Open and Relational Biblical Issues

Chad Bahl and I contributed a chapter to a massive handbook on postconservative interpretation. The book is aimed at college students, and our task was to sketch out an open and relational vision.

Here’s what we wrote…

Open and Relational Hermeneutics

Open and Relational Theology (ORT) addresses key questions about biblical inspiration, interpretation, inerrancy, authority, and more through a particular theological lens. In this essay, we explore those questions. We cannot account for every opinion of those who rightly fit within the ORT camp. But we identify common themes to shed light on the promise of this approach to biblical issues.[1] (see also “The Bible Proves Open Theology?”) We believe ORT provides plausible and livable approaches to scripture, and Christians would do well to adopt this theological framework.

Basic Ideas in Open and Relational Theology

Open and Relational Theology (ORT) represents a wide umbrella of diverse perspectives. Those under that umbrella share at least two ideas, corresponding with the label with which they identify:

Open – God experiences time sequentially, moment by moment. The future is open.

Relational – God and creation relate by giving and receiving. God is relational.[2]

These two ideas capture what ORT thinkers believe correlates with the general way biblical writers talk about who God is and how God acts.[3] They also fit our experience of reality, because we experience existence as open and relational. But they stand at odds with traditional theologies that characterize God as timeless and impersonal, which makes a difference when considering scripture.

Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Anselm, Martin Luther, and John Calvin are among the influential theologians who believed God to be nonrelational and timeless. They thought creatures and creation do not affect or influence God. They also believed God does not respond emotionally to creatures. Anselm, for instance, said God was compassionate only when considered from the human perspective. But God is not compassionate as God actually is. Anselm adopts the classic view of impassibility, because compassion would involve God being emotionally influenced by those who suffer.

ORT, in contrast, says God both affects creation and creation affects God. God really suffers when we suffer and rejoices when we rejoice. This view fits the general witness of scripture, which portrays God as emotionally engaged. ORT takes as straightforward biblical claims about God responding to what creatures do, including becoming angry, sad, happy, or proud of creatures, depending on their actions. Creatures partner with their Creator, which means they influence God and help decide outcomes.

Biblical writers describe God as an experiential agent who experiences time moment by moment. Rather than timeless or “outside time,” God is everlastingly timefull or “inside time.” Some in the ORT community say God has everlastingly been creating. They embrace the biblically supported view that God creates from chaos. Other ORT thinkers say God related timefully in Trinity prior to creating the universe out of nothing (creatio ex nihilo).

Further, ORT rejects the idea God predestined everything from all eternity. And it rejects the notion God exhaustively foreknows the future. After all, the future could only be known with certainty if it was already settled. We find this ORT perspective illustrated when God expresses regret and disappointment over how things turned out.[4] And when the biblical writers portray God as surprised,[5] and uncertain whether Israel will remain faithful.[6] The Bible witnesses to this point of view when it shows God as having a change of mind, often because of our prayers.[7] And ORT is exemplified by passages that portray God as laying out possibilities of what may or may not happen, depending on what creatures choose.[8]

Those in the ORT tradition resist claims that history is a prerecorded album, simply playing over time. They affirm rather that it’s an improvisation, an in-the-moment composition with no specific predetermined outcome. Existence is an open-ended adventure, and God has goals for the flourishing and beauty of creation. God has plans but does not control creatures. The Bible, in general, supports this view.

An Open and Relational Framework

It is easy to see how the premises of ORT can aid in establishing a helpful hermeneutical framework. Below we suggest four key principles that embody Open and Relational biblical interpretation.: love as primary, Jesus as paragon, God as uncontrolling, and inspiration as dynamic. Later, we put these themes to the test as we explore a passage of Scripture traditionally considered difficult for an Open and Relational perspective.

