![](\"https:\/\/thomasjayoord.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/05\/img_03911.jpg\")
<\/p>\nAs part of the book I\u2019m currently writing, I\u2019m suggesting four paths people take on their way to embracing open and relational theology. I\u2019m looking for help in developing my discussion of one of those paths: Christian traditions.<\/p>\n
The four paths to open and relational theology I identify are these: 1. following the biblical witness, 2. following themes in some Christian theological traditions, 3. following the philosophy of free will, and 4. following the path of reconciling faith and science.<\/p>\n
In this blog essay, I address some Christian theological traditions through which some people have come on their way to embracing open and relational theologies. I am hoping to add resources, ideas, bibliographical references, or figures to this essay (and the book). So please respond in the comments section with your thoughts and suggestions.<\/p>\n
A number of theological traditions \u2013 or at least themes dominant in those traditions \u2013 have encouraged some people to embrace open and relational theologies. Most of these traditions reside in Christianity, and they include Adventist, Arminian, Lutheran, Mennonite, Pentecostal, Restorationist, and Wesleyan. (Some might add Latter-Day Saint [Mormon] theology to this list, but scholars debate whether the Latter-Day Saint movement is rightly considered part of the Christian tradition. I will not weigh in on this debate here.)<\/p>\n
This does not mean, of course, everyone who identifies with or works from these Christian traditions embraces open and relational theology. Rather, particular themes in these traditions have inspired some to embrace open and relational theologies.<\/p>\n
For example, some contemporary Lutherans have been influenced by Martin Luther\u2019s theology of the cross \u2013 especially his emphasis upon the weakness and suffering of God. Consequently, they have rejected classic views of omnipotence and nonrelationality and embraced open and relational notions of God\u2019s power and relationships.<\/p>\n
Some contemporary Anabaptists draw from Menno Simons\u2019s emphasis upon pacificism, freedom, and peace. These Anabaptists find these themes congruent with the emphasis upon noncoercion God\u2019s persuasive activity as emphasized in open and relational theologies.<\/p>\n
Some contemporary Baptists extrapolate from their view that believers must freely choose to be baptized. This extrapolation leads them to embrace open and relational theology, because of it emphasis upon genuine creaturely freedom.<\/p>\n
Some Pentecostals believe we must cooperate with God when exercising the gifts of the Spirit. This concursus or synergy of God and creaturely activity fits well with cooperation themes in open and relational theologies.<\/p>\n
The Stone-Campbell Restorationist movement emphasizes Christian freedom and freedom in the Spirit. This emphasis fits well with the emphasis upon freedom found in most open and relational theologies.<\/p>\n
And, of course, many attracted to Jacob Arminius\u2019s theology, especially his denial of predestination and his emphasis upon creaturely cooperation for salvation, often find themselves drawn to open and relational theologies. While Arminius retained a more traditional view of God\u2019s omniscience, many of his other themes are identical to themes typical of open and relational theologies.<\/p>\n
Perhaps the strongest reason some Christians embrace open and relational theologies is their belief in the centrality of love for Christian thinking and living. In their own ways, many Christian traditions say God\u2019s primary attribute is love and God lovingly gives to and receives from creatures. Many say we must cooperate with God by living lives of love if we are to find full salvation.<\/p>\n
The Wesleyan tradition is a good example of a Christian tradition whose themes fit well with open and relational theologies. Wesleyans typically follow John Wesley\u2019s efforts to understand divine sovereignty in light of God\u2019s love. Wesley preached that God \u201cstrongly and sweetly influenc[es] all, and yet without destroying the liberty of his rational creatures.\u201d He understood God\u2019s power, says Randy Maddox, \u201cfundamentally in terms of empowerment<\/em>, rather than control or overpowerment<\/em>.\u201d This means, says Maddox, that Wesleyans believe \u201cGod\u2019s grace works powerfully, but not irresistibly, in matters of human life and salvation.\u201d<\/p>\n Many contemporary Wesleyan theologians follow John Wesley\u2019s lead in emphasizing love as the center of Christian theology. Mildred Bangs Wynkoop, for instance, wrote her book, A Theology of Love<\/em>, as an attempt to understand holiness through the lens of God\u2019s relational love. \u201cWhen each doctrine of the Christian faith is identified and defined by [Wesley],\u201d argued Wynkoop, \u201cthe basic meaning invariably comes out \u2018love.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n Using an analogy, Wynkoop says, \u201cWesley\u2019s thought is like a great rotunda with archway entrances all around it. No matter which one is entered, it always leads to the central Hall of Love\u2026\u201d Love \u201ccreates freedom and achievement,\u201d she argues. And love \u201cserves to link every doctrine together into one dynamic architectonic and to show the theological stature and integrity of John Wesley.\u201d<\/p>\n Many members of these Christians traditions have wrestled with how to understand God\u2019s knowledge. While most believe God doesn\u2019t foreordain or predestine all things, many think God foreknows all things. For them, God knows with absolutely certainty what we will do tomorrow and yet we are free to do otherwise.<\/p>\n But some in these Christian traditions reject the traditional view of God\u2019s foreknowledge. Because they start with God\u2019s love and creaturely freedom, they believe God experiences time in a way similar to the way creatures experience it. And this means God cannot not foreknow with absolute certainty the future that will actually come to pass. Their understanding of God\u2019s omniscience does not mean God foreknows all things.