{"id":3406,"date":"2016-03-02T13:42:03","date_gmt":"2016-03-02T20:42:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/thomasjayoord.com\/index.php\/blog\/archives\/"},"modified":"2016-03-02T17:53:02","modified_gmt":"2016-03-03T00:53:02","slug":"response-christianity-today-review","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thomasjayoord.com\/index.php\/blog\/archives\/response-christianity-today-review","title":{"rendered":"My Response to Christianity Today Review"},"content":{"rendered":"

I thank Derek Rishmawy for his Christianity Today<\/em> review of my new book, The Uncontrolling Love of God<\/a><\/em>. \u00a0I offer this response as a way to clarify and note differences between Derek\u2019s views and my own.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Derek begins his review (click here<\/a>) with a concise summary of the general drift of my book. This summary is fair and clear. I always appreciate it when reviewers get the overarching ideas I am proposing. Kudos to Derek for this!<\/p>\n

\u201cSo That\u201d Miracle?\"Oord<\/a><\/strong><\/h3>\n

Derek\u2019s first criticism is that my view does not fit with how biblical writers describe events as intended by God. He notes that I draw upon Jesus\u2019 healing of a man blind from birth. I say this story is a possible example of a chance occurrence God did not want but out of which God brings good.<\/p>\n

Derek responds, \u201cJesus explicitly says that the man was born blind \u2018so that the works of God might be displayed in him\u2019 (v. 3). The \u2018so that\u2019 is a statement of purpose, of intentionality, not happenstance off of which God did a creative riff.\u201d<\/p>\n

I understand Derek\u2019s thinking here. I first thought the same when I looked at the passage. But when I read original Greek words translated in this passage, I discovered the \u201cso that\u201d phrase is not found in the Greek. Apparently, the theological bias of the translators prompted them to use English words that suggest God intended the man\u2019s blindness. But the Greek words don\u2019t require this interpretation; \u201cso that\u201d isn\u2019t there.<\/p>\n

In my view, we can appropriately assume that random mutations or creaturely mishaps caused the blindness. I admit this is speculation. But the \u201cso that\u201d translation is also speculation.<\/p>\n

Negative Miracles?<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Derek\u2019s second major point is more substantial. \u00a0He rightly says that miracles, as I define them, are acts of love. They are \u201cpositive\u201d events not \u201cnegative,\u201d to use his words.<\/p>\n

Derek points to biblical miracles he regards as negative. Those events include the Genesis flood, the plagues of Egypt, the blinding of Assyrians, the blinding of Paul, and Jesus cursing the fig tree. (He includes the death of Ananias and Sappira, but the text never attributes those deaths to God.) Derek says \u201cnone of these qualify as acts of empowering, enabling love\u2014at least not for all involved\u2014and many involve God explicitly overturning \u201claw-like regularities\u201d in acts of destruction.\u201d<\/p>\n

On this, I offer two responses: 1) I am committed to the view that God always loves and never does evil. I think this is the dominant biblical witness to God. When Derek points to events and calls them negative or examples of God doing evil, I disagree. I believe God\u2019s love is steadfast, relentless, and never failing. Consequently, God never does evil.<\/p>\n

But 2) Derek may be noting that God\u2019s actions are not necessarily positive for all<\/em> creatures involved. I have no problem accepting this, because I think God seeks overall well-being. What God does to promote overall well-being may involve suffering for those who do not cooperate with God (and his examples fit this description). Such suffering because of uncooperation is the natural negative consequence from failing to cooperate with God\u2019s love.<\/p>\n

I also don\u2019t think we need to believe that all<\/em> actions attributed to God are rightly attributed. One need not be a liberal theologian to believe that sometimes we misunderstand God\u2019s calls and misidentify God’s action. Some events identified as divinely accomplished or sanctioned are not so. Derek should agree with this view, because later in his review he acknowledges that humans have limited understanding.<\/p>\nOne need not be a liberal to believe biblical writers sometimes misunderstand God\u2019s desires and misidentify God's action. <\/a><\/span>Share on X<\/a><\/span>\n

Resurrection<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Derek says my account of miracles \u201cyields conflicting propositions.\u201d By this, he means that \u201cit asks us to believe that God is able to raise the dead to life in Jesus\u2019s resurrection\u2014but also that, in this life, the \u2018law-like regularities\u2019 governing cells, organs, and body parts can \u2018resist\u2019 and \u2018thwart\u2019 his healing initiatives.\u201d<\/p>\n

I can understand Derek\u2019s confusion here. He wonders, How can something new and dramatic occur, and yet law-like consistencies also be present?<\/p>\n

Fortunately, we can affirm law-like regularities and also affirm that creatures, organisms, and simple entities have a range of possible responses to God. The smaller the entity, the more law-like consistencies prevail but do not entirely determine. According to quantum theory, for instance, even the smallest entities of existence are not entirely determined.<\/p>\n

In the case of Jesus\u2019 resurrection, his crucified body and whatever aspect of him retaining subjectivity (call it \u201csoul,\u201d \u201cmind,\u201d \u201cspirit,\u201d or whatever) could cooperate with God\u2019s actions to resurrect. Law-like regularities do not entirely determine body and soul. (For more on Jesus\u2019 resurrection, see my earlier book, The Nature of Love<\/em>.)<\/p>\n

