I certainly do not claim to have all the answers, but it seems, in my thinking, that the place to start in our understanding of God in relation to evil is to go back to Genesis and see how this is represented in the story of Adam and Eve being cast from the Garden of Eden.

Whatever one’s position on this setting, I believe we can begin to form an opinion here.

The limitation of God in regards to evil is seen quite well here, in my opinion. Before the “event” Adam and Eve have this perfect relationship with God and God has a “perfect” relationship with Adam and Eve. Their relationship is broken when they are cast out. The awful effects of sin are immediately apparent.

God does not rescue Adam and Eve because doing so would violate their freedom. God does not want robots. He gives us our freedom. God explains about some of the suffering that will now occur.

God’s answer to this is God, Himself. He calls Adam and Eve back to Himself as the answer to suffering. They still suffer at times, but God provides the comfort to see them through.

I know that this does not provide a full answer. My hope is that this can be a another way for helping us think about this. I find that my mind goes back to this nearly every single day. “How do we rectify/understand theodicy?”

I am looking forward to us all thinking this through together!

It seems to me God’s persuasive love failed with a couple of human beings throughout history. With devastating results. Since He cannot but offer us freedom to choose, it seems to me we have no reason to presume future results will be better. In this case, contrary to investments, results from the past do guarantee the results in the future. Ceteris paribus, nothing will change.

Also, you mention the kenosis, God’s self revelation in Christ. I would argue this is something He did in the history of this world. There was a time when He had not revealed Himself this way. How does your idea of God allow for Him to do something new? Because the very moment He does something that is a better revelation than before (and Hebrews 1 suggests this is the case regarding Christ), He is culpable for not providing this revelation earlier, and leaving people in the dark with them possibly going astray through lack of clarity. For God to never be culpable, He can never have done anything new. Nor will He ever be able to through all eternity.

Tom, I keep reading your entries in the hope of finding hope for the future. But as yet, I don’t see it. However, I still hope to find it one day.

With love and respect,
Hans

I like this theology of God calling us, but not forcing us. So often in the world people fall through the cracks of a theology where love from God is exclusive, predestined or elective to those He deemed worthy. Yet in my own experience this has never been so. God called, and on several occasions I refused to come. Yet He continued to call until the day that I turned to Him.

Even now, as I write this I know there is no way in which I deserved this loving grace, yet I receive it freely and continuously. As I walk this world I am constantly reminding myself of this grace, knowing that it rests abundantly on all those who cross my path, not matter who they are. Then I smile, look at them with loving eyes and give them that ‘welcome to the Kingdom of God’ smile.

I think one of the most profound implications that Kenosis as on a missional action especially from the context of the United States, is the idea that we most deeply connect with other not when we utilize our power and resources to control them but when we give freely of ourselves relationally.  When I think about our action in the developing world I can see how deeply relationally deficit we can be.  We will generously offer our resources or use our power to help effect the “well-being” of others, but we struggle to offer ourselves.  In our interactions with the marginalized we should be embodying Kenotic love.

Essential Kenosis is created to explaine the unfairness found in a world where bad things (evil) happen without divine assistance.  It gives God an “out” and protects His reputation. 

However, it stands on the premise that there are some things that are More evil or Genuinely Evil that God should cause a loving God to intervene if He was capable.

If I understand the Bible right, any disobedience to God is evil.  Therefore we would have God intervening in every speeding car, lie, missed payment to someone we own, as well as murders, etc.  We have all sinned and fall short.  Any intervention would be a gift and reprieve from justice, not something that was owed everybody because we think life should be fair.  If we go ahead and say that God can not intervene (thereby protecting God’s reputation when a murder happens) we are also ssaying there is no use in praying for protection since God can’t help.  These are some thoughts on this theology I still wrestle with.

