Open
Theism
When tragedies like the murder of a child or the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center occur Christians turn first to prayer. Next they turn to theology. At least thinking ones do. For in our theology we find answers to the plaguing questions exposed by such tragedies.
Two questions will surface eventually: First we will ask, “Did God know this was going to happen?” Christians usually join the vast majority of all Christians through history in answering, “Yes—God knows ahead of time everything that is going to happen.” Then a second questions arises, “Could God then have stopped it? Again, most all Christians through history have answered, “Yes, He could have—but He didn’t.” These answers are solid orthodox theology for most of history.
However, these two answers lead to a third question. If God knew this tragedy was going to happen, and He could have stopped it from happening, isn’t He at least partially responsible for this tragedy? That is, if a minister were counseling a guy who confessed he planned to kill his wife tonight, and that minister did nothing whatsoever to report this to the police, wouldn’t we all say the minister was at least partially responsible for the woman’s death? Our laws surely would hold him partially responsible. How much more then should God be held responsible for what these terrorists did? A human minister could say he or she thought the fellow was “just talking” or was “just blowing off steam.” The minister might not think the fellow was really serious. God can’t offer that plea—He does know for sure what is actually going to happen in the future. So when He stands by and “does nothing” when He knows full well what is about to happen, isn’t God culpable for the tragedy too? If he knew it would happen and He could have stopped it but didn’t—isn’t God to blame?
I remember in my college Pentateuch class asking a similar question. We were studying Genesis. I raised my hand and asked, “If God knew Adam would sin when he set the forbidden fruit before them, isn’t God at least partially responsible for sin in the world?” My professor’s eyes widened and he raised his bushy eyebrows. He stood up from his usual sitting position at his teaching desk. Towering over the class he boomed, “Mister Drury you should never ask such a question… never... again I say… Never!”
Are such questions “out of bounds” for Christians to ask? Or can ordinary Christians “do theology” when the big questions in life arise? I think we are obligated to do theology—even as amateurs. So do it now. Is God at least partially responsible for the destruction of thousands of lives at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon? Since He knew it would happen, and He could have stopped it, doesn’t He have to carry some of the blame? Here are several options for dealing with these questions. Which do you lean toward most?
1. “The Devil made them do it.”
If you take this view you’ll explain tragedy by charging Satan with the crime, not God. You will argue that God created a perfect world but Satan rebelled and is at war with God. Satan is the source of all evil and pain. God is letting Satan rule on earth for a time and it even looks like he’s winning the war at times. But eventually God will triumph and stomp Satan into the ground. tossing him into the lake of fire. But, until then it may appear that the Devil is winning a battle here and there. You and I, however, know in the end God will win the war. Until God triumphs, He has let Satan roam the earth causing people to do monstrous things like kill their children or blow up buildings. When such awful tragedies happen we should not blame God but the Devil. The Devil “won this round,” but God will eventually win out. This happened because “the Devil is attacking America and has temporarily won a battle.”
2. “God was responsible.”
If you take this view you’ll claim “all things work together for good” and you’ll say that the terrorists “meant it for evil but God intended it for good.” You might not blame God, but you’ll admit He is responsible, a fine line to tread but you’ll try to walk it. You’ll turn to the chastening passages of Scripture and especially to the Old Testament where all sorts of evil things were laid at God’s feet. The greatest theological error of the Israelites’ day was polytheism. Israel refused to have more than one god. Believing in a powerful Satan who could cause evil without God’s permission was unthinkable—and sounded too much like a two-god theory. Israel preferred to let God be the source of both good and bad things, than to let a second god-like being (Satan) rival the One True God. If you take this view you’ll see the terrorists something like the Old Testament prophets saw the Babylonians or Assyrians—as evil tools in God’s hand to turn His people back to Himself. You’ll say something like; “This is a message of God to America to repent.” Or, “Perhaps God will use this event for evangelism—to turn the hearts of many.”
3. God has limited Himself by
giving humans Free Will
If you take this view you won’t stick either God or the Devil with the tragedy but will charge humans alone with the evil act. You’ll argue that God, while totally sovereign, somehow limited his sovereignty by granting humans free will. That is, somewhere along the line God limited His power to control every event in the universe by permitting humans to make their own choices. Sometimes these choices are good and sometimes they are bad. Often they are outside of God’s will, but God still does not overrule such choices. For instance, it is God’s will that all should come to Him, but some refuse. God could simply overrule these refusers and “save them against their will” but He doesn’t—because He has previously limited his sovereignty by granting humans free will. Thus God stands back and lets humans make these choices—even hurtful ones—without interfering. If you have this view you’ll say terrorists did such a hideous thing because they chose to do it and God didn’t overrule their evil choices. To you it’s not God’s fault because He gave humans the power to choose good or evil. And it’s not the Devil’s fault because any person can resist the evil temptations of the Devil. You’ll blame the men and women who chose to do wrong.
4. God didn’t know it would happen.
The fourth view is a new one. It is a recent theological trend that may have gone unnoticed by the ordinary Christians until the terrorist tragedy triggered them to think theologically. While this notion has been thought of before, it has never been an orthodox theological view. Called “Open Theism,” this view argues that God in fact didn’t know these terrorist attacks would happen. God knows perfectly all past and present events, but He does not know the future. He knows the infinite variety of futures, and He knows human behavior in the past so perfectly that He can better predict the odds of the future, but in fact He did not know for sure what these terrorists would do. Open Theism (sometimes also called “Free Will Theism”) sees God and humans in relationship—God acts, humans respond, then God responds to our response, and so forth. The future of our relationship with God is an open one—dependant on what we do, and He does, we then do, etc. In Open Theism we can even change God’s mind and get Him to do something He didn’t plan to do. It is a dance. The relationship is bilateral not unilateral. The recent brand of this theological view emerged in the 1980’s (like most ideas it has been thought of before, even during the Middle Ages). Theologians like Bruce Ware (Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) have attacked this theology but average Christians often practice it unknowingly when they pray. Most Christians really believe they can get God to do something by praying—that the future is not already fixed. If you have this view this week, you’ll see God acting and responding to human choices. Thus God will respond to this terrorist act, and we will respond to His actions and we may or may not have a war etc. To you the future is not determined or even fully known by God. If you take an “open Theism” approach to this tragedy you’ll be saying things like, “God didn’t know this was going to happen any more than I did, but you can be sure He will respond to it…and to us and our response.”
Of course, none of these views is without its problems. The first is fraught with the dangers of dualism—a too-big-Devil and a too-little-God, though many Charismatics prefer this view. The second can lead you to make God the author of evil, an untenable position for most modern people except the strongest of the black-coffee Calvinists. The third can produce a distant God who sits on His heavenly bleachers wagging His head as He watches we humans screw everything up and this view can also lead to practical humanism. The fourth position is so new that few serious thinkers can comfortably adopt a theological position that has not been tested for several hundred years.
So, what do you think? Which view (or combination of views) do you lean toward? Do you have yet another view than these? It is a good time to think about theology—it’s our only way to explain such a tragedy.
So, what do you think? Respond to Tuesday@indwes.edu
Other "Thinking Drafts" and writing by Keith Drury -- http://www.indwes.edu/tuesday