Love as Primary

Critical to most ORT thinkers are claims about God’s love and God’s desire that creatures love in return. These claims come from the Bible where love towers as a theme, being directly addressed 686 times. No biblical writer gives a more succinct argument for the centrality of love within the divine than the Apostle John when he states: “God is love” (1 Jn. 4:8,16). The Open and Relational thinker sees the accounting of God’s love as scripture’s fundamental aim and takes seriously the primacy it receives throughout the biblical narrative.[9] ORT rejects classical theism’s proclivity to minimize love in lieu of other attributes, such as sovereignty and control. ORT advocates often start with love when thinking about who God is and what God desires.

ORT supporters often say scripture’s fundamental theme is love. The description of God as loving recurs often: “The Lord, the Lord, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin…” (Exod. 34:6-7). Indeed: “Though the mountains be shaken, and the hills be removed, yet my unfailing love for you will not be shaken nor my covenant of peace be removed.” (Isa. 54:10) This depiction occurs more often in the Old Testament than any other description of God, although it takes various forms.[10] ORT scholar Richard Rice concludes, “Love is the essence of divine reality, the basic source from which all of God’s attributes arise.”[11]

While the broad biblical witness points to a God who loves relentlessly, ORT scholars admit some passages do not portray God as loving. They take various approaches to claim scripture is authoritative, without claiming the Bible is a systematic theology or inerrant. A common interpretive move says the general drift of scripture and the revelation of God in Jesus points to a God who loves persistently, even though a minority of passages might say otherwise.[12]

Jesus as Paragon

The revelation of God in Jesus Christ plays an important role in how ORT Christians interpret the Bible. Many build from claims like Jesus is “the image of the invisible God,” and the one in whom “all the fullness” of God dwells (Col. 1:15,19). The writer of Hebrews echoes this sentiment when saying Jesus is “the exact representation of [God’s] being” (1:3). And Jesus declares, “I and the Father are one.” (John 10:30)[13]

According to most ORT thinkers, Jesus’ love best reveals God’s nature. Jesus healed the sick (Jn 9:1-7), cared for the poor (Mt 25:41-43), loved those difficult to love (Jn 4:1-26), and fought against injustice (Mt 7:3-5). He was more concerned with serving than being served (Jn 13:1-17). And He would much rather suffer with others than wield power over them (Lk 22:47-53). ORT thinkers are reluctant to assign any action to God inconsistent with the love witnessed to in Jesus.

When interpreting biblical passages pertaining to divine providence, classical theists typically start with a view of sovereignty that says God ordains or permits all that occurs. This starting point makes it difficult to account for biblical stories that portray God as violent. After all, in more than a thousand passages, notes biblical scholar Eric Seibert, “God drowns humanity, sends plagues, hardens hearts, annihilates ‘sinners,’ instigates wars, and even commands genocide. By the time you reach the end of the Old Testament,” says Seibert, “God has killed (or sanctioned the killing of) nearly 2.5 million people.”[14]

When ORT thinkers address biblical violence, they begin by believing God is loving. This prompts them to question biblical accounts that portray God as cruel, vengeful, or ruthless. Such a view of God fits better with the revelation found in Jesus and our deepest moral intuitions. The result is a vision that fits the repeated biblical portrayals of God as a loving parent, friend, leader, or partner. An ORT model “takes Scripture very seriously,” says Clark Pinnock, “especially the dynamic, personal metaphors.”[15]

God as Uncontrolling

Another key idea in ORT says creatures have real agency. Complex creatures like humans have genuine but limited freedom. Love seems to require a degree of freedom, and those who love do not take away freedom from others. Because God loves creatures and creation, God does not overpower or control. Instead, God calls, empowers, and offers creatures the possibility to engage in creative partnership.

The relationship between God’s power and creaturely power has been an ongoing discussion in Christian history. If “divine omnipotence” means God exerts all power or always controls, ORT rejects it.[16] But ORT thinkers do not say God is powerless. Rather than controlling like a dictator tries to do, God works persuasively and responsively like a loving parent. In an Open and Relational accounting of providence, perfect power is persuasive power. God guides creatures of diverse complexities toward what is good, even in the most desperate situations. ORT thinkers sometimes argue that it takes more power to love than to control by fiat.