Describing God’s power as expressed through servant-style influence helps to understand how God is persuasive in empowering as opposed to coercive in overpowering. This gives meaning to the freedom of choice given to humanity to accept the grace that God extends to all. And overpowering characteristic in the application of an all-powerful God would remove the relational/responding aspect of God toward creation. A God who’s sovereignty is exhibited through the power to coerce those he has chosen to respond to his reaching love while allowing others to be hopelessly lost is not true to the witness of Jesus in scripture, the historical reaching of God in the life of the Old Testament people, nor to the faithful witness of our experience of God through the Holy Spirit in our lives today. Understanding God expressing his power in this manner makes the incarnational experience meaningful. The incarnation is Kenotic love; God empting himself to persuade people of his love.

The traditional/classical concept understands that God, all powerful, is only limited by his own self-limitation. The only answer to sin and suffering in God’s voluntary expression of kenosis is: “It is God’s will.” The concept that God’s response is “involuntary” or in other words “essential kenosis” makes sense of a loving God reaching to humanity in their separation and lostness while not overpowering the love expressed through freedom of choice.

This concept can become palatable as we understand that “God’s power of love derives from God’s own nature.” God cannot deny his own divine attribute of love. As Tom notes, the concept of involuntary self-limitation requires “rethinking” and reflecting on the missional nature of God’s relationship to creation and the missional call to participate in the missio Dei.

This blog post offers a great summary of Essential Kenosis. If we believe love is central to God’s character, then Essential Kenosis makes a lot of sense. God’s love prevents him from overpowering human actions and decisions.

In your brief discussion of persuasion vs. coercion, I find myself definitely aligning with the former view. However, I think the word “persuasion” also has a bit of a negative or coercive image. I liked the phrase you used to describe God’s nature when you said, “God empowers rather than overpowers”. I think the word “empower” has a more positive tone that “persuade”. Perhaps the word “inspire” would be fitting as well.

The concept that God can’t is one that just goes against what most of us have learned since our days in Sunday School.  I agree that essential kenosis requires a new way of thinking.  As I ponder the role of God in this new way, I wonder about the subject of miracles.  If God cannot interfere with our life due to the freedom God gives then miracles are not unexplainable at all.  Miracles can then be seen as a response to a creation that affects the thoughts and mission of God.  Scripture tells us that we have not because we ask not.  Essential kenosis persuades me to re-examine how much more I need to put into the relationship with God as is my responsibility.

This blog put in simple terms many of the conclusions we’ve read about this week.  However, one thing that hadn’t struck me until I read this summary of Essential Kenosis theology was that Jesus’ kenotic action was a direct representation of who God is.  In other words, there is a direct correlation between Jesus’ “earthly limitations” and God’s ability to act in creation.  God does not have a “human” element as Jesus did, but God is subject to the response of creation as He does not possess coercive power over creation.  While I understood this proposition about God, I did not see the connection to the action of Jesus.

I appreciate the care and heart for searching out God’s nature of love and how best to verbalize it.  I think this blog takes much effort into portraying the ultimate God of Love.  So much so that I believe there is a significant error in the essential Kenosis.

This error is found in the “God Can’t” paragraphs.  While it is comforting and does help to wrap our human minds around God it does limit a limitless God.  It is certainly an act of faith to believe and trust in God’s promises and also believe that God is truly Supreme in every aspect thus allowing the possibility for him to change or control.  Will he no, because I trust in his promises.  Can he?  If we believe God is supreme and truly Lord and maker of all then yes he can.

I really appreciated this blog post.  So many of the things that we have talked about have come together in this blog post.  I think that an important theological understand for the Church to embrace has to deal with God calling instead of God controlling.  He does not force people, but He uses His persuasive power through love.

I think that one of the biggest problems with understanding God is that people think that He is a judgmental policeman who is mean.  But with a proper theology of kenosis, maybe the Church can begin to see God as someone who has emptied Himself and draws people to Himself through persuasive love. 

The God of love.  He really means it.

