The Power of a Missional God
Now it’s time to reach for perhaps the most elusive fruit of all. It’s time to talk about the power of a missional God. We can’t ignore the power issue if we want a robust missional theology.
So… God wants to save us all. This is God’s loving desire, the divine eros. And the God of robust missional theology is affected by others. God is relational: both giving to and receiving from creatures. This is neither the God of predestination nor the status quo.
One temptation we must resist is the temptation to appeal to utter mystery when talking about God’s power. We shouldn’t say we’ve got God all figured out either, of course. But a tentative proposal is much better than throwing up our hands and saying “let’s not talk about God’s power, because we’ll end up putting God in a box.”
Kenosis
A number of contemporary theologians consider the Philippian love hymn especially helpful for thinking about God’s sovereignty. To refresh our memory, here’s the key part of that profound praise chorus:
“In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness” (2:5-7).
Theologians often focus on the Greek word, kenosis, which is translated here, “made himself nothing.” Other translators render kenosis “emptied himself” or “gave of himself.” These translations suggest that Jesus does not overpower or totally control others. Instead, Jesus reveals God’s servant-style power.
Empowers instead of Overpowers
Kenosis suggests divine self-limitation. The Bible seems to be saying Jesus reveals God’s very nature in this kenosis, because Jesus expresses limited power, like a servant.
Perhaps it’s best to say God empowers rather than overpowers. After all, empowering describes servant-style influence better than overpowering or total control. And empowering fits the notion that creatures possess some measure of freedom to respond well or poorly to God. Presumably, God grants power/agency to creatures to make freedom and agency possible. God is our provider.
There are two main ways to talk about God’s self-limitation revealed in Jesus. The first and more common is to say self-limitation is voluntary on God’s part. This view says God could totally control and overpower others. But God voluntarily chooses not to be all determining – at least most of the time. The voluntary self-limitation model says God could totally control others, however, should God so decide.
The main problem with the voluntary divine self-limitation model is the problem of evil. The God who could overpower those who inflict genuine evil should in the name of love. To put it another way, the God who voluntarily self-limits should become un-self-limited to rescue those who suffer needlessly. At least in some cases, God should become un-self-limited to seek and save the lost. Voluntary divine self-limitation cannot provide a satisfactory answer to why God doesn’t prevent unnecessary pain, suffering, and death.
Essential Kenosis
The other way to talk about God’s limited power Jesus reveals says God’s self-limitation is involuntary. It is self-limitation, in the sense that no outside force or factor imposes constraints on God. But it is involuntary, in the sense that God’s power of love derives from God’s own nature.
Because God is love, God never overpowers others. In love, God necessarily provides freedom/agency to others and never completely controls them. God’s loving nature compels God to empower and never overpower others. We might call this “essential kenosis.”
God Can’t
John Wesley endorses involuntarily self-limitation in one of his sermons: “Were human liberty taken away, men would be as incapable of virtue as stones,” Wesley argues. “Therefore (with reverence be it spoken) the Almighty himself cannot do this thing. He cannot thus contradict himself or undo what he has done” (emphases added).[1] God must be God, says Wesley, and God’s nature of love involves giving freedom/agency to others.
Although often unnoticed, the Bible offers examples of things God cannot do. (E.g., God cannot lie; God cannot tempt.) In my view, however, these examples fall under the general category expressed in Paul’s words: “God cannot deny himself” (2 Tim. 2:13). God’s power as involuntary self-limitation says God controlling others entirely – coercion – would require God to deny God’s loving nature. And that’s impossible… even for God.
Of course, affirming involuntary divine self-limitation requires new thinking about doctrines of creation, miracles, and eschatology. But these doctrines can still be affirmed: God is still Creator, miracle-worker, and hope for final redemption. They may need recasting, however, in light of God’s persistently persuasive love. Such recasting is not new to Wesleyans, because they typically try to propose Christian doctrines in light of divine love.[2]
God’s Persuasive Power
The main point of this section, then, is that the power God exercises in the missional adventure to seek and to save the lost is persuasive power. Missional theologians may prefer one form of divine self-limitation over the other. But they together affirm that God’s power operates through love. God’s kenotic love, revealed in Jesus, is primarily if not exclusively the power of persuasion. God calls instead of controls.
Those called to missions – which includes us all – ought to follow the kenotic example of Jesus: we should express empowering, relational love.