Traditional theologies claim God governs creatures by direct or indirect control. One tradition says everything is predetermined as part of a timeless master plan. Other traditions say God allows or permits genuinely evil events, even though God could stop them. In these theologies, God is a controlling Architect working from a predetermined blueprint, or a Fixer singlehandedly producing outcomes. Traditional theologian R. C. Sproul captures this view: “The movement of every molecule, the actions of every planet, the falling of every star, the choices of every volitional creature, all of these are subject to His sovereign will. No maverick molecules run loose in the universe…if such a molecule existed, it could be the critical fly in the eternal ointment.”[17] ORT advocates would disagree.

Some ORT thinkers say God could have created a universe in which there was no free will. “God is a superior power who does not cling to his right to dominate and control,” says Clark Pinnock, “but who voluntarily gives creatures room to flourish.”[18] This approach says free creatures cause evil using the freedom God voluntarily gives them. “If God genuinely gives an agent the ability to freely choose,” argues Gregory Boyd, “God must allow the agent to go [her own way] regardless of how much God might want the agent to choose otherwise.”[19]

Other ORT thinkers say God must give freedom and cannot control. They make this claim, in part, because they believe a God who allows evil is morally responsible for failing to stop it. For them, God’s self-giving, others-empowering love is essential to who God is.[20]  Thomas Jay Oord makes this argument: “God cannot control people, other creatures, or circumstances that cause evil. Because God always loves and God’s love is uncontrolling, God cannot control anyone or anything.”[21] In other words, God’s love is uncontrolling by nature.

Whether voluntarily or essentially, ORT affirms the existence of a freedom-granting, relational God. This view helps when ORT thinkers account for evil and, as we will see, when they think about biblical inspiration and interpretation. And it stands in stark contrast to theologies that say God directly or indirectly controls all creation.

Inspiration as Dynamic

Most Christians believe God inspired the Bible. But what inspiration means varies widely among believers. Some speak as if biblical writers acted as passive vessels through which the Holy Spirit imposed revelation with perfect accuracy. Inspiration so understood is often called “dictation” and considered an act of overpowering omnipotence. Those who endorse this view believe God can guarantee the Bible to be without error through its writing, preservation, canonization, and translation.

 At the other end of the spectrum are those who consider the Bible a work by humans alone. In this scheme, God creates and sustains creation but does not communicate to biblical writers nor otherwise relate in history. This God is unengaged and aloof.

ORT advocates affirm a symbiotic view of biblical inspiration. God communicates, and humans respond. Because God’s action is uncontrolling, however, biblical texts may not faithfully reveal God’s intentions or actions. Biblical writers may sometimes misunderstand. Their worldviews also influenced them, which means the texts reflect their beliefs about science, history, and more.

The writers of scripture may attune themselves well to God’s communication, however. When they do, the Bible provides truths about who God is and what God wants. Because God communicates in an uncontrolling way, we and others must discern and interpret.[22]

Some in the ORT community believe God voluntarily communicated through fallible humans. Gregory Boyd affirms this perspective. In what Boyd calls “the Cruciform Model of Inspiration,” God uses imperfect humans and an imperfect text. These imperfections are redeemed through Jesus’ death. “When viewed through the lens of the cross,” argues Boyd, “all the errors, contradictions, inaccuracies, and morally offensive material in Scripture point to the God who is definitively revealed on the cross.”[23] God willingly accepts the errors we find in scripture in the same way God takes on sin in the passion narrative.

