![\"\"](\"https:\/\/thomasjayoord.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/12\/123f7d354a6c3543c8ccde5662069ccb6b5d424f-203x300.png\")
<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\nKevin asks five questions, which I list below and offer brief answers. I’m posting these because they might be questions others have.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
1) How does Oord reconcile his definition of love as intentional action with his insistence that God necessarily loves everyone, everywhere, all the time?<\/em><\/h3>\n\n\n\nAnswer:<\/strong> I affirm that God can love both intentionally\nand necessarily. I see no conflict in affirming both. In my view, God\nnecessarily loves, but God freely chooses various ways to love. <\/p>\n\n\n\nBecause love comes logically first in God\u2019s\nnature and God \u201ccannot deny himself\u201d (2 Tm. 2:13), God must love. God is not\nfree to do otherwise. But God is<\/em> free\nwhen deciding how <\/em>to love. The how of\nlove is contingent, not necessary. <\/p>\n\n\n\nI embrace the essentialist tradition when it comes to believing God cannot deny God\u2019s own nature. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
I also believe God faces an open and yet to be determined future. I embrace voluntarist claims about God\u2019s free choices in choosing how<\/em> to love. God freely acts in various ways when anticipating what may occur in the future.<\/p>\n\n\n\nAs an analogy, let\u2019s assume that my human nature leads me necessarily to act humanly. I necessarily act as a human. But I intentionally choose to type this sentence instead of another. I\u2019m free in this sense. In fact, I\u2019m free to type a wide variety of sentences, despite not being free to be other than human. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
In this way, necessity in nature and free intentional action coexist. We can necessarily be human and yet free to act variously as humans. Analogously, God can necessarily love everyone and yet freely choose how to love moment by moment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
(2) Does\nOord truly preserve the Creator\/creature distinction, or is God on the same\nmetaphysical level with the rest of created reality? If the call to love that\nGod gives each creature is in one sense \u201cno different from the causal influence\nthat other creatures exert,\u201d then doesn\u2019t God exist on the same plane of being\nas everything else?<\/em> <\/h3>\n\n\n\nAnswer<\/strong>: At the start of his essay, Vanhoozer provides\na teaser about the worries he voices in this question and that emerge later in\nhis essay. He worries that my theology might be a Feuerbachian projection. <\/p>\n\n\n\nVanhoozer\noffers theological realism as an alternative to anthropomorphic hubris, a\nposition that says we can be wrong in our descriptions of God\u2019s love. I join\nVanhoozer in being a realist in this sense. I don\u2019t think we can ever grasp\ndivine love fully or define it perfectly. We see through a glass darkly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
I\nalso believe, however, that we should seek to know something of the God whom we\ncan never fully know. I think we should try to grasp divine love as best we can\nand define it as well as possible. In this, I steer clear of both absolute\napophatism and thoroughgoing anthropomorphism. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
To\nmake sense of God\u2019s love, actions, and more, I think we should draw bidirectional\nanalogies between Creator and creatures. Without them, I think we fail to do\njustice to the biblical witness and fail to understand well what it means to be\nmade in the image of God. We can embrace such bidirectional analogies without\nconsidering God to be on the same metaphysical level or plane as creatures.\nCreator and creatures differ in some respects but also share some similarities.\nI\u2019ll address this more in the second half of this response.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
(3) Does\nOord derive his definition of love from the event of Jesus Christ or from\nsomewhere else?<\/em><\/h3>\n\n\n\nAnswer<\/strong>: Vanhoozer asks this question as an either\/or\nchoice. For me, the answer is both\/and. I accept the revelation of God\u2019s love found\nin Jesus and the revelation of God in creation more generally. As I see it, the\nclearest expression of love comes in Jesus, and therefore he becomes crucial to\ndefining love well. But I\u2019m also confident that my views of love have been\nshaped by the broader biblical witness, the Christian community, and the\nrevelation of God in creation more generally. <\/p>\n\n\n\nBecause God is omnipresent and self-revealing\nto all creation, those who know nothing of Jesus can accept my definition of\nlove. In fact, adherents of other religious traditions affirm my definition. Those\ninvolved in other religions may find resonance between my views of love and\nwhat they find about love in their own texts and communities, thanks to God\u2019s prevenient\ngrace expressed throughout all creation.