{"id":3384,"date":"2016-02-29T15:52:13","date_gmt":"2016-02-29T22:52:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/thomasjayoord.com\/index.php\/blog\/archives\/"},"modified":"2016-03-01T09:49:41","modified_gmt":"2016-03-01T16:49:41","slug":"response-howard-snyder","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thomasjayoord.com\/index.php\/blog\/archives\/response-howard-snyder","title":{"rendered":"My Response to Howard Snyder"},"content":{"rendered":"

My friend, Howard Snyder, has written a review of my new book, The Uncontrolling Love of God<\/a>.<\/em> I thought it might be helpful if I responded.<\/p>\n

I have great respect for Howard and his work. Although we disagree on several theological issues, I count him as an important voice in Wesleyan Theology.<\/p>\n

Howard\u2019s review is 5,000+ words long. While I appreciate the time he has given to reflecting on my book, I\u2019ll offer a response only half as long. My response roughly follows the headings of his review, which can be found at this link<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Logical Fallacies?\"Oord<\/a><\/h4>\n

Howard accuses me of committing several \u201clogical fallacies.\u201d When reading what he means by \u201cfallacy,\u201d however, one finds he has neither the typical examples of fallacies nor formal fallacies in mind. Howard\u2019s use of \u201cfallacy\u201d is unusual.<\/p>\n

Howard says my book \u201cis first of all a work of philosophical logic rather than Christian theology or biblical hermeneutics.\u201d I agree that my book is not primarily about biblical hermeneutics, although I refer to Scripture for many key issues. But I suspect the vast majority of scholars would put my work squarely in the theology domain. As we read through Howard’s lengthy review, we discover this claim about a philosophy is a way for him to (mis)characterize my view and set up his own as more biblically or Wesleyan oriented. (See the final sections of the review on this issue.)<\/p>\n

The first \u201cfallacy\u201d Howard says I commit is the notion that \u201cwe can know rationally and judge what God should do and what God can do.\u201d Of course, this is not a fallacy in any usual sense of the term. But more importantly, the opposite of this claim would be that we cannot <\/em>know rationally and judge God\u2019s actions. Should Christians claim they cannot know or judge the nature of God’s actions?<\/p>\n

I do<\/em> think we can know something about who God is, what God does, and what God can do. As I argue in the book, I think we can know these things \u2013 in part \u2013 because of the revelation of Jesus Christ, Scripture, science, experience, tradition, etc.<\/p>\n

The emphasis Howard seems to have in mind here is on the word \u201crationally.\u201d This seems to be his attempt to begin luring his readers toward the mystery views he will soon endorse.\u00a0The crux of Howard\u2019s concern seems to be summarized in this sentence: \u201cHuman capability to determine what God (a God of love)\u00a0should<\/em>,\u00a0can<\/em>, and\u00a0cannot<\/em>\u00a0do is \u2026 a fallacy.\u201d Howard seems to think I believe we can know fully <\/em>or with certainty <\/em>what God should, can, and cannot do.<\/p>\n

I clearly reject such full-scale knowledge and certainty in The Uncontrolling Love of God<\/em>. I talk about the role of humility, uncertainty, and partial knowledge at the beginning of chapter four, for instance. And I make several references to the plausibility, not certainty, of the essential kenosis view I propose.<\/p>\n

Howard goes on to make a claim I don\u2019t make and would not make. He says I presuppose that \u201chuman reason is (at least potentially) equal to or greater than God\u2019s wisdom.\u201d But I do not believe this.\u00a0I do think human reason is somewhat trustworthy and not entirely undone by sin or finitude. But I do not claim to have equal or greater wisdom than God. Furthermore, my arguments don\u2019t require such claims.<\/p>\n

Logical Fallacies? 2<\/h4>\n

Howard turns to the second \u201cfallacy\u201d he says that I commit. He summarizes it as the \u201cinadequacy of\u00a0mystery<\/em>\u00a0as an answer to evil.\u201d<\/p>\n

I am surprised Howard would claim that I commit a logical fallacy when I say appealing to mystery is unsatisfactory. This is not a fallacy in any typical sense. More importantly, logicians are usually troubled when arguments appeal to mystery rather than avoid it!<\/p>\n

In this section, Howard rightly points to my insistence that a satisfactory theory of providence have explanatory consistency. He rightly sees that I do not find appeals to mystery satisfying (as I suspect most people do not). And here Howard raises a good question: \u201cWho decides what is or is not explanatory consistency?\u201d<\/p>\n