Others in the ORT community argue God does not choose whether to reveal perfectly or guarantee a perfect Bible. After all, a God who could communicate perfectly and guarantee an inerrant text bears responsibility for errors and miscommunication. “If God is allowing the ancient Hebrews who wrote the Bible to misunderstand him to be a warrior god that commands genocide,” Gabriel Gordon wonders, “doesn’t that presuppose God has the ability to share a more accurate view of himself so that the ancient Israelites don’t slaughter their enemies?”[24] Gordon and others argue that God’s revealing is inherently uncontrolling. This means God did not allow the Bible’s mistakes and inaccuracies as if God could have prevented them.

Inerrancy and Interpretation

Especially in the modern era, some Christians consider the Bible to be error-free or infallible. They want a fully trustworthy scripture, free from any mistake. Because the Bible has mistakes and inconsistencies, however, some people will appeal to the original writings as inerrant. But no one can verify this claim, and it is useless when reading the scriptures we actually have.

Christian ORT thinkers consider the Bible a primary source for understanding God and living well. But they don’t consider it inerrant in the strict sense. It’s not a word-for-word recitation from God put to paper. ORT thinkers do not say God controlled the writers, the canonization process, the translation processes, or interpretations. While traditional approaches to Scripture have attempted to frame all passages as internally consistent and all claims divinely decreed, ORT thinkers are free of such assumptions.

Such an approach to the Bible allows ORT thinkers to criticize biblical stories that, for instance, depict God as sanctioning violence. It helps them account for unfulfilled divine prophecies and contradictory narratives. This method takes seriously cultural ideas from ancient times at odds with contemporary sensibilities. But ORT advocates do not question the reliability of God when the reliability of the biblical text is questioned.[25] “Unless one adopts a problematic view of biblical inspiration that disallows any real participation of the human mind in writing the biblical texts,” says Terence Fretheim, “one must be open to the possibility that sinful and finite writers did not always get theology straight. Not all biblical portrayals of God are accurate.”[26]

The principle that ORT advocates use to reject the idea that the original autographs or current Bibles are inerrant also helps them resolve discrepancies of interpretation. One need not be in the Christian community for very long to discover that biblical texts are afforded to a wide variety of viable expositions. This diversity increases as the diversity of the readers increases. It leads some people to wonder, “Who has the right interpretation?”

 ORT proponents see scripture as a flexible and dynamic text that can be understood in various ways, depending on the context and experience of the analyst. “Many different interpreters in many different, specific contexts represent many different interests are at work on textual (theological) interpretation,” says Walter Brueggemann “Interpretive voices and their very different readings of the texts come from many cultures in all parts of the globe, and from many subcultures, even in Western culture.” The Bible, therefore, is not a rigid document; the readings are remarkably supple, open, and varied.[27] ORT advocates delight in this diversity, because they recognize that readers have differing biologies, histories, cultures, ethnicities, and concerns. They are open to new interpretations. And ORT advocates are committed to using all available tools (including scientific developments, textual criticism, experience, sound reasoning, tradition, and more) to mine for truth and seek appropriate applications of the text.

While ORT advocates care about what the biblical texts may have meant in their original contexts, what the authors may have intended, what genres are at play, and more, they also wonder how the Spirit may call readers to respond to the text today. The lived experience of contemporary people matters when questions of biblical interpretation are asked. After all, the meaning of the text “is open-ended,” says Ronald Farmer, “evolving with the creative advance of the world.”[28] This means that “the biblical text is more a source for fresh proposals for imagining what is and what might be than it is a repository of static teachings.”[29]

The Open and Relational Framework Applied

To illustrate an ORT approach to a difficult biblical story, let’s look at a passage from Numbers 15. We’ll compare this approach with more traditional views of the same passage. We’ve chosen a brief passage for our purposes.

            While the Israelites were in the wilderness, a man was found gathering wood on the Sabbath Day. Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole assembly, and they kept him in custody because it was not clear what should be done to him. Then the Lord said to Moses, “The man must die. The whole assembly must stone him outside the camp.” So the assembly took him outside the camp and stoned him to death, as the Lord commanded Moses (32-35).