Cross is Foreordained and Foreknown<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Derek points to a few verses in the book of Acts, in which Peter preaches about the Cross of Christ. Here, Derek wants to affirm that \u201cfree choices\u201d are \u201cdeliberately planned and foreordained by God.\u201d<\/p>\n

The passages Derek highlights have for ages been a source of disagreement between Calvinists and free-will theists like me. One does not need to be an open and relational theologian to reject the idea that creatures are both free and predestined. This is apparently Derek\u2019s view, however. In affirming it, Derek is taking on free-will theists of every stripe.<\/p>\n

Is God Free?<\/strong><\/h3>\n

I give credit to Derek for thinking deeply about possible ways God is free and ways God is not. Derek agrees with me that God necessarily and essentially loves. This implies that God is not free not to love, although I\u2019m not sure from the review that Derek realizes this. The God who necessarily loves is not free in all ways.<\/p>\n

Derek\u2019s concern here, however, is the idea that God must<\/em> create. In a footnote of The Uncontrolling Love of God<\/em>, I say one could affirm my views and also affirm creation ex nihilo. But Derek apparently knows from reading my other writings that don\u2019t affirm creation from nothing. I think God always creates out of that which God previously created, because God\u2019s nature of love compels creating.<\/p>\n

Derek worries that the view that God must create \u201cthreatens to slide into pantheism.\u201d Thankfully, other alternatives are available. Many panentheists (not pantheists) reject creation ex nihilo and pantheism while affirming that God necessarily creates.<\/p>\n

My position is also fully compatible with the idea that God is triune. Derek is right that some theologians say God is \u201cfull and complete\u201d within the \u201cthe eternal realm of mutual self-giving between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.\u201d Affirming intra-trinitarian mutuality, however, is compatible with saying God must create. In other words, we can affirm both views. (I also argue this point in The Nature of Love<\/em>.)<\/p>\n

Mystery<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Derek ends the article with what he says is the \u201cmajor\u201d problem of my book: I don\u2019t appeal to mystery. I\u2019m allergic to it, he says, and that I don\u2019t respect the gap between Creator and creature.<\/p>\n

We\u2019ve all heard the mystery claim. It\u2019s the go-to position for those unwilling to rethink their views of God. It\u2019s the claim that makes it impossible for most Christians to make good sense of life. And the mystery claim is a main reason I wrote The Uncontrolling Love of God<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Derek appeals to Job to support his mystery appeal. Job\u2019s friends wanted \u201cneat and tidy\u201d answers, he says, and they \u201ccouldn\u2019t sit with the tension.\u201d But \u201cthey failed to understand that it\u2019s quite rational to believe many of God\u2019s ways are beyond us.\u201d<\/p>\n

Note that earlier Derek didn\u2019t say \u201cGods ways are beyond us\u201d when it came to his theology of how God does miracles. He doesn\u2019t appeal to mystery when it comes to his theology of the cross or resurrection. He\u2019s not appealing to mystery when he says God created from nothing or created the world freely. Derek\u2019s not even appealing to mystery when he says God engages in mutual giving and receiving in Trinity.<\/p>\n

Judging by this review, Derek is pretty confident on so many theological issues. But when it comes to the primary reason most atheists say they cannot believe in God, he says the \u201cmajor problem\u201d of people like me is that we\u2019re unwilling to accept mystery.<\/p>\n

I\u2019m consistently amazed by those who say \u201cGod\u2019s ways are beyond us\u201d when it comes to the problem of evil but who act as if God\u2019s ways are pretty obvious when it comes to most other aspects of theology!<\/p>\nThose who say \u201cGod\u2019s ways are beyond us\u201d in response to evil often act as if God\u2019s ways are obvious on other theological issues! <\/a><\/span>Share on X<\/a><\/span>\n

Conclusion<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Derek concludes his review by saying that God is infinitely wise. He affirms that God is found in the suffering and folly of the cross. He claims that God is the source of our salvation. On all of these points, I agree with him.<\/p>\n

But as I argue in The Uncontrolling Love\u00a0of God<\/a><\/em>, we can make far more sense of life when we understand reality as created, sustained, and transformed by the uncontrolling love of God.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

I thank Derek Rishmawy for his Christianity Today review of my new book, The Uncontrolling Love of God. \u00a0I offer this response as a way to clarify and note differences between Derek\u2019s views and my own.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[11],"tags":[52,481,480,479,478,477,476,453,356,137,59,17,42,40,37,28,25,23,22,21,18],"yst_prominent_words":[4464,4473,4472,4471,4470,4469,4468,4467,4466,4465,1021,4463,2907,1683,1458,1222,1151,1080,1079,1070],"class_list":["post-3406","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-love_and_altruism","tag-problem-of-evil","tag-miracle","tag-freewill-theist","tag-free-will","tag-calvinist","tag-derek-rishmawy","tag-christianity-today","tag-mystery","tag-predestination","tag-calvinism","tag-jesus","tag-god","tag-freedom","tag-open-and-relational","tag-miracles","tag-open-theology","tag-love","tag-oord","tag-theodicy","tag-evil","tag-theology"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/thomasjayoord.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3406","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=3406"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/thomasjayoord.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3406\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/thomasjayoord.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3406"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thomasjayoord.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3406"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thomasjayoord.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3406"},{"taxonomy":"yst_prominent_words","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thomasjayoord.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/yst_prominent_words?post=3406"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}