[1] John Wesley, “On Divine Providence,” Sermon 67, The Works of John Wesley, vol. 2 (Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon, 1985) paragraph 15.
[2] See, for instance, my book, The Nature of Love: A Theology (St. Louis, Mo.: Chalice, 2010).
Newsletter
For a 200-page book of Thomas Jay Oord's best-selling writings and to receive his newsletter, add your email address...
Comments
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.
There are so many good points made in this post. I really like the way Dr. Oord balances the mystery of God with pretending to know all the answers – life calls for at least some tentative conclusions. Whether or not we think about them deeply, we must live according to some conclusion (no conclusion is also a decision). It behooves us, therefore, to deliberate with a measure of perseverance.
I love the summary statements that return like a strong and sweet refrain or chorus: We ought to, are enabled to, and want to (or at least want to want to) imitate God in becoming the kind of persons who lovingly live out empowering and relational mission for the sake of others. I affirm this vision.
All theologies have an element of mystery to them, and essential kenoticism is no exception. So I think it would be better to go with Scripture over philosophy at this point and claim a little mystery . The theory Dr. Oord presents lacks what I want to coin as the “Fun Party Trick” idea. Jesus turning water into wine seems to be clearly an act of coercion, and it goes against Dr. Oord’s own hope that we should take what Scripture says more seriously when he says this is still an act of persuasion. When Jesus commands the winds and waves to stop now we no longer should take Scripture seriously but bend it to our theology. This is what traditionalists do!
In addition to these Scriptural examples we have other Biblical examples of God stopping evil from happening. I will start from Genesis and work my way forward just to show how prevalent it is. 1. God drove out Adam and Eve to prevent them ruining the garden even more 2. The Great Flood to prevent evil form getting out of hand 3. The confusion of languages to prevent man getting a big head. 4. Egyptians getting diseases to protect Sarah. I ran out of my word limit. But there is countless more examples.
“God’s power as involuntary self-limitation says God controlling others entirely – coercion – would require God to deny God’s loving nature. And that’s impossible… even for God.”
It is no surprise that this statement/idea aligns with the reading for this week since it’s from your book and your blog. I keep hearing all the scriptures and phrases we teach kids:
-Nothing is impossible when you put your faith in God (lyric)
-With God, ALL things are possible.
-My God is so big, so strong and so mighty there’s nothing my God cannot do for you!
-Nothing would be impossible (Matt 17:20)
-Humanly speaking, it is impossible. But with God everything is possible. (Matt 19:26)
-For nothing is impossible with God (Luke 1:37)
What do we do as a Church with all these possibles and impossibles? Some we affirm through tradition and others we read in scripture?
I agree wholeheartedly that, “[w]e should express empowering, relational love.” If God both gives to and receives love from creatures, there is no higher calling than to love in the pattern of God’s love. We are called and commanded to love both God and the created world. I have been on the receiving end of God’s love, and empirically know that it transforms.
However, like Hans Deventer’s reply, above, I struggle to see the hope at a theological level. If God is involuntarily limited in what God is able to do, and humans continue to choose sin instead of love, then how do things ever really change? The hope of the world is Jesus, through the Body known as the Church. We look to the assurance that it is God’s nature to love, but are left with a logical gap at believing, with Rob Bell and others, that “Love Wins.”
I think the idea of “God Can’t” is an adjustment for most of us. I think for most of us, we are more comfortable with (or perhaps more used to) speaking in term of “God Would Never.”
Certainly, God would never sin, God would never lie, God would never hate, God would never manipulate, God would never… fill in the blank. What are the things that are so contrary to who God is that we can say, “God Can’t.” In my mind, I am thinking that these are essentially the same thing, but it is a difficult hurdle to get over. It this due to habit or that age old question of, “Can God make a rock that God cannot life?”
I think it is good and right to approach theology in this way. If someone said to me, “Stop being human.” I wouldn’t say, “Oh, I would never stop being human.” Instead I would say, “I can’t do that!” By doing this with God, we can make some helpful conclusions!
I believe that God indeed empowers instead of overpower. He persuades rather than coerces. His exercise of divine ought to be consistent. It cannot be at one times persuasive, and at others coercive. Redemption history witnesses a persuasive and empowering God. Many of us have difficulties in believing God can make miracles happen by persuasion because more powerful coercion is in a better position to achieve the purpose. Critics argues that it is uncertain for God to achieve anything by persuasive power. I think we are again putting God in a box. Scripture always witnesses power in apparent weakness. Figuring out how God persuades atomic particles to cooperate is beyond everyone’s comprehension. But I believe if God can raise up a stone to praise him, it cannot be by coercion.
