Though He slay me, I will still trust Him. For Jesus said, “I am the resurrection and the life.” All my hope is in Him. He is my life, both now and forever more.
The Lord gives and the Lord takes away, blessed be the name of the LORD.
1 Like
52Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” 53So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. 54He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. 56He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. 57As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me. 58This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.”
59These things He said in the synagogue as He taught in Capernaum.
60Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this said, “This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?” 61But Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this, said to them, “Does this cause you to stumble? 62What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before? 63It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. 64But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him. 65And He was saying, “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.”
66As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore. 67So Jesus said to the twelve, “You do not want to go away also, do you?” 68Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life. 69We have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God.”
By that point He already had many disciples. Many. And many of them bolted. ‘Come on. We aren’t gonna drink your blood Jesus and no, we ain’t gonna chow down on your flesh. You been partaking a little too much in that homemade wine you like so much? Spending too much time in the sun? Your notoriety going to your head there big fella? Sorry. Adios.’
Jesus is a big hit until He says something that irks us. He said a lot of things many don’t like, so we drop those words and turn him into what we decide He should be to meet our concept of God, until He meets with our approval.
But, He doesn’t budge. The crazy thing is, when we surrender all, the living space He becomes is so vast and clean and cool, we finally get it.
Continuing with Oord’s thoughts about Nygren in chapter 2.
Four parables of Jesus are given as support for Nygren’s idea of agape as spontaneous unmotivated love: the prodigal son, the parable of vineyard laborers, the parable of the sower, and the parable of the unmerciful steward.
Nygren claims the love in the story of the prodigal son has no rational grounds. Oord replied that son’s choice to return is the crucial part of the story and shows that Nygren’s idea that we play no role at all in the restoration of the relationship with God is not supported by this parable. Furthermore it is made clear by the father that the two sons are not equal with regards to inheritance, which further undermines Nygren’s use of the is parable. On the other hand, I would complain that Oord is ignoring the fact that the father is rebuking the faithful son for His preoccupation with what is deserved and the failure to share the Father’s love for the lost son.
Nygren claims the parable of the vineyard laborers shows that God is not concerned with giving equal return for we have given Him. Oord replied that the master nevertheless rewards them for their work and doesn’t have the master giving the same wages to people who have done nothing at all.
Nygren points out in the parable of the sower shows that seeds are sown without concern where they might land. The rational approach would seem to be sowing seeds only where you can expect a good result. Oord replies that Nygren has ignored Jesus’ explanation where He makes it clear that our response to what God gives freely to all is of crucial importance.
Nygren claims the parable of the unmerciful steward shows the standard of agape ethic is one we are expected to imitate. Oord replies that the kind’s final act of handing the steward over to be tortured shows that our response to God’s mercy is important, and thus “God’s love has a responsive element.”
I agree with Oord that these parables shows that we play a role contrary to Nygren’s idea of agape, but I think Oord is showing considerable confusion here between God’s love and salvation – as if salvation depends only upon God’s love for us. I object that the implication of what Oord is pointing out in these parables is more that salvation requires us to play a role and not that God’s love itself is conditional. None of this is to change the fact that salvation is wholly a work of God, for God alone has the knowledge of how salvation is to be accomplished. I only observe that God is not working on inanimate objects and thus our response is a part of it. Changing our heart and actions is a crucial part of what God is seeking to accomplish in our salvation.
Oord suggests Nygren might have done better to use the parables of the coin or the lost sheep since these give no role to the one being found, but Nygren avoids these because both explicitly affirm the worth of that which is searched for. I likewise might complain that Oord might have done better to point out all the parables where God shows anger at those who do not do right such as Matthew 25, since these speak more to God feelings rather than just His success in changing us. The parable of the unmerciful steward is an exception to this however. Oord also points out that Nygren didn’t speak of the parable of the Good Samaritan, all about God desire for us to show a similar agape love for others. This Oord says this is because the love of the Good Samaritan is not unmotivated but a matter of compassion for suffering. But I think Oord’s argument is confusing motivation for love with the love itself.
I nevertheless agree with Oord’s principle argument rejecting Nygren’s idea that God’s love is entirely devoid of motivation. I add to this my own observation that scripture frequently expresses the fact that God is appreciative of the goodness in people… Noah, Abraham, and Job to name a few. Yes I would also speak some caution against going to the opposite extreme of suggesting that the love of God is in any way earned.
Next I will consider Oord’s examination of Paul’s letters and His conclusions about Nygren’s contribution to a theology of love.
1 Like
I find the claim of Oord and others influenced by process theology that love must be non-coercive extremely unconvincing. It is not more loving to merely advise your child that running out in the street is a bad idea than to grab him before he gets into the road. Less extreme, requiring your kids to eat healthy