Kenton

What really speaks to me in this reading is the focus on humility and emptiness.  I have always loved the passage in Philippians 2, but never considered this in relation to the power of God.  Through Jesus, God showed servant power rather than overpowering.  This is a truth that I feel can better present God to the post-modern world that surrounds us.  In my experience, many are not open to the idea of God because God is presented as a mean puppet-master.  This would not appeal to anyone, I suspect.  However, while we should never change the message of the Gospel, we can change the way we present God, and I feel that this is a great way to ‘change’ that presentation without changing who God is.

I do believe that God wants to save us all and that God wants a relationship with each of us.  I think that we need to read, study, think, and try to understand God not just be content with God is “mystery.”  I also agree with you that we should never say we “understand” all of God.  Yet, I still think that there will always be some mystery to God. 
I just am having trouble in thinking that God involuntary has limits.  I do think God self-limits because of what God has chosen to do maybe this is really the same thing.  I cannot comprehend a God who has limits.

I think the concept of a God who empowers as opposed to a God who overpowers is sound.  It seems to make sense in regard to the entire history of the world. 

I struggle with the underlying concept, however, that evil has an edge over good.  It seems to me that if two people with opposing wills come into contact, the one who chooses evil is more likely to prevail.  How is this empowering to those who have answered God’s call? 

I feel as if this must connect to self-sacrifice in some way, but just as Jesus’ earthly story does not end in death, but resurrection, I feel as if there must be a definitive victory in the end.  Some of the concepts explored seem to create a world in which free will never ends and in which evil will always exist, prevailing over good in some way.

It’s been very difficult for me to admit that essential kenosis makes sense on one hand, yet it also makes me uncomfortable how I can question the involuntary self-limitation of the God who created the universe. I’ve always been more comfortable with the voluntary self-limitation of God and His power, as in the incarnation. I’ve not thought God is cruel if He limits his intervention in situations of evil. I’ve typically believed that although God is not the originator of evil, He absolutely uses it and its consequences for the better in our lives. In cases of seemingly random acts of evil and needless suffering, I don’t want to suggest that God fails to intervene even when He can, but that we have some accountability in this life to work to stop evil and we often don’t. It is this free will that God works with and allows.

There is a much to be said for this viewpoint towards God.  One thing that I find notably helpful is what is said in closing about being empowering and relational in missions.  It is easy to forget to be empowering and relational but this is precisely what is so amazing about God.  Despite who we are he wants a relationship and he wants to empower us.  Yet, we turn around and look at people as if only some are worth our time and the rest are lost causes and just not worth it.

The idea of essential kenosis and a God who is voluntarily or involuntarily self limiting is a difficult concept to discuss. I wrestle with both ideas regarding God’s power. My beliefs have always leaned toward the idea that God voluntarily limits Godself. That there is restraint, free will is given, and no coercion exists. This does create a problem when looking at evil in the world. But a God whose self limitation is non-voluntary also creates and issue for me. This would, in a sense, mean that an all-powerful God lacks power.

In the blog above, Dr. Oord mentions the idea that God empowers people instead of overpowering people. I agree. God gives opportunity and interacts with creation in such a way that we are lifted up and empowered to follow God’s calling. God gives us the strength to follow him into the life we have been created for.

I keep coming back to a single thought that, though challenging, brings reassurance; God is limited only by God’s nature. When I consider Jesus as the perfect embodiment of the Father the pieces begin to fall into place. Jesus, while human is also perfectly divine. While Jesus, God incarnate, walked the earth he never acted out of keeping with his nature. Why would the Father or the Spirit? It seems easier for us to believe love limits Jesus’ actions than that the whole of the trinity is ruled by the same love.

“Those called to missions – which includes us all – ought to follow the kenotic example of Jesus: we should express empowering, relational love”.