Context of the Passage

Sound interpretation is necessarily contextual. Numbers is the fourth book of the Pentateuch, and this collection tells us Israel’s origin story as a nation. In Genesis, God promises Israel’s patriarch, Abraham, and his descendants the land of Canaan. All that bless Israel will be blessed, and all that curse Israel will be cursed. In Exodus, we find the growing nation of Israel enslaved by the rulers of Egypt. God sends Moses, who speaks to both Israel and Egypt; through Moses (and a few choice plagues), Israel is freed from slavery. In Numbers, the story of the forty years Israel spent in the wilderness between Mt. Sinai and the promised land of Canaan unfolds.

A trip on foot from Mt. Sinai to Canaan should take about two weeks. Instead, we see the story play out over approximately forty years. Why is this? In Numbers 13, we read that after Israel makes it halfway through the wilderness, the Lord commands Moses to send spies into Canaan to scout out their future home. When the group comes back, they are terrified. The inhabitants of the land, they report, are powerful and their cities are large and fortified. While the faithful do not see this as a deterrent, the majority are frightened into paralysis. This both disappoints Moses and angers God, who asks, “How long will these people treat me with contempt?” (14:11) Then God threatens, “I will strike them down with a plague and destroy them” (14:12). Moses intervenes; God relents. But God declares, “Not one of you will enter the land I swore with uplifted hand to make your home” (14:30). And the spies sent into Canaan were “struck down and died of a plague before the Lord” (14:37).

Numbers 15 begins benignly, with instructions given to Israel to prepare for conquering Canaan. Nestled between these commands, however, we find the story of the Sabbath-breaker.

Traditional Interpretation

The retributive actions ascribed to God in Numbers are troublesome. They do not form a picture of a loving God. They do not comport with the vision of God we find revealed in Jesus, nor our moral intuitions about fairness and flourishing.

Old Testament scholar Gordon J. Wenham offers an interpretation typical of traditional approaches. “This incident demonstrates how high-handed sinners were dealt with when caught in the act,” he says.[30] Wenham believes divine justice is at play. He believes the passage is consistent with Exodus 31:15, which states, “Whoever does any work on the Sabbath is to be put to death.” The only question for Wenham seems to be confirming whether the gathering of sticks was considered “work.” In Exodus 35:3, the kindling of fire on the Sabbath is prohibited. But there is no explicit instruction on whether preparations warranted a similar punishment. Wenham suggests the man’s motivations were enough to justify execution. “By collecting sticks,” Wenham says, “the man was demonstrating his clear intention of lighting a fire on the Sabbath.”[31]

In the traditional reading, harsh judgments are consistent with God’s character and sovereignty. God could have killed everyone in the desert because everyone rebels. God is gracious, believes Wenham, because only some are killed. According to some traditional theologies, God would have predestined these rebellious activities. And God must have good reasons for killing some, because God foreknows all things. A sovereign God works from an eternal blueprint, and stoning people for picking up sticks is justified in that blueprint.

An Open and Relational Alternative

ORT advocates build from a view of divine love and the moral intuitions of most readers. If God’s solution for disobedience includes stoning, we cannot make good sense of the forgiving God we find elsewhere in the Bible. If God always loves, we should not believe God wants people stoned for picking up sticks. After all, God’s love is covenantal (hesed), affectionate (ahavah), and unconditional (agape). Numbers 15 should not be used to justify the killing of those who disobey God.

ORT thinkers resist attributing to God actions inconsistent with Jesus’ love. Using what he calls a “Christocentric hermeneutic,” Eric Seibert distinguishes between the God of the text and who God actually is. “Old Testament portrayals that do not correspond to the God Jesus reveals,” he says, “should be regarded as untrustworthy and distortions.” After all, Seibert argues, God’s character is most clearly and completely revealed in Jesus. He points to words attributed to Jesus: “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Don’t you believe that I am in the Father and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work” (Jn 14:9-10).

