I’ve been thinking about the various paths Christians take to embracing open and relational theology. John Polkinghorne is among those for whom science led to open and relational themes. For Polkinghorne and many other science and religion scholars, it makes sense to say an open and relational God creates an open and relational universe. My […]

Open and process theologies have much in common. But differences also exist. The future of open theology, in my view, will be largely shaped by ongoing conversations between the two theological perspectives. But I expect them to draw closer and their boundaries to blur. In a previous blog essay, I talked about the future of […]

Open theology has matured in many ways since the ground-breading publication of The Openness of God book twenty years ago. I’ve been thinking about what the next twenty years might be for open theology.

In my current book, I offer a model of providence I call “Essential Kenosis.” One of my main arguments is that this model gives a plausible reason why a loving and powerful God fails to prevent genuine evil. One aspect of my argument, however, addresses what we might call God's "constitution." I find this aspect neglected more than any other by those who address the problem of evil.

My version of open and relational theology says love is the preeminent attribute in God’s nature. As I read John Sanders’s work, he seems to think sovereignty precedes love in God’s nature.

My friend, John Sanders, has written a powerful proposal for understanding God’s providence. As an open and relational theologian myself, I agree with much of it. But there’s a key problem with his view...

All who journey to open and relational theology ponder providence. Theologian John Sanders offers one of the most thorough and best-known theologies of providence written from an open and relational perspective. His book, The God Who Risks, has as its subtitle, A Theology of Divine Providence.

As part of the book I’m currently writing, I’m suggesting four paths people take on their way to embracing open and relational theology. I’m looking for help in developing my discussion of one of those paths: Christian traditions.

In Jacob Arminius: Theologian of Grace, Keith Stanglin and Thomas H. McCall elucidate Arminius’s theological perspectives.  I commend them for this much-needed explanation of Arminius’s own theology. But the book left me unsatisfied.

Although some Christians have heard of the great Dutch theologian, Jacob Arminius, few know much about him. Two new books aim to change this.