In the world we see the perils of coercion, be they in military or economic realm, as well as the success of empowerment and persuasion. I believe in God’s nature as love in persuasion. We should imitate him in our daily lives.
I find it interesting here that we are to fill the role of a servant as Jesus did when so many Christians run for office in the church much like a politician runs for public office. I have seen lives ruined and people crushed.However, when we look at the model of Jesus in the Bible it is nothing for him to kneel before his peers and wash their feet. I also find it interesting that he allowed Mary to wash his feet and dry them with her hair. Not that it was wrong but that it was an interesting contrast and yet extremly fitting in light of the discussion here. I love that we are not allowed to be stuck up self righteous not nice people but instead we are to be humble enough to wash the feet of those who trample us, or even betray us (like Judas). Thank you so much for this essay it has taken me a little further in knowledge of who I should be.
There is a difference between the idea that God “can’t” and God “won’t”.
Just because it is not in someone’s or something’s nature to do a thing does not mean that they are incapable of doing so or simply can’t do it. What it means is that “all things being equal” they are unlikely to do it. Although admittedly a bad example – it is normal (within the nature of) human beings to walk upright on two legs since we are bipeds. It is within their power to instead walk on all fours as they did before they learned to walk. But, although they can it is unlikely that they will.
God, being God, can do anything -including the familiar “create a rock He couldn’t move” – but it is extremely unlikely that He would. So given what God has revealed about Himself and His nature I think the some of the arguments about what God can or cant do, whether he could or should intervene to prevent “evil”, while interesting intellectual exercises, are often wasted energy.
The power of Essential Kenosis lies in the love of God. Because of this, a lot of time has been focused on the what God can not do because of His love and less time on the positives of God being love. The power of God’s love as missional needs to be highlighted and moved upon because it is this power of love that will hunt down those not in relationship with Jesus yet
There is still a great deal of mystery to be had without it being our default position when it comes to talking about God’s power. Essential Kenosis allows us to say something about important issues such as theodicy, the resurrection, and miracles. We know the why, but we still do not know the how. And in my opinion, that is okay. Essential Kenosis explains why God does not intervene in the way we want God to intervene, because God’s love prohibits complete coercion.
I see this God as loving, but limited, and this seems to be better than a God who is all-powerful, but is essentially stingy (or unpredictable) with use of power. Describing God in terms of Essential Kenosis allows God to be predictable and loving, not capricious and essentially cruel. A god who can stop evil but does not is complicit in the evil that has been perpetrated.
I really like the idea that God empowers, not overpowers. We look at God’s power flowing out of his nature – God is love. I think this is a much better way to look at how God relates to creation. Everything God is and does is rooted in love. The alternative is God is big and bad but sometimes, somehow manages to hold back exerting almighty power over us little pawns in a big universal chess game.
The idea that God empowers rather than overpowers – that God calls rather than controls – is important for our own spiritual formation, our own growth and sense of self-worth, and for relating to others.
So many people who have no use for organized religion have the idea that God – if one exists, is looking down on us as insignificant little bugs and can’t wait to squish us. If I believed that about God, I would probably find it much easier to not believe at all.
God can’t? For me, the very notion of an omnipotent God who is unable to do something was foreign to my theological sensibilities. I assumed that an omnipotent God had the capacity for unlimited freedom. My own understanding of omnipotence was the hermeneutic that I would apply to such scriptural statements as, God cannot lie, tempt, or even deny himself. I reasoned, that if almighty God chooses to lie or deny himself, etc., the divine possessed the absolute freedom, power, and wisdom to do so. Of course, all divine choses would always be done in the name of “love” and for the benefit of all creation. My finite mind may not be able to comprehend such decisions but church tradition has taught me to trust such a God. What my small mindedness may at times perceive as arbitrary decisions are in reality God’s perfect preference. The divine ways are always greater than mine.
Until Dr. Oord introduced me to process, open, and Essential Kenosis theology, I believed that the God of Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, etc. was the biblically authentic God, regardless of my experiences of this deity. The ideas of Essential Kenosis affirming involuntary divine self-limitation, and the fact that God must love presents us with a God who is integrated, consistent and always trustworthy. I have discovered that by believing in the God of Essential Kenosis, I no longer have to make excuses or perform mental gymnastics in order to proclaim such a deity.