Whatever struggles I have with God’s power being limited to persuasion only, I think that we as the church would do well to live out our faith within the framework of love or essential kenosis.  We need to take more seriously our part in co-operating with God and bringing God’s kingdom into the here and now.  We need to emphasize the day to day relationship with God in which each choice we make seeks to be a reflection of God’s love and grace.  Salvation needs to be more than a ticket to heaven but rather saving grace made available here.  Being made like Christ needs to reflect kenosis, emptying self for the sake of another, remembering Christ’s example (Jesus friend of sinners, the one who sought God’s will in prayer and responded to it in obedience), set apart to serve rather than complacently waiting for heaven or living as if we are set apart in order to be set apart, so different from everyone else that we can’t even relate, let alone express love to others.

Trying to comprehend and apply the Biblical interpretation of kenosis to God’s self-limitation is very unsettling for me.  If the Almighty God is limited in some degree, what does that say about the nature of God’s omnipotent power?
In the Biblical witness of Jesus Christ, as the Incarnate God, we are given an example of a servant Savior and an upside down philosophy of love and power. The God of eternity comes in the finite form of a human. In this human form, God validates humanity by suffering, dying and rising from the dead for our atonement. The only word that can describe this display of divine power is absurd (Kierkegaard, Fear and Trembling). 

Maybe our understanding of (omnipotent) power, love, choice, and relationship needs to change. Maybe God should not answer to a human understanding of power. Perhaps we should live by a divine witness of servant-style power and love.

I don’t feel that kenosis is somehow showing God as self-limited at all.  How can we say that?  I feel that Jesus was limited to human things because he was human.  For instance, a human cannot fly unless they’re in a plane.  Jesus was bound by human limits.  He was limited.  God is not limited.  Jesus taking on the nature of a servant implies to me that, in relationships, which are important to Jesus, he realizes that, to ever win them over, dominating people won’t do it.  Judging them won’t do it.  Serving them with no expectations will.  That doesn’t limit God’s power at all to me.

I find this quote from Wesley to be pretty fascinating and a key part of how Wesleyans need to formulate their theology. It clearly points to a God that seeks to purposefully empower creation to respond to God’s invitation to do great things.

And the call to action at the end of this essay is powerful. Are we speaking the truth of Christ into the world with goal of empowering people to find God’s truth in the world, or are we seeking to overpower people with this message, trying to coerce them to convert to our way of thinking? The position of essential kenosis not only has big significance for how God acts, it also is enormous for how disciples of Jesus engage the world.

I don’t like to say God “can’t,” but I’m perfectly fine with saying God “won’t.”  God won’t do certain things because we know that He perfectly chooses the right choice, the good choice, in every situation.  He won’t choose evil because our God only chooses good, which has been demonstrated for us in the Biblical witness.  Saying God “can’t” imposes limits on God, and takes away His own will.  It just seems we are so concerned about maintaining our own will, but we are okay taking God’s away to understand our own.  I, personally, just think that a God who chooses to love us is greater than a God who can only love us.  I can relate better to a God who must choose good over evil, especially when He calls us to do the same.

I agree with your assessment of Philippians 2:5-7 in that it reveals the “servant-style power” of God.  God’s prevenient grace would definitely fall in line with empowering rather than overpowering.  I can see the logic in this reasoning.  However, I don’t see how God self-limiting himself by taking the nature of a servant logically leads to God not having the ability to do something.  The verse says that Jesus “did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing…”  In my reasoning, this verse says that Jesus chose to give up certain divine abilities in order to become like us and show us how to love sacrificially.  To my thinking, this verse supports the view of voluntary self-limitation, but not involuntary.

I’m open to the concept of the essential nature of kenotic love. There is certainly something to be said about the way Jesus submitted Himself to the will of the Father and to those that killed him. He overthrew power by being powerless, which is a completely new model for our interaction with the world.