The Uncontrolling Love of<\/em> God is my attempt to persuade readers that the model of providence I offer has more explanatory consistency than other models. After reading Howard\u2019s review, it\u2019s clear I have not persuaded him. I\u2019m happy to say, however, that the majority of many reviews written thus far indicate that my proposals are persuasive. In other words, many readers say the essential kenosis model of providence offers more explanatory consistency than alternatives. So the “who decides” question is in the process of being answered.<\/p>\n

Howard also offers here his view of what counts as mystery. I agree when he says truth has only been partly revealed. I agree that we cannot (fully) know why God or anything exists in the first place.<\/p>\n

Why God doesn\u2019t prevent evil, however, is something Howard supposes \u201cwe\u2019ll never know, not in this age nor in the age to come.\u201d A number of Christian theologians follow Howard\u2019s line of thinking here. To them, offering a solution to why a loving and powerful God fails to prevent evil is futile.<\/p>\n

I disagree. As I see it, part of giving an account of the hope we have in God involves offering plausible explanations to difficult problems. Leaving the problem of evil unsolved does little to bolster the intellectually-grounded convictions of believers and even less to persuade unbelievers for whom the problem of evil compels them to atheism. Accounts of Christian hope that appeal to mystery are, I believe, unsatisfying to many more people than just me.<\/p>\n

Logical Fallacies? 3<\/h4>\n

The third \u201cfallacy\u201d Howard says I commit is the view that \u201cgenuine (essential) love and the exercise of controlling power are contradictory, antithetical, mutually exclusive.\u201d Again, notice that this is not really a fallacy in any usual or formal sense.<\/p>\n

I was disappointed that Howard thinks I come \u201cvery close to arguing that love is God\u2019s only attribute, the sole truth about his nature or character.\u201d He apparently misses the times I argue that love is logically prior to power in God\u2019s nature. This doesn\u2019t mean love is God\u2019s only attribute. I also affirm the other attributes of God in the book.<\/p>\n

Howard says that \u201cOord puts (essential) love and power in antithesis.\u201d I do not, however, make this claim. I say divine love shapes or constrains divine power, because love is logically prior to power in God. And I say I cannot make sense of evil and divine love if God has controlling power.<\/p>\n

Howard is correct that I believe God\u2019s love is uncontrolling. But he claims this view is \u201cnot biblical\u201d nor \u201clogically defensible.\u201d I find no good evidence in the Bible nor does Howard offer good biblical evidence in his review that his claims are correct. I find no biblical passage that explicitly <\/em>says God controls others entirely. And my view breaks no rules of logic. Howard may not like my proposal, but that doesn\u2019t make it illogical or unbiblical.<\/p>\n

Howard apparently did not read the section of my book that addresses the parenting analogy he uses as a way to say he can control his children. In my section on God being a Spirit without a localized divine body, I address the parenting analogy. \u00a0I offer an argument for why humans like Howard can use physical bodies to exert bodily impact and God cannot.<\/p>\n

The key issue separating Howard and me is whether divine love can<\/em> control. I believe we are wise to say God\u2019s love is uncontrolling. I make this argument in large part because it makes sense to me and many others that a steadfastly loving God would prevent genuine evil, if that God could control others. Howard seems to disagree. But the best he can offer as an alternative is an appeal to mystery.<\/p>\n

A careful reader will notice that my argument is not that, a priori<\/em>, love is uncontrolling. Some people make this claim. But my claim is different; it is an a posteriori <\/em>and\u00a0inductive one. I claim that given the problem of evil (and other issues), the dominant view of God\u2019s love and power in scripture, and the revelation of God found in Jesus Christ, it makes most sense to believe God\u2019s love is inherently uncontrolling.<\/p>\n

God\u2019s Attributes<\/h4>\n

Howard moves on to address God\u2019s attributes. Although I believe God is transcendent, Howard rightly notes that I don\u2019t develop a thorough case for divine transcendence in my book. He seems not to remember, however, that I appeal to God\u2019s transcendence at the conclusion of chapter three as an argument for values in God.<\/p>\n

Throughout his review, Howard likes to call my view a \u201cprocess philosophy\u201d view. This is not what I claim for it. But Howard repeatedly returns to a label I do not place on myself. I have to wonder if Howard does this to “alert” his readers to this as a possible reason they should reject my view. I don\u2019t find such tactics helpful or fair. I would hope my proposals were evaluated on their own grounds, not on some appeal to friend or foe.<\/p>\n

Howard notes that I affirm prevenient grace. He wrongly implies, however, that my view of prevenient grace amounts to \u201cvague energy.\u201d He wrongly implies that I think God does not act. I often say in the book that God acts (and later in his review, Howard agrees). In this segment of his review, Howard so distorts my view that I have difficulty knowing how I should respond.<\/p>\n