[1]<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n(4) In\n\u201csolving\u201d the problem of evil by stipulating God\u2019s nature as uncontrolling\nlove, does Oord render insoluble the equally important question, \u201cWhat may we\nhope?\u201d Oord stresses the importance of human participation in what he calls\n\u201cparticipatory eschatology\u201d: \u201cGod\u2019s kenotic love invites creatures to\nparticipate in securing victory.\u201d But why think that the entropic universe,\nmuch less rebellious children, will come around to God\u2019s way at the end of\ntime? Does not this solution to the problem of evil render evil metaphysically\nunavoidable and necessary?<\/em><\/h3>\n\n\n\nAnswer:<\/strong> There are several questions here. All of them point to eschatological concerns. Answering them well requires at least a book. But I\u2019ll offer a few brief responses that I hope provide light. (I also offered a blog essay on my eschatology, which readers can find here.<\/a>)<\/p>\n\n\n\nMy theology of love\u2019s eschatological vision\ndoes not support the kind of universalism that some theologians desire. While\nit supports the hope <\/em>that all will\ncooperate with God, it does not support theories that require divine coercion\nfor redemption. <\/p>\n\n\n\nMy participatory eschatology provides some\nguarantees. It guarantees that God never gives up seeking to save the lost. It\nguarantees that God\u2019s love is always uncontrolling. God never uses coercion but\nalways calls creatures to say \u201cyes\u201d to abundant life. This inviting, empowering,\nbut uncontrolling love is expressed both in this life and the next. God\u2019s\nwooing never ceases.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
My eschatology also guarantees that those who\ncooperate with God in this life and the next enjoy abundant life. It supports\nthe hope that cooperators enjoy untold bliss in the afterlife. It cannot\nguarantee that everyone will enjoy this bliss, because it says God never forces\nthe good life on others. God respects the freedom of rebellious children who\ncontinue to reject salvation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In sum, my eschatology rejects unilaterally secured universalism. But it also rejects the view that God gives up loving creatures and never gives up offering eternal life. My vision provides genuine hope for abundant life here and now and eternal bliss there and then for those who cooperate with God\u2019s love.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
(5)<\/strong> If Oord\nis right, is the God who is uncontrolling love more deserving of our worship or\nsympathy?<\/em><\/h3>\n\n\n\nAnswer:<\/strong> The God of uncontrolling love is worthy of our\nworship. I worship this God unreservedly and wholeheartedly. Doing so brings me\ngreat joy!<\/p>\n\n\n\nI\u2019ve spent significant time thinking about what vision of God provokes my worship. I\u2019ve come to think it\u2019s impossible for me to worship a God who could prevent genuine evil but fails to do so. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
I don\u2019t unequivocally respect humans who fail to prevent evil when their doing so was possible. So I can\u2019t unequivocally worship a God capable of preventing genuine evil but who fails to do so. I may dread this God. But I could not unreservedly love and worship such a being. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
As I see it, the God who can control is not worthy of my worship.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Vanhoozer mentions pity as a possible response to my vision of God, and this reminds me of a recent conversation. I was explaining to a fellow theologian that the uncontrolling God cannot prevent genuine evil by acting alone. My friend responded that he prefers a God who can control. He smirked and said, \u201cYou know, Tom, your God is just doing the best He can.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n
I thought about his remark and responded, \u201cYour God could be doing a whole lot<\/em> more, but He apparently doesn\u2019t care enough to do so!\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\nI mention this conversation because it illustrates how love is my fundamental theological intuition. When I think about a God worthy of worship, I find far more winsome the vision of a God who consistently loves but cannot control than a God who can control but loves inconsistently by causing or allowing evil.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Some claim the God they affirm both controls and loves consistently. In light of evil, they say it is a mystery how God does both. This measure of mystery, however, detracts from my worship. I\u2019m unable to worship a God who cannot be understood to such a degree. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