I think what thought meant the most for me was, “Perhaps it’s best to say God empowers rather than overpowers” (Dr. Oord). Since being diagnosed with stage 4 cancer and told I would not make it (live), I have found this to be truth in every aspects of God for me. When all the decision’s for my life had to be made, I never once felt God overpowering me to choose for example; this treatment over that treatment; or this surgery over that surgery. I felt God empowered me to make the conscious choice for my betterment on my own. This is not to say that I did not pray about everything and ask for wisdom and guidance in my choices; because I do and continue to do so even today. I just did not feel God saying, “You will do this or that because I said to!” Or taking away options to make me do one and not another.
I had others tell me, “Let us lay hands on you and anoint you” at the urging of pastor’s and for a while I allowed this. However, I cannot say that I ever felt the hand of God in any of it overpowering the delivery system. Many times it seemed as though it was being done because it was the “church thing” to do. However, there were some where I felt the delivery system was empowered in what they were doing. I had a pastor friend in his message this week say, We do not get healing because we have sin in our lives and because we as a church do not lay hands and anoint those who are sick. We need to do this more to show the power of God.” He looked at me and I shook my head in the “no” motion because I knew what he wanted to do. I just do not feel that is the proper way to go about something like this because it is a “church supposed to” thing. I think with this we overpower God rather than allowing God’s empowering in our lives. Just my thoughts.
In the blog you emphasize understanding God’s self limitation as voluntary. It seems you would argue that God cannot use any methods of coercion over creation because that would require God to deny His loving nature. While this makes sense in theory and fits within a theology of love, how do we reconcile the biblical narratives where God does overpower creation. The narratives of healing are examples of overpowering nature and body. The examples of parting the red sea (nature) in order to set free the Hebrew people. The notorious example of God hardening Pharoah’s heart. I believe that saying God picks and chooses when to coerce and when not to is an inconsistency. I also want my theology to reconcile all of the previous examples, and it does not seem to do so without reinterpreting these Scriptural accounts through different lenses. Do you see a way to reconcile the two?
How could a loving God allow for all of the evil that is in the world? This is truly the question that s being examined here. There are some that would say that God is God, and he can do whatever he wants. Others see God as a creator who has removed himself from human affairs. It seems to me that kenosis says that God can allow evil because he loves the world so much that he will not force his will. I would still question if this is truly love? What has happened to the sovereignty of God? Are we now at the point of saying what God will and will not do? Yes, there are things that God simply cannot do because they are outside of his nature. However, being missional may mean that there are simply some answers about God that neither you nor I can give.
It seems like the presence of evil in the world is of great consternation for those wanting to limit God’s sovereignty. If I am to understand essential kenosis as being presented, God is not able to interfere in cases of great evil because His self-limitation is involuntary. If this is true, God just got neutered and stripped of His divine character. We serve a god that is not all-powerful and has no ability to stop great evil. I’m not sure why this is any better than a God that can stop great evil, and has on many occasions over the history of humanity, but does not stop every instance of evil. It is impossible for humanity to understand God completely, especially dealing with the root of evil in the world. God’s great love compelled Him to give freewill to humanity and this freewill comes, unfortunately, with risk of things going array. Ultimately though, I would rather serve a God that does retain the power to overcome evil and in the end promises to do so. Serving a god powerless to stop any evil does nothing to inspire me.
Involuntary self limiting does seem to help with the issue of evil, but I still struggle with what is happening in many situations of the Bible that seem to go against Essential Kenosis. Situations like the flood, or of the Israelites destroying the people of the promised land, these situations do not seem to line up with a loving God. These things make me ask questions like, Did God cause or bring about the flood, or was it evil that brought it about? I understand that our freedoms to choose certainly have gotten us in trouble, speaking of myself I know that there have been times when I know I have chosen to go against God’s ways on things and have later paid the consequences.
There are always consequences to our actions, good or bad, God does not choose for us, but when we do choose He knows the outcomes of our choices. This freedom does line up with a God that loves. I am still wrapping my mind around this theology and especially how it deals with the power of God, and essential kenosis.
Lately I’ve been considering open theology and essential kenosis as a model for parenting. It appears to me many Christian parents operate out of fear…fear of decisions a child might make, fear of the worlds influence, fear they won’t be Christian, etc. The result?—parents overpowering instead of empowering their children. Perhaps as we kenotically love our children we empower them with the freedom to choose. Kids can sense fear, but they also sense when they’ve been empowered. Often my wife will ask our 3 and 4 year old boys, “Well, what are you going to do about that?” Or my other favorite, “what might we do to solve that problem?” Empowering parenting models a God who loves…not a God who overpowers. Maybe this could guide many Christian families?