Seibert argues that God’s loving character is immutably consistent. While God may act differently at different times in various situations, God’s eternal attribute of love does not change. God will not vacillate between mercifulness and maliciousness, because God is steadfastly loving.[32] Thomas Jay Oord calls this God’s essence-experience binate, which says God’s essence of love is unchanging, but God’s loving experience changes depending on the circumstances.[33]

Seibert believes Numbers 15 is an example of human writers portraying God as they envisioned deity rather than as God truly is. Their experiences and worldview affected their interpretive lenses. To illustrate, Seibert offers a hypothetical scenario: Suppose a woman suddenly feels tenderness in her neck. She thinks nothing of it until she notices a nagging cough and a light case of the sweats. She takes her temperature and finds she has a fever. The woman would likely think a virus, perhaps influenza, had infected her. She might take medication, rest, and put herself in the best position to recover.

Now consider the same scenario having occurred in a world that lacked knowledge of microscopic viruses or modern medicine. In this world, the woman may have been taught her ailment resulted from a practitioner of dark medicine. She might conclude that she had offended god (or the gods). In the same way, Seibert says the writers who knew nothing of the revelation of divine love we find in Jesus might think a controlling God killed a man picking up sticks. This view might prevail in ancient times and even today among those who think God punishes disobedience with death. Such ancient and contemporary people might believe God sanctions warfare and genocide (1 Sam. 15:3). In fact, they might believe God is the sole causal agent for all things, good and bad (Isa 45:7).

ORT proponents not only point to a God who loves consistently, but also to a God who does not control the interpretations of events. So if Moses thought he heard God commanding the stoning of the man who picked up sticks, ORT advocates can say Moses failed to interpret well God’s communication. Some may say God voluntarily gave humans interpretive freedom, which led to this error. Others say God’s uncontrolling nature means God can’t control interpreters and prevent their erroneous interpretations. In either case, ORT thinkers consider decrees involving retribution to be misunderstandings.

The Open and Relational thinker does not claim that fallible beliefs negate the validity of the overall story of the Old Testament. ORT advocates point to passages such as 2 Timothy 3:16, in which the author states, “All Scripture is God-breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.” But God did not breathe directly onto parchment paper. Instead, God metaphorically breathed into humans, who sometimes got things right and sometimes missed the mark. And the point of this passage is the usefulness of scripture for living a good life, not that the scriptures are inerrant.

God doesn’t reveal the truths in scripture and life in a crystal-clear manner. Our particular perspectives shape how we interpret the biblical texts. When we construct theology in light of tensions in the Bible, we are presented with three possibilities. We can…

1. Pick among texts that portray God according to your own likes and dislikes or in terms of a religious tradition.

2. Insist that biblical differences be consolidated or glossed over to present a single picture of God.

3. Seek a unified portrayal of God, but understand that some biblical texts will not fit.[34]

Most ORT advocates opt for the last option. They believe the general biblical witness portrays God as loving, relational, open, and uncontrolling. But they don’t claim every passage or story portrays God this way.

Conclusion

In this introductory essay, we have proposed four key hermeneutic principles that most ORT thinkers accept: love as primary, Jesus as paragon, God as uncontrolling, and inspiration as dynamic. We tested these precepts and explored a passage often seen as troublesome. An ORT perspective offers a compelling model of God and a way to approach the Bible that makes sense.           

The picture of God presented by Open and Relational Theology (ORT) arises from the general drift of scripture. It’s a picture that makes sense of our experience and makes a difference in how we live our lives. A God who is open and relational, who loves and does not control, also helps us answer questions Christians ask. For these reasons, we invite readers to consider adopting an ORT approach to scripture.

To get a copy of our essay and the entire 700+ page book, click the photo of the book.

---

[1] Most open and relational thinkers identify as Christian, and ORT thinkers represent various denominations in Christianity. Others identify as Jewish, Muslim, with other religions, or no tradition. Other labels common among ORT thinkers include “open,” “relational,” “evangelical,” “post-evangelical,” “process,” “feminist,” “neo-classical,” “postmodern,” “theopoetic,” etc.