<\/p>\n A significant number of theologians in the 19th and early 20th centuries argued that God does not have exhaustive foreknowledge. For instance, Methodist theologian, Lorenzo D. McCabe (1817-1897), extensively defended the view that God\u2019s omniscience doesn\u2019t entail exhaustive foreknowledge. \u201cIn the divine omniscience,\u201d said McCabe, \u201cthere must be an element of growth.\u201d<\/p>\n Lutheran theologian, Isaak Dorner (1809-84), said that a consistent view of God working with us in history requires that God knows future free acts of creatures as possibilities, not actualities.\u00a0\u201cWe cannot be satisfied with the assertion that for God there can be nothing past and nothing future as such,\u201d argued Dorner. God\u2019s knowledge \u201cpresupposes a movement, a change even in the knowing activity of God himself.\u201d<\/p>\n Roman Catholic theologian, Jules Lequyer (1814-1862), followed what he believed the logic of free will should imply about God\u2019s foreknowledge.\u00a0\u201cI believe that God has only a conjectural knowledge of the acts determined by human activity,\u201d said Lequyer.<\/p>\n Stone-Campbell Restorationist thinker, T. W. Brents (1823-1905), believed God voluntarily chooses not to know some things. Brents says God \u201csaw fit to avoid knowledge of everything\u00a0incompatible with the freedom of the human will.\u201d<\/p>\n Major Methodist theologians in the 19th<\/sup> and 20th<\/sup> centuries rejected exhaustive divine foreknowledge. One of the best known, Edgar S. Brightman (1884-1953), put it this way: \u201cGod cannot be said to have complete foreknowledge. Although a divine mind would know all that was knowable and worth knowing, including the consequences of all possible choices, it would not know what choices a free mind would make.\u201d God cannot know, said Brightman, because God\u2019s \u201cconsciousness is an eternal time movement, the soul of the ongoing of all reality.\u201d<\/p>\n Some have followed process theology as their path to embracing open and relational theologies. Process theology is notoriously difficult to define, and scholars debate how best to describe the essence of process thought, if there even is one. But most Christian process theologians have affirmed the centrality of love, genuine creaturely freedom, chance and necessity, values, and the idea that God\u2019s current knowledge does not include all future occurrences.<\/p>\n Many process theologians agree with Charles Hartshorne, for instance, who argues for \u201cgrowth in God\u2019s knowledge.\u201d Hartshorne says that \u201cthe creative process produces new realities to know.\u201d This means \u201cGod does not already or eternally know what we do to tomorrow, for, until we decide, there are no such entities as our tomorrow\u2019s decisions.\u201d<\/p>\n It\u2019s important to emphasize that open and relational theologies come in many forms. Process theology is merely one form among others. Disagreements exist among those who self-identify with open and relational theology. But the various forms share enough in common to coalesce and promote a particular way of understanding God and the world God creates.<\/p>\n I could list other theological traditions and other theologians. Those who embrace open and relational theologies have taken different theological paths to their common affirmations. But my main goals here are two.<\/p>\n First, because of the ideas central to some Christian theologies, some of their members followed what they saw as the logic of those ideas and ended up embracing open and relational theology.<\/p>\n Second, although open and relational theology, as a general theological emaphasis, is a\u00a0 fairly recent phenomenon, one can find voices in the past championing even its the more controversial ideas. Some championed even the controversial idea that God\u2019s omniscience does not include God currently knowing with certainly all that will occur in the future.<\/p>\n Your thoughts?<\/p>\n <\/p>\n [1] I am grateful to friends and scholars on Facebook discussion groups for helping me think through ways the themes in some Christian traditions have been used by members to come to embrace open and relational theologies. In particular, I thank David Cole, Chris Fisher, James Goetz, Simon Hall, Randy Hardman, John D. Holloway, Curtis Holtzen, William Lance Huget, Jacob Matthew Hunt, Dave Huth, Richard Kidd, Richard Livingston, Jay McDaniel, T. C. Moore, Quinn Olinger, Bryan Overbaugh, Matt Perkins, David Saleeba, Neil Short, Rod Thomas.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" As part of the book I\u2019m currently writing, I\u2019m suggesting four paths people take on their way to embracing open and relational theology. I\u2019m looking for help in developing my discussion of one of those paths: Christian traditions.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[9],"tags":[669],"yst_prominent_words":[1233,1242,1241,1240,1239,1238,1237,1236,1235,1234,1223,1232,1231,1230,1229,1228,1227,1226,1225,1224],"class_list":["post-2049","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-open_and_relational_theology","tag-open-and-relational-theology"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/thomasjayoord.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2049","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/thomasjayoord.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/thomasjayoord.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thomasjayoord.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thomasjayoord.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2049"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/thomasjayoord.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2049\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/thomasjayoord.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2049"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thomasjayoord.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2049"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thomasjayoord.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2049"},{"taxonomy":"yst_prominent_words","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thomasjayoord.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/yst_prominent_words?post=2049"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}God\u2019s Foreknowledge<\/strong><\/h3>\n
Conclusion<\/strong><\/h3>\n