One of the interesting things about a kenotic understanding of God, whether the essential or the voluntary versions, is that it is often completely overlooked. People like a strong, kingly God, who is powerful enough to dominate his opponents until they eventually are vanquished. They like the surety of sovereignty. But why should we expect that God is any different than the one that Jesus came to preach to us? Turn the other cheek? Love your enemies? Care for the poor? These aren’t just comments given to potential disciples in order to shape a distinctive set of attributes. They are descriptions of the almighty God! God serves us in the muck of our lives, never leaving us, and tells us to do likewise with those who are hurting. This is a picture of the upside down message that is the gospel: it turns all the status quo conventions on their heads. So why shouldn’t we expect to find that the all-powerful God has demonstrated that the way we conceive of his power needs to be turned upside down? God has chosen to take the foolish sounding things of the world to confound the wise: what sounds more foolish than a God who demonstrates his supreme power by wrapping himself in a towel and washing feet? What a fascinating God we seek!
I do appreciate the fact that, God does not force us on to missions, but calls us to be partners in seeking and serving the lost. To accomplish such a great task, His love (kenosis) empowers us. From this perspective, I see God who desires to partner with Him in accomplishing His mission to the world. He does not operate to impose on people but to call them as co-workers in building His Kingdom. From this theological perspective, I see a loving and empowering God.
Frank
Waving a “white flag” and calling something part of the mystery of God doesn’t appeal to the best part of us. God is mystery, but God is disclosing; he wants us to join him in the journey of mutual discovery.
The biblical idea that there are things God cannot do must be troublesome for determinists, but it allows for a kenotic God to be in loving relationship with creation. The kenotic hymn is the right place to start, although I wonder if it provides some challenges to your presentation. The passage itself seems to indicate that the emptying implies condescension; there was “something” he was, and he gave it up. There was a position he held, but he let go of it. This might validate a self-limiting God, as Pinnock proposes. I agree, though, that this does not solve the problem of evil, which you address.
Thanks for articulating the difference between empowering and overpowering, coercion and persuasion. I wonder, though: when we “surrender” to God, aren’t we giving him permission to coerce?
When I think of the words “I am making all things new,” I can’t but help but wonder if God wants to renew how we see and envision His power. When we think of the word power, many envision someone who is in control and is able to overpower anything that comes their way. If God is willing to self-limit in order to allow free will or to express His love, then wanting to follow a God who doesn’t use His power to coerce is freeing. I love that fact that God’s loving nature compels God to empower and never overpower others. This is actually contradictory how our world operates today, which may even be the reason for many of the evils that exist today.
In this passage from scripture, we are called into mission not by overpowering those around us, but by our willingness to “empty ourselves” as servants to them. If the main point of the section is to help seek and safe the lost, then our love for those around us should be the same as this “Kinetic” love that is displayed in Christ Jesus. God isn’t forcing His power onto us to move us into mission; instead God by example is empowering us to join Him on mission. Which means, it is through God’s power that we will be able to bear witness to this Kinetic love that is found in Jesus.
“God calls instead of controls” I can’t imagine believing anything else. If God were an all controlling God then we would “love” him because he says we should love Him. I am so thankful that, that is not the case. God woos us to love him. We love because he first loved us and wooed us to himself through his prevenient grace. As disciples we are called to be on mission and to give love to those around us.
It is somewhat difficult for many Christians to talk about things God cannot do because the perception is that it somehow implies he is less powerful. That is why the argument for things God can’t do is so powerful. It is easily accepted that God cannot lie because we know it goes against his nature. True, he has the power to tell a lie, but his perfect character prevents this. We can accept that, but when we are talking about kenosis it is somehow more difficult.
The argument for an involuntary self-limiting is the same for that of God’s lack of ability to lie. If God told a lie everything else about who God is would be a falsehood. He cannot lie because of his perfect character. Kenosis must happen because it is also his character. If God’s character does not change it is not possible that God choose to not self-limit.