Providence<\/h4>\n

When Howard addresses the issues of providence he continues to misunderstand and therefore misrepresent my view.<\/p>\n

Howard says my view \u201cessentially collaps(es) all God\u2019s acts into a sort of indirect providence.\u201d I have no idea what he means by \u201cindirect\u201d providence, and it\u2019s not a phrase I use in the book. In The Uncontrolling Love of God<\/em>, I often speak of God\u2019s active, direct causation.<\/p>\n

Howard claims I take \u201ca crucial step beyond (John) Polkinghorne to embrace the God of process philosophy.\u201d He then launches into Polkinghorne\u2019s criticism of process thought, a criticism that applies to some forms of process theology but not all.<\/p>\n

More importantly, Polkinghorne\u2019s criticisms don\u2019t apply to my own proposals. Howard is unable to see how my view supports a personal God, despite my arguments to the contrary (see chs. 5-7). This is another weak segment of the review.<\/p>\n

God Acts<\/h4>\n

One of the more bizarre parts of Howard\u2019s review is a section he titles \u201cActs or Events.\u201d This seems to be Howard\u2019s attempt to criticize process philosophy. Because he (wrongly) thinks my views are the same as most self-identifying process thinkers, Howard seems to think his criticism of process thinking applies fully to me.<\/p>\n

In opposition to what he claimed earlier, Howard says \u201cOord often speaks of God\u2019s \u2018acts\u2019 or \u2018action.\u2019\u201d But Howard says that he is not clear that I mean, as he puts it, God \u201ctruly\u00a0acts<\/em>\u00a0in a personal, conscious, volitional way consistent with the biblical picture of the will, love, justice, holiness, and lovingkindness of the one true Lord God.\u201d<\/p>\n

I do affirm this way of speaking of God’s action. I\u2019m sorry that Howard was unable to discern this from the book. I wonder if Howard\u2019s presumptions about my relation to process thought led him down this false road.<\/p>\n

Howard distinguishes between God \u201cnudging\u201d and more \u201covert, direct, and dramatic\u201d acts. I affirm both kinds of acts for God. But I simply say neither is action that entirely controls creatures.<\/p>\n

Howard appeals to Polkinghorne and the chess master analogy of providence. I like the chess master analogy, but I would need to know better what Howard means when he approvingly quotes Polkinghorne that creaturely actions \u201ccannot ultimately thwart\u201d God. I don\u2019t think creatures can thwart God\u2019s love. That is, I think God loves no matter what creatures do. But I also think creatures can act in ways other than what God wants\/wills. Most Wesleyans I know would agree.<\/p>\n

I agree with Howard when he says \u201cprovidence is personal, not impersonal. It is an expression of sovereign essential love.\u201d But as I say often in The Uncontrolling Love of God<\/em>,\u00a0I believe there are strong reasons to say God\u2019s providence love is uncontrolling.<\/p>\n

Bible<\/h4>\n

On my use of the kenosis<\/em>\u00a0passage in Philippians 2:4\u201313, Howard claims \u201cthere is no sound hermeneutical basis for extending the\u00a0kenosis<\/em>\u00a0concept to the essential being of the Triune Lord God in the way Oord does.\u201d Of course, I disagree. Many biblical scholars find my proposal sound as well, although I readily admit there are other ways to interpret the passage.<\/p>\n

Sadly, Howard says, \u201cthere is virtually nothing in the book about how a biblical theology of the cross might illuminate the problem of evil or the meaning of providence.\u201d He is right that I don\u2019t have a huge portion of the book that addresses the cross. But I refer to the cross in chapter 5 and in my explanation of the kenosis <\/em>passage. In my view, the cross of Christ powerfully illustrates that God\u2019s love is uncontrolling. Perhaps in a future book I will elaborate.<\/p>\n

Howard concludes this section saying, \u201cIn dealing with the fact of evil, we have to deal with the whole of Scripture\u2014and remember that Scripture transcends mere human reason.\u201d I agree that we must look to the whole tenor and scope of Scripture.<\/p>\n

In The Uncontrolling Love of God<\/em>, I often claim that the themes of love dominate the whole of Scripture. I propose a view of God\u2019s love as uncontrolling, and I admit that this language is not explicitly endorsed in the Bible. But neither is it rejected. I think God’s uncontrolling love is consonant<\/em> with Scripture, however. And it stands to reason that Christians who have interpreted the Bible through a lens that says God can be controlling will need to try on the uncontrolling love lens to see how consonant it is with the biblical witness.<\/p>\n

