - I quoted that Simpson’s line over the weekend.  Thanks!  Also… I have argued in my forthcoming book for a doctrine of Jesus’ bodily resurrection that doesn’t require coercive divine power.

Darrel—I’ve been thinking about writing a blog on the issue of nonhuman creaturely evil. Like you, I don’t think everytime a lion attacks a wildebeest that this is genuine evil.  However, people like Frans de Waal and Marc Bekoff have convinced me that animals can sometimes act in unnecessarily evil ways.  And, to be honest, my life on the farm convinced me that some animals can be unnecessarily mean and cruel.  So I think a solution to the problem of evil has to account for why God doesn’t prevent this kind of unnecessary evil in the nonhuman world—as well as, of course, human evil.

Terry—There is so much I could say about your response, but I must resist the temptation to write all night!  I’ll just say that I affirm God as both transcendent and immanent (inside and outside the box).  But I think that affirming this doesn’t allow me to neglect using language about God that makes sense—and I’m guessing you’d agree.

Dr. Oord,

I agree that the language we use is critical and needs to accurately reflect the reality we live in or imagine. I tend towards the abstract or poetic, depending on my purpose.

What I need help understanding is your use of “God involuntarily self-limits out of a nature of love”... I’m guessing, only, that you are trying to find in God’s nature (being) a center which prohibits or makes essentilaly impossible any action on God’s part that may be ‘un-loving’... such that it is God’s nature which creates the limit of action (active response), not God’s presence (transcendent or immenant) or power. If that is so, I can see how one might argue that is something other than traditional Process thinking (God is the expanding box, moving or directing but never free of it). However, I fail to see how an argument from nature addresses the issue of God’s culpability.  If God is truely unable to respond to or act upon creation only from within and never by power or redemptive accountability [judgment] or by ending or renewing creation, why would the Trinity of God create? ... knowing Their helplessness (by nature) before evil?  Self limitation by nature is not, by your definition given, choice.  Hence I assume God remains unable to act/choose from outside creation in the future.  If that is so, God remains culpubable, no?  ...unless you are suggesting (as some process thought does) that God and the universe are co-eternal and hence there is no real ‘creation’ in any classical sense of the word.

More thots… Blessings on you!  Terry

Tom, given what I think is very strong biblical language about Jesus being raised by God (and not Jesus’ raising himself), I look forward to reading your treatment of the issue.