God cannot be what God is not. It is somewhat amusing how vehemently opposed people can be to the idea that God “can’t” do something, as if that somehow makes God less than who God really is. But by the very fact that God cannot coerce because God is love and love does not coerce, God shows God’s own self to be perfectly consistent, good, loving, and powerful. Is not the power of love the greatest power of all? If so, then when God exercises such power out of the very essence of who God is, it ‘proves’ God to be the greatest power of all. No one is more powerful than God, because God always and consistently exercises the most powerful power there is: the power of love. And there are some things that love simply cannot do and remain loving. I am thankful for an all powerful God that cannot do some things!
Going back to last week, I think this still ties well with prevenient grace. I think that this type of theology and prevenient grace still work hand-in-hand. What I hear you saying is that God does not overpower people in order to give them a choice. While I think much of your book is about the problem of evil, I see this post as much more broad. It would seem that a God who does not coerce, allows us to love freely, entirely. This is much more appealing than believing that God would ever make me do something.
This should follow us into missions. If we are to be in the image of God, we cannot coerce either (I think of bullhorns blasting, sign holding Christians) because it goes against who we were created to be. This is has a much bigger impact on the way we work with the poor and people who are different than us. My friend at the shelter must learn to stand on her own, not because I forced her to, or God forced her to, but because I am persistent that she can do it, and teaching her the steps to do that. I must work to imitate God, and not force people into anything, but to show them there is a better way.
Dr. Oord, I respect your views and am thankful to you for opening my mind to many new things. After our class I myself have become an open theology believer and certainly hope to continue down this road. There is a statement, “Although often unnoticed, the Babe offers examples of things God cannot do. (E.g., God cannot lie; God cannot tempt)” that you made that caught my attention. If I take this same thought and apply it to His nature of love then it is true that He “cannot” not love us. But then how can the writer of Hebrews say, “Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated”? (Romans 9:13) To me involuntary self-limitations because of God’s nature of love would keep him from hating and why I am cannot get over the mental block about using the word “involuntary”. I agree with you on most of your thoughts on “essential kenosis” especially as it relates to empowering verses overpowering and do believe this is about God viewing us in the light of His countenance. It is why I have seen the CON also focus on compassionate humanitarian work as part of their missional zeal to empower and bring forth a holistic ministry to those they are ministering in the name of Christ.
First, thinking along the lines of evil first of all, because of Adam sin, disease and death entered the world but God’s a covenant keeping God even though we are not. God was going to deal with evil by completely destroying the world and starting over but there was Noah, a righteous man who both loved and feared God.
As much as God loves us, Satan hates us. God, sending His only begotten Son to save the world, is true agape love; Jesus laying down His life for us while we were still sinners. Satan has and will do everything in his power and at his disposal to attempt to stop Christ’s work. The question, “how can a loving God allow sin into the world?” should rather be put forth like this: “How can humanity deny Jesus, the One sent to save us from evil?”
There is a big push on how Essential Kenosis solves the problem of evil. I can’t help but wonder if God does not already stop so much more evil that happens in our world than what we know. I believe that God intervenes in powerful ways when we pray. Our prayers are not always answered how we may wish or expect but I believe that those prayer are answered. How does prayer work with a God who cannot powerfully intervene? How can we explain miracle stories where people are healed? All of this is evidence to me of a God who powerfully intervenes.
All that aside I love the conclusion of this post and could not agree more. Those called to mission are at their best when expressing empowering relational love.
For me, I am still having a bit of a hard time with seeing God’s self-limitations as being involuntary based on the influence free will has in the world. The idea that God’s self-limitation is involuntary, then it is not imposed on God. God is love and all other good and perfect gifts come from God.
“Those called to missions – which includes us all – ought to follow the kenotic example of Jesus: we should express empowering, relational love.” These words are very powerful for the mission of God. If we were to follow this example of leadership and life style, what a transformation we would see in the church and in the society.
At the beginning, I had a hard time to accept God’s self-limitation as involuntary, but reflecting on what you said in your book, The nature of Love, about the almighty God having “infinite resources” and love channels through which he can deliver his grace and help, it really made a difference in how I view God. God working only through love, in sinful world, is more powerful then a God who can force us into his own desires
I would agree that empowering describes a servant style of influence. So, in our effort to love in the way Christ modeled, what does (or should) this empowering look like in the Church today? Hearing Gustavo Crocker’s message at M15 I think I heard him say that we need to empower future leaders by giving the work of the Church into their hands. Not meaning that it is time for old people to retire but meaning that it is through emptying ourselves of a need for power, recognition and platform that we provide a place for the young leaders God is calling. However, what I hear does not seem to line up with what I see. Not necessarily referring to Gustavo–but referring to the denomination as a whole. I wonder if we get scared of this posture Jesus modeled so well? I wonder if emptying ourselves in order to allow space for God’s persuasive power to work causes us to feel as if we are about to self-abandon rather than do the necessary work of making space.