But the evidence I see here (and in “The Nature of Love”) remains unconvincing. The Christ-hymn in Philippians 2 is taken as the theological foundation for the argument for essential kenosis. Does this passage describe kenosis as essential or voluntary? You assert that it is essential, but the very purpose of the passage, to encourage us to have the mindset of Christ, speaks of our own necessity to imitate Christ in our own sort of kenosis. We are to imitate not some essential, irresistible characteristic in Jesus, but to take on voluntarily that which Jesus also did voluntarily.

Also found within the passage is the affirmation that Jesus made *himself* nothing. It does not say that the kenosis was essential or that Jesus could not have chosen anything else. There is an air of volition here, indicating that there is something important about the choosing of kenosis over other more power-mongering methods that is in itself loving.

God chooses to limit Himself because He has given away His power in order to give His creation the opportunity to choose love instead of sin.  This is so compelling in my mind, God is self-limiting.  As I was reading this post I was reminded of the conversation that we have in the Bible between the “Sons of Thunder,” and their mom.  When mom approaches Jesus, His response is the essence of Essential Kenosis.  (Can you drink my cup?  I did not come to be served but to serve) this is the Mike paraphrase of Matthew 20:20-28.

This is a revolution and an invitation into the upside down Kingdom.  The One who sits above all created things serves and limits Himself for the benefit of His own creation.  Without a doubt we are moved to live differently because of this.  I think that I miss it so often because I am not willing to serve or lay down my rights and be able to be wounded.

This is something that I have to work on.

God works in mysterious way. God is all powerful and yet sets limitations. Is it really limitations or is that who God really is? It is evil to lie; therefore, it is not a limitation God places on himself. He is holy and does not mix with darkness. Hence, the view of human God being unable to contradict and lie is not His being. God is known to be holy. Though we may see them as limitation-like lying-we are trying to mix God with ungodly attributes and/or actions.

That’s the reason why Jesus can into play. We had to see God incarnate to understand who God is or at least a portion of himself. Jesus being human had several limitations, but still wouldn’t contradict or lie.

As workers of the mission field, we to have to make sure that we don’t contradict ourselves when we present the Gospel. Even more lie about it and give a water-down or legalistic message.

The idea that God’s power is missional really helped to draw “Essential Kenosis” together. Oord states, “God’s kenotic love, revealed in Jesus, is primarily if not exclusively the power of persuasion. God calls instead of controls.” Prayer, scripture reading and quiet time are all essential when trying to find the call in your life. “Essential Kenosis” theology gives us the opportunity to understand the love of God is part of God’s nature. God’s nature is love so we are given the freedom to make the choices we want to make in life. These choices can lead us to a better relationship with God or they can draw us away from God. God being missional seems to lead to the idea that you can reach out and serve others. This would be a way for us as humans to see love as God would have us love. Loving others draws us closer to God in every way.

I wonder how we deal with the gray area between coercion and persuasion.  If coercion is complete control, is anything less than absolute complete control considered persuasion?  If that is the case, than that leaves quite a bit of room for some kind of control.

  Personally, I agree with essential kenosis.  The broad strokes of the theory are intuitive and they reconcile both with what we read about God in the Bible and what we know of God from our own lives.  For the finer points, I am still left wondering as to what exactly God’s nature would limit him from doing.

In Wesley’s Sermon #67 “On Divine Providence” he quotes Paustoobee, “an Indian Chief, of the Chicasaw nation in North America.”  When asked how he knew of God’s providence, Paustoobee responded that he was not killed in battle as those on his left and right were.  This is such a weak argument for explaining providence.  When things go well, people recognize God’s care.  When things go awry, people question God’s “failure to care.” 

Essential kenosis takes the wind out of the sails of the argument of theodicy.  God’s essential nature is love.  And, as the Apostle Paul said, “God cannot deny Godself.”  I still wrestle with how essential kenosis explains God’s miraculous actions (i.e. the parting of the Red Sea, etc.).  I also struggle to understand God’s actions in relation to essential kenosis in causing The Flood (of Noah’s time).  But, I see essential kenosis as bringing me one step closer to a full understanding of God.