[2] For an accessible introduction to open and relational theology, see Oord, Open and Relational Theology: An Introduction to Life-Changing Ideas.

[3] Manuel Schmid criticizes open theists who claim the biblical text perfectly aligns with their position. The more sober claim is that scripture aligns better with open theism than alternative theologies. See Schmid, God in Motion: A Critical Exploration of the Open Theism Debate.

[4] E.g., Gen. 6:5–6; 1 Sam. 15:10, 35; Ezek. 22:29–31.

[5] E.g., Isa. 5:3–7; Jer. 3:6-7; 19–20.

[6] E.g., Gen. 22:12; Exod. 16:4; Deut. 8:2; 13:1–3; Judges 2:20–3:5; 2 Chron. 32:31.

[7] E.g., Exod. 32:14; Num. 14:12–20; Deut. 9:13–14, 18–20, 25; 1 Sam. 2:27–36; 2 Kings 20:1–7; 1 Chron. 21:15; Jer. 26:19; Ezek. 20:5–22; Amos 7:1–6; Jonah 1:2; 3:2, 4–10.

[8] E.g., Exod. 3:18–4:9; 13:17; Jer. 38:17–18, 20–21, 23; Ezek. 12:1–3.

[9] Oord, Pluriform Love: An Open and Relational Theology of Well-Being, 28. Oord defines love as “acting intentionally, in relational response to God and others, to promote overall well-being.”

[10] Fretheim, The Suffering of God: An Old Testament Perspective, 25. For other occurrences of this phrase, see Exod. 20:6; Num. 14:18; Deut. 5:9-10; 7:9; 1 Kings 3:6; 2 Chron. 30:9; Neh. 9:17, 31 Ps. 86:15; 103:8, 17; 106:45; 111:4; 112:4; 145:8; Jer. 30:11; 32:18-19; Lam. 3:32; Dan. 9:4; Joel 2:13; Jon. 4:2; Nah. 1:3.

[11] Rice, “Biblical Support for a New Perspective,” 21.

[12] Oord, Pluriform Love, chs. 1-2.

[13] Jersak, A More Christlike God; Young, Unblaming God. Many ORT thinkers note how Jesus of Nazareth differs from God, such as not being omnipresent, being able to die, and not knowing all things.

[14] Seibert, “Reimagining God in the Old Testament,”132.

[15] Pinnock, Most Moved Mover, 62.

[16] Oord, The Death of Omnipotence and Birth of Amipotence.

[17] Sproul, What is Reformed Theology, 175.

[18] Sanders, The God Who Risks: A Theology of Providence.

[19] Boyd, Inspired Imperfection: How the Bible’s Problems Enhance its Divine Authority, 121.

[20] Oord, The Uncontrolling Love of God: An Open and Relational Account of Providence, 94-95.

[21] Oord, God Can’t: How to Believe in God and Love after Tragedy, Abuse, and Other Evils, 28.

[22] Gordon, God Speaks: A Participatory Theology of Inspiration.

[23] Boyd, Inspired Imperfection, 153.

[24] Gabriel Gordon, God Speaks: A Participatory Theology of Inspiration, 55.

[25] Pinnock, Scripture Principle: Reclaiming the Full Authority of the Bible, 100-105; Pinnock, Most Moved Mover, 50-51.

[26] Terence Fretheim, “The Bible in a Postmodern Age,” 140.

[27] Brueggemann, Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy, 61-62.

[28] Ronald L. Farmer, Process Theology and Biblical Interpretation, 22.

[29] Ibid., 23.

[30] Wenham, Numbers: An Introduction and Commentary, 131.

[31] Ibid, 132

[32] Seibert, Disturbing Divine Behavior: Troubling Old Testament Images of God, 185 -86.

[33] Oord, Pluriform Love, 120.

[34] Fretheim, “The Bible in a Postmodern Age,” 152.