Dr. Oord, I appreciate the risk that you take in talking about the power of God – I think this matches God’s nature as a risk-taker 🙂
Your comment, “But a tentative proposal is much better than throwing up our hands and saying ‘let’s not talk about God’s power, because we’ll end up putting God in a box’,” is really well placed because so many times we feel like we have to be on one end of the spectrum or the other in terms of talking about God’s power. Either we arrogantly assume that we can know everything or we (also, in my opinion, arrogantly) assume that we can know nothing and so we refuse to even discuss it or think about it. But if God is relational, then wouldn’t He want to be known, or at least tried to be known? God is not aloof and Paul says that God is not far off (Acts 17), so if that’s true, then why would He want us to think of Him totally as a mystery. And further, if we are to think of Him as a mystery, then why would Scripture, and even Jesus Himself, tell us to experience God and to imitate Him?
And I love your application that we should all strive to be like Jesus – in empowering others and loving them in a relational way. I think this is really convicting but really necessary for the church to own for itself and act upon!
I like how it is stated that God empowers us rather than overpower us. This too goes back to the very nature of God which is a nature of love. I couldn’t help but to think about it terms of us with others. It really is an act of love when we chose to empower someone verses doing it for them (overpowering).
“God cannot deny himself.” I am still not sure if I have wrapped my head around “essential kenosis” or not. But I am begging to see that it is because of his loving nature that God does what he does. With each answer comes more questions:)
This particular Blog captivates the heart and mind in seeing God as one who is incapable of not loving us due to His nature. Yet the question that I cannot find an answer to is whether God can hate? If this nature is involuntary and God is love due to His nature and it is through love He must deal with all of creation then how does a God who is bent on making right that went wrong deal with “evil” as it relates to Satan and with those who do not want to be redeemed or refuse to make the positive response to God’s love. Does this mean that Satan as we know it will not be destroyed? Or thrown into that pit? Does God not hate evil? Or those who are bent on evil?
I agree with you on most of your thoughts on “essential kenosis” especially as it relates to empowering verses overpowering and do believe that God is seeking a partnership with us to bring a well-being and goodness in the world. But Scripture does state that God does hate that which is evil and I do wish we had more time to discuss how a God with an involuntary nature of love deal the person of Satan according to your theological view.
I enjoyed what Dr. Oord had to say about God’s persuasive love. This idea that God empowers rather than overpowers is very important for our own spiritual growth. God doesn’t use His divine power to force, coerce or overwhelm us to serve Him. God’s persuasive power will always allow us the free will to choose or not to choose Him. That is how we experience His love. If God had forced us to love and obey Him, the devotion He would receive can better be described as coercive obedience, not love.
Moreover, “[t]hose called to missions – which includes us all – ought to follow the kenotic example of Jesus: we should express empowering, relational love.” What a great way to finish the post! To be a missional leader is to be a missional servant. Jesus Christ gives us the greatest example of love and appreciation for human beings. He extended love through action, and that’s how we should live. We should be missional people whose motivation and orientation are love and service. In order to be authentic witnesses of God’s Mission in the world we should not enforce our message to anybody but be in constant dialogue and interaction with the world.
The idea that God empowers and doesn’t overpower should give us a lot of hope and peace. God is a God who works with us to bring His kingdom to earth. We don’t have to worry about whether or not God chose us for the task at hand. Rather, as Christians we can be confident that God is working with us all through His missional call to be ambassadors of the Gospel. To follow the kenotic example of Jesus, which means to be relational, to empty ourselves, and to empower others should be the goal of all Christians every day. This mission doesn’t have to be something that we endlessly prepare for with an unreachable goal in mind, but it should be how we love those around us each and every day.
I truly believe that considering the power of God is necessary for what we do to endorse a missional God. That being the case, I don’t know that God is necessarily limited to empowering alone. I get the move you make in saying that God necessarily loves and that love necessitates agency and freedom for us to love God back; however, I do not know that it is not the case that if God were to coerce or unilaterally act that would remove our agency entirely. This seems to imply a dominos effect that if we let God do one thing coercively, all things begin to be coercive. It may be the case that God’s love does in fact necessitate a non-coercive God, but I don’t know that there is proper evidence for that to be the case.