Final Solution, Wesley, and the End<\/h4>\n

In the final sections, Howard moves to a variety of topics.\u00a0In the first section, Howard appeals to eschatology and living in faith while awaiting a solution to the problem of evil. I agree with Howard that evil has not yet been overcome. I also await and hope for such overcoming in the future.<\/p>\n

But the work to overcome evil need not conflict with finding an answer to why God doesn\u2019t prevent evil here and now. To put it differently, eschatological hope need not conflict with present-day work to answer well why God doesn\u2019t stop evil now.<\/p>\n

I was happy to read Howard thinks Wesley did not adequately solve the problem of evil. I agree. Like Howard, I nevertheless think Wesley had \u201ckeen insight into the character of God and the meaning of love and suffering as we confront the very troubling reality of evil in the world.\u201d<\/p>\n

In his section on Wesley, Howard restates his charge that my views are philosophically speculative. He subtly suggests that I\u2019m affirming process theology. In his criticism, Howard seems unaware that any view or interpretation of life or the Bible is shot-through with philosophical assumptions. When it comes to philosophy and the Bible, I\u2019m with John Wesley: it\u2019s both\/and.<\/p>\n

In his conclusion, Howard comes out directly with a view indirectly or subtly implied earlier: \u201cThe God described in Oord\u2019s book is the God of speculative process philosophy, not the God of the Bible.\u201d\u00a0My book never makes this claim, nor do I think it true. But Howard seems bent on labeling my work with language I do not endorse in the very book he is reviewing. Odd. Have contemporary theologians resorted to labeling any attempt to rethink God\u2019s power \u2013 even in light of love \u2013 as \u201cprocess theology?\u201d For love’s sake, I hope not!<\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/h4>\n

In a key sentence near the end of his review, Howard says, \u201cI find it much more comforting and more satisfying both intellectually and emotionally to trust the character, faithfulness, lovingkindness, and promises of God than to rest confidence in an essentially philosophical accounting for evil\u2014even if that explanation were to be fully sound logically\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n

Howard completes this lengthy sentence by adding the charge I find unsupported throughout his review: \u201cthe concept of \u2018uncontrolling love\u2019 is not (fully sound logically).\u201d<\/p>\n

Notice what Howard is admitting in this lengthy sentence. He is saying his particular view of God would be more comforting to him than a solution to the problem of evil that is, to use his language, \u201cfully sound logically.\u201d<\/p>\n

This sums up well the basic differences between Howard and me. Although we share much in common as Wesleyan theologians, Howard is not willing to give up his view of God\u2019s controlling power even if someone were to present a rational solution to the problem of evil. Of course, I and many others think my book, The Uncontrolling Love of God<\/em>,<\/a> offers such a solution.<\/p>\n

Apparently even if Howard were to be acknowledge the logic of love I offer, he would not give up the vision of God he currently holds. This vision, he readily admits, appeals to mystery on crucial issues of God\u2019s love and power in the face of evil.<\/p>\n

In this blog response, I have tried to be fair to Howard and his review. I consider him a brother in Christ and an important Wesleyan theologian. We agree on many things. But as his review and my response show, we also differ.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

My friend, Howard Snyder, has written a review of my new book, The Uncontrolling Love of God. I thought it might be helpful if I responded. I have great respect for Howard and his work. Although we disagree on several theological issues, I count him as an important voice in Wesleyan Theology. Howard\u2019s review is […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7],"tags":[30,475,142,120,52,43,42,40,34,32,31,15,28,26,25,24,23,22,21,18,17],"yst_prominent_words":[4474,4483,4482,4481,4480,4479,4478,4477,4476,4475,1070,2811,1222,1153,1151,1096,1095,1093,1091,1080],"class_list":["post-3384","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-john_wesley_holiness_and_the_church_of_the_nazarene","tag-relational-theology","tag-howard-snyder","tag-wesley","tag-wesleyan","tag-problem-of-evil","tag-polkinghorne","tag-freedom","tag-open-and-relational","tag-thomas-oord","tag-essential-kenosis","tag-kenosis","tag-thomasjayoord","tag-open-theology","tag-uncontrolling-love-of-god","tag-love","tag-providence","tag-oord","tag-theodicy","tag-evil","tag-theology","tag-god"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/thomasjayoord.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3384","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=3384"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/thomasjayoord.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3384\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/thomasjayoord.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3384"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thomasjayoord.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3384"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thomasjayoord.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3384"},{"taxonomy":"yst_prominent_words","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thomasjayoord.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/yst_prominent_words?post=3384"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}