I’m not motivated to worship an incomprehensible God. <\/p>\n\n\nI'm not motivated to worship an incomprehensible God. <\/a><\/span>Share on X<\/a><\/span>\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n
Because love comes logically first in God\u2019s\nnature and God \u201ccannot deny himself\u201d (2 Tm. 2:13), God must love. God is not\nfree to do otherwise. But God is<\/em> free\nwhen deciding how <\/em>to love. The how of\nlove is contingent, not necessary. <\/p>\n\n\n\n I embrace the essentialist tradition when it comes to believing God cannot deny God\u2019s own nature. <\/p>\n\n\n\n I also believe God faces an open and yet to be determined future. I embrace voluntarist claims about God\u2019s free choices in choosing how<\/em> to love. God freely acts in various ways when anticipating what may occur in the future.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As an analogy, let\u2019s assume that my human nature leads me necessarily to act humanly. I necessarily act as a human. But I intentionally choose to type this sentence instead of another. I\u2019m free in this sense. In fact, I\u2019m free to type a wide variety of sentences, despite not being free to be other than human. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In this way, necessity in nature and free intentional action coexist. We can necessarily be human and yet free to act variously as humans. Analogously, God can necessarily love everyone and yet freely choose how to love moment by moment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Answer<\/strong>: At the start of his essay, Vanhoozer provides\na teaser about the worries he voices in this question and that emerge later in\nhis essay. He worries that my theology might be a Feuerbachian projection. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Vanhoozer\noffers theological realism as an alternative to anthropomorphic hubris, a\nposition that says we can be wrong in our descriptions of God\u2019s love. I join\nVanhoozer in being a realist in this sense. I don\u2019t think we can ever grasp\ndivine love fully or define it perfectly. We see through a glass darkly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n I\nalso believe, however, that we should seek to know something of the God whom we\ncan never fully know. I think we should try to grasp divine love as best we can\nand define it as well as possible. In this, I steer clear of both absolute\napophatism and thoroughgoing anthropomorphism. <\/p>\n\n\n\n To\nmake sense of God\u2019s love, actions, and more, I think we should draw bidirectional\nanalogies between Creator and creatures. Without them, I think we fail to do\njustice to the biblical witness and fail to understand well what it means to be\nmade in the image of God. We can embrace such bidirectional analogies without\nconsidering God to be on the same metaphysical level or plane as creatures.\nCreator and creatures differ in some respects but also share some similarities.\nI\u2019ll address this more in the second half of this response.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Answer<\/strong>: Vanhoozer asks this question as an either\/or\nchoice. For me, the answer is both\/and. I accept the revelation of God\u2019s love found\nin Jesus and the revelation of God in creation more generally. As I see it, the\nclearest expression of love comes in Jesus, and therefore he becomes crucial to\ndefining love well. But I\u2019m also confident that my views of love have been\nshaped by the broader biblical witness, the Christian community, and the\nrevelation of God in creation more generally. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Because God is omnipresent and self-revealing\nto all creation, those who know nothing of Jesus can accept my definition of\nlove. In fact, adherents of other religious traditions affirm my definition. Those\ninvolved in other religions may find resonance between my views of love and\nwhat they find about love in their own texts and communities, thanks to God\u2019s prevenient\ngrace expressed throughout all creation.[1]<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n Answer:<\/strong> There are several questions here. All of them point to eschatological concerns. Answering them well requires at least a book. But I\u2019ll offer a few brief responses that I hope provide light. (I also offered a blog essay on my eschatology, which readers can find here.