If we approach it from a culpability argument in that God is required to not be coercive to keep the God from being culpable for evil occurring in the world, then this does seem to bring proper evidence and support that necessitates God to not be able to act coercively in any instance. But I don’t think simply God being all loving is limited by God acting coercively.
When it comes to talking about his power, I don’t want to end up putting God in a box. Just kidding. I mean, I really don’t want to put God in a box when it comes to his power (or anything else concerning him). However, I just opened with that line because of Dr. Oord’s warning against it at the beginning of his post.
The two possible ways of thinking about God’s “self-limitation” or “servant-style power” outlined here both have merit and they both make good sense to me. Since we currently only know partly and won’t know fully until some future time, it’s hard for me to argue convincingly for the traditional view (for lack of a better term) or against Dr. Oord’s Essential Kenosis theory. I firmly believe God is love and that because of his love for us, he does not coerce us either to love him back or to act in love towards his creation. While it is his desire that we do both, he does not force us to do either. Having said that, I’m not quite convinced that God’s non-coercive, give and take, risky relationship with us necessarily proves that his self-limitation is essential to his nature and not something he chose for himself. The scriptures and the Wesley quote cited here are strong, supportive evidence that God does not control us. However, they are inconclusive, in my opinion, when it comes to how he came to that persuasive – as opposed to coercive – power posture.
I totally agree with the conclusion of Oord’s post: “God calls instead of controls.” I pray we can all agree that Jesus followers should minister in a similar fashion.
“God cannot deny himself.”
This really does sum up the whole equation. It’s not that God can’t do something, or respectively can do something, but that because of who God is, defined as love, is persuasive instead of coercive because God believes in the freedom to choose. In and through love God compels us to choose to participate in His mission of love. While it might seem easier for God to just intervene at any given moment, and there are times when many of us wish this, God instead chooses to work with and through creation. We get the opportunity to participate and give up ourselves in the same way that God continues to do so for us.
I believe that many will get stuck on some of the issues, like you stated, especially our understanding of the creation story, but when we understand that God can’t be put into a box by creation but chooses to work alongside and through it God’s love shows itself in ever-clearer ways.
I’m still processing the understanding of involuntary self-limitation, because it something outside my normal thinking, but the more that I wrestle with it, the more that I lean towards agreement. If we can agree to come together to follow Jesus’ love commands we will do well to replicate God’s love for all creation; love God, love others.
In life, we have “ah ha!” moments. I just had one of these upon understanding that Dr. Oord and I do agree when it comes to Essential Kenosis. God, upon creating humankind, gave free will to us, out of his love for us. Because of this, it is an impossibility for God to coerce or interfere with our free will. It basically would make him a liar, and since God is the truth, he cannot lie, much like light and dark cannot occupy the same space due to the laws of physics.
If God were able to change the law of essential kenosis, then Jesus would not have had to die. God could have simply changed his essence to allow himself to be in the presence of sin. However, since that is an impossibility, Jesus had to come to make way for us to join God forever in heaven. This same impossibility applies to God removing our free will. It simply cannot be done, as a gift given (free will,) cannot be taken back.
I love the image of God’s nature as love. It’s not something He chooses to express but is the essence of His nature, “God is love”. We often miss this amazing distinction. Yes, God loves, but it’s not a choice it simply is who He is. The necessary love of God then manifests in God’s power and activity in the world, His persuasive touch. As I read your post Dr. Oord my mind kept returning to Jesus’ words in the gospel of John 17:23, “I have given them the glory You gave Me, so that they may be one as We are one— 23I in them and You in Me — that they may be perfectly united, so that the world may know that You sent Me and have loved them just as You have loved Me. ” As we respond to God’s persuasive nature of love we discover our nature is a reflection of His. In that way, as you share in your post, we are to also not just express love, but we are to reflect God’s nature and be love as He is love.
This article is a great wrap up to this week’s reading and discussion. I really enjoyed reading the section about empowering and not overpowering. I wish that everyone in church leadership would get an understanding of this and put it into practice.
I like the example given about God not overpowering evil because of His love for people. At first this seems a little odd but it makes a lot of sense. God gives people free will because He loves them and, if He were to step in to overpower people’s sinful, evil behavior we would not really have free will. God does this out of love. This could be the answer to the age old question, why does a good God let so much evil happen in the world?