Tag Archives: open theism

on the move

For a few years, a group of friends and acquaintances have been playing theological volleyball it seems, arguing the same points about the Cross, biblical interpretation, open theism, and the attributes of God. We’ve shared meals together, Skype chats, Google Hangouts, email exchanges, long, drawn out Facebook “conversations,” but I just feel like I needed return to writing and reading about theology again. I guess this is the best way since I hadn’t blogged in forever, but here goes, really briefly.

Team Zeus, the group of theologians who wish to prioritize Greek metaphysics over special revelation such as the Prophets argues that our understanding of divind abandonment is wrong. Jesus is not saying that God has forsaken the Christ on the Cross, it’s just a cry of pain and despair. Furthermore, our interlocutors continue to suggest that God is both immaterial and equally omnipresent at ever place in the world. Divine abandonment they have even suggest in their poems and continuous conversations online is also a not very pastoral approach to theology. We wouldn’t want a depressed person to learn that God has left them to deal with their emotional bouts, do we? That’s not nice, it’s not politically correct, I mean pastoral.

What to make of all of this? Is divine abandonment an offensive theology that doesn’t give people hope? In the words of Rosa Parks, I say, Nah homey. Not in the least. I refuse to be moved by my former and current position I once held defending God’s freedom to move. My pushback against the priority of Greek metaphysics in the reading of Scripture isn’t some personal vendetta against a few Church Fathers after Clement of Alexandria; it’s about, as I have maintained about the freedom of YHWH as God has revealed to us. Team Zeus does not like the idea of God moving from place to place, and they also don’t like the idea that God has a glorious presence that was with the Hebrew prophets and priests in the tabernacle and who enlivened the very anatomy of the Messiah (John 1). For Team Zeus, every tribe and nation gets a participation trophy and a piece of God’s presence. And in some sense, it is true, to co-opt Clement of Alexandria, God is like a river and pours out many streams. Rivers, however, must have a particular spring or bank with which they start to feed into these streams. For Christians, we must not look the Greek mythology or categories, but to the prophets. It is there that the prophets pray to God not to abandon them, for example such as in Nehemiah (chapter 1, verse 9); Is Nehemiah ignorant of the one true God? Is he being disingenuous? In either case, if we go with Team Zeus, we have no reason to trust Nehemiah’s testimony, do we? God chose out of mercy not to abandon the Israelites, but God was fully capable of doing so. But then in chapter 9, verse 28, Nehemiah describe the events of the exile as divine abandonment. What do we make of this?

One can even see in the words of Ezekiel that God took up God’s Shekinah presence, the Holy of Holies in the Temple, and left Jerusalem. King Saul was once filled with the Holy Spirit, and was a man who desired justice (1st Samuel 11) just as the God who chose him did, but what happened? Saul was disobedient and God’s Spirit left him (“Now the Spirit of the LORD had departed from Saul.” 1st Samuel 16:14). In each case, we see God is on the move. If a person doesn’t want to play by God’s rules, fine. God wipes off the dust off of God’s feet and leaves. Only in the context of divine mobility we see taught by the Hebrew prophets can we understand the fullness of Jesus’ cry of divine abandonment. Elvis has left the building; The Shekinah Glory has left the Temple (Jesus’ body) at the Cross. The Divine-Person, the Second Person in the Trinity now has the fullest experience of being human, that is experiencing the curse of Death. That is before breaking it, and remaining victorious over the Powers.

Lastly, I want to address the “pastoral” issue of divine abandonment. Now, one member of TZ suggests that we cannot tell a depressed person that God abandons people, for this would be offensive and not very hopeful. First of all, this is a TERRIBLE, condescending view of people who are suffering from depression. No one one whose read Scripture correctly would suggest God abandons people because of their emotions. No, in each and every case, God leave because of people’s moral choices. God’s being is not determined by how we feel. Such an emotional argument based on experience is very manipulative, and might I add, down right suspicious. The god of the Greek metaphysicians is a snowflake who couldn’t stand up to the passionate God of the prophets. The God we learn of in Scripture is incredibly free and mobile. The defense of divine mobility is a pastoral theology because God is free to move up and down, from heaven to earth, and back again; to the lowest rungs on the social ladder to the highest. God is free to be with humanity when we experience the most misery with victims and God is free to be with those who experience the joy of liberation and holiness. All of this is because of the freedom God chose on Golgotha.

infant lowly, infant holy

originally posted at Toy Adams’ Imagining Jesus blog

These days, there are a lot of Christians that like to talk about being “Incarnation,” and even to some extent “The Incarnation” itself. There are even some Christians who prefer to talk about multiple incarnations. When it comes to discussions of the Incarnation, we love the neat,cleaner, more respectable adult version, where we talk about Jesus as a Grown-Up, as he is able to walk  with us, talk with us personally. This perspective is a highly individualistic, it is self-centered, and exclusive of children’s subjectivity in the life of The Church.  As a Liberationist and an Open Theist, I am all for defending many (not all) relational approaches to understanding God. During Advent, this is the time where we must affirm God’s openness and freedom in choosing to reveal Godself in Christ Jesus, and at the same time we must affirm God’s particularity, the specific choice that God makes, God’s chosen location and positionality.