<\/a>)<\/p>\n\n\n\n My theology of love\u2019s eschatological vision\ndoes not support the kind of universalism that some theologians desire. While\nit supports the hope <\/em>that all will\ncooperate with God, it does not support theories that require divine coercion\nfor redemption. <\/p>\n\n\n\n My participatory eschatology provides some\nguarantees. It guarantees that God never gives up seeking to save the lost. It\nguarantees that God\u2019s love is always uncontrolling. God never uses coercion but\nalways calls creatures to say \u201cyes\u201d to abundant life. This inviting, empowering,\nbut uncontrolling love is expressed both in this life and the next. God\u2019s\nwooing never ceases.<\/p>\n\n\n\n My eschatology also guarantees that those who\ncooperate with God in this life and the next enjoy abundant life. It supports\nthe hope that cooperators enjoy untold bliss in the afterlife. It cannot\nguarantee that everyone will enjoy this bliss, because it says God never forces\nthe good life on others. God respects the freedom of rebellious children who\ncontinue to reject salvation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In sum, my eschatology rejects unilaterally secured universalism. But it also rejects the view that God gives up loving creatures and never gives up offering eternal life. My vision provides genuine hope for abundant life here and now and eternal bliss there and then for those who cooperate with God\u2019s love.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Answer:<\/strong> The God of uncontrolling love is worthy of our\nworship. I worship this God unreservedly and wholeheartedly. Doing so brings me\ngreat joy!<\/p>\n\n\n\n I\u2019ve spent significant time thinking about what vision of God provokes my worship. I\u2019ve come to think it\u2019s impossible for me to worship a God who could prevent genuine evil but fails to do so. <\/p>\n\n\n\n I don\u2019t unequivocally respect humans who fail to prevent evil when their doing so was possible. So I can\u2019t unequivocally worship a God capable of preventing genuine evil but who fails to do so. I may dread this God. But I could not unreservedly love and worship such a being. <\/p>\n\n\n\n As I see it, the God who can control is not worthy of my worship.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Vanhoozer mentions pity as a possible response to my vision of God, and this reminds me of a recent conversation. I was explaining to a fellow theologian that the uncontrolling God cannot prevent genuine evil by acting alone. My friend responded that he prefers a God who can control. He smirked and said, \u201cYou know, Tom, your God is just doing the best He can.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n I thought about his remark and responded, \u201cYour God could be doing a whole lot<\/em> more, but He apparently doesn\u2019t care enough to do so!\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n I mention this conversation because it illustrates how love is my fundamental theological intuition. When I think about a God worthy of worship, I find far more winsome the vision of a God who consistently loves but cannot control than a God who can control but loves inconsistently by causing or allowing evil.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Some claim the God they affirm both controls and loves consistently. In light of evil, they say it is a mystery how God does both. This measure of mystery, however, detracts from my worship. I\u2019m unable to worship a God who cannot be understood to such a degree. <\/p>\n\n\n\n I’m not motivated to worship an incomprehensible God. <\/p>\n\n\nI'm not motivated to worship an incomprehensible God. <\/a><\/span>Share on X<\/a><\/span>\n\n\n(2) Does\nOord truly preserve the Creator\/creature distinction, or is God on the same\nmetaphysical level with the rest of created reality? If the call to love that\nGod gives each creature is in one sense \u201cno different from the causal influence\nthat other creatures exert,\u201d then doesn\u2019t God exist on the same plane of being\nas everything else?<\/em> <\/h3>\n\n\n\n
(3) Does\nOord derive his definition of love from the event of Jesus Christ or from\nsomewhere else?<\/em><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
(4) In\n\u201csolving\u201d the problem of evil by stipulating God\u2019s nature as uncontrolling\nlove, does Oord render insoluble the equally important question, \u201cWhat may we\nhope?\u201d Oord stresses the importance of human participation in what he calls\n\u201cparticipatory eschatology\u201d: \u201cGod\u2019s kenotic love invites creatures to\nparticipate in securing victory.\u201d But why think that the entropic universe,\nmuch less rebellious children, will come around to God\u2019s way at the end of\ntime? Does not this solution to the problem of evil render evil metaphysically\nunavoidable and necessary?<\/em><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
(5)<\/strong> If Oord\nis right, is the God who is uncontrolling love more deserving of our worship or\nsympathy?<\/em><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n