Let us not fool ourselves. Almost everyone remembers that famous scene from Talledega Nights, where Ricky Bobby proclaims that he loves to pray to Baby Jesus,. “Dear Lord Baby Jesus, we’d also like to thank you for my wife’s father Chip. We hope that you can use your baby Jesus powers to heal him and his horrible leg. It smells terrible and the dogs are always bothering with it” or “Dear Lord Baby Jesus, lying there in your…your little ghost manger, lookin’ at your Baby Einstein developmental…videos, learnin’ ’bout shapes and colors.” The hypermasculine shaming by our general culture was not the beginning of neglecting Baby Jesus as LORD. That all began when Christians throughout history appropriating philosophies that were inconsistent with the idea that YHWH himself became a child. In his book, In the End—The Beginning: the life of hope, Juergen Moltmann notes that the greek words for slave and child have the same root, that even the inspired New Testament authors use the term “childlike/childish” disparagingly (Luke 7:32/1st Corinthians 14:20, for ex.).

Unfortunately, Moltmann does not extend this logic to the Advent image of the Trinity, Mary our Theoktos, her husband Joseph, and Baby Jesus in the manger. In this lowly infant, God has once and for all united divinity with the class of human beings on the lowest rung of the social hierarchy. Children cannot speak. Babies cannot change themselves, feed themselves, OR WALK! Christians desire to solely talk about Jesus as an autonomous, able-bodied male-privileged Jewish subject. The idea that God was dependent upon a woman to nourish Him (in the womb) for His well-being is offensive to us. There are some Christians caught up in debating how the Son of God really could not become a human zygote because that means he was unconscious, and therefore could not reciprocate the love of the Father. This abstract and meaningless debate is one in which God’s sovereign choice at choosing risk and vulnerability is ill-recognized.  If the Church Fathers and Mothers agreed in line with the Gospel narratives that the Second Person of the Trinity did indeed become FULLY human, then the Son experienced fully and completely all things involved in human development and growth. As the Gospel according to Luke informs us, Jesus grew in both WISDOM and STATURE (Luke 2:52).

In agreement with James Cone, we as The Church must recognize continuity between the historical Jesus and the Christ of the creeds. God in the hypostatic union has reconciled marginalized humanity and emancipatory divinity. “For [the early church], Jesus is certainly a unique person, but the uniqueness of his appearance reveals the Holy One’s concern for the lonely and the downtrodden,” argues James Cone in A Black Theology of Liberation. By starting from the bottom-up, God’s salvation works for the benefit of all: God’s Triune love travels from least of these all the way to the top in order to raise up all of humanity at the New Creation (some people will choose judgement, others, reconciliation).This is the logic of the Resurrection, a theo-logic that finds itself as the result of the Incarnation of YHWH as Holy, Lowly Infant.

Following the arguments of the late Clark Pinnock, I can co-sign on the idea that Scripture presents us with a paradox of strength and vulnerability. “Though ontologically strong, God can be vulnerable because of the decision to make a world like this. The Lord of the universe has chosen to limit his power by delegating some to the creature. God gives room to creatures and invites them to be covenant partners, opening up the possibility of loving fellowship but also some of the initiative being taken away from God and creatures coming into conflict with his plans”- The Openness Of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God. Clark Pinnock gets the general description of God’s nature basically right but what his analysis ignores is the particular circumstances that YHWH reveals Godself. God invited the Hebrew children that YHWH delivered from Pharaoh to be covenant partners first. God chose to covenant with King David, Israel’s greatest king, to be God’s specific vehicle for the Logos’ embodiment. The loving fellowship that YHWH invites humanity to partake in is the story of the Law, the Prophets, and the Wisdom writings: the very narratives that reveal YHWH’s justice & preferential option for the widow, the stranger, and the poor. 

This Advent season I have also been working my way through Richard Wright’s Black Boy. Black Boy is Richard Wright’s autobiography about his childhood, or his lack thereof. It is a miserable tale in many instances, with stories about the brutality of an impoverished life, White supremacy, and religious fundamentalism. Wright shares a story of one Christmas day where he received nothing but an orange, and he describes the pain he felt while all the other kids in his neighborhood were playing outside, having fun. It was experiences such as these that taught Wright how to live in solidarity with those who are afflicted. “The spirit I caught had gave me insight into the sufferings of others, made me gravitate toward those whose feelings were like my own, made me sit for hours while others told me of their lives, made me strangely feel tender and cruel, violent and peaceful” (chapter 3).

The title Black Boy itself is filled with irony IMO.  When Black men are referred to as “boys,” it is an insult going back to African enslavement. Black people were/are considered to be at the bottom of White Supremacist hierarchy. On one hand, “boy” is pointing towards Wright’s experience of oppression under Jim/Jane Crow imperial domination.  On the other hand, “boy” is also being reclaimed with Wright taking back his ownership of his own childhood and his own story in spite of being robbed of it by organized religion and structural injustice. I am now contending that we Christians do a reclamation projection of our own, that of revisiting this notion of the Divine Baby more than once a year, to allow God’s choice for risk and vulnerability to define God, and not our own speculations. Once the Church returns to the childhood of the Triune God, we will be better able to join in the bottom-up Resurrection movement of the Logos. 

in the mail: John Goldingay's Israel's Gospel and Israel's Faith

A few months ago I was gifted by InterVarsity with a copy of John Goldingay’s Israel’s Gospel. Today, I also received the second volume of his Old Testament theology trilogy, Israel’s Faith. I have heard nothing but good things about Goldingay’s work, especially as it relates to open theism. I also like what I saw bibliography wise, as Goldingay, an evangelical, is dialoguing with Black and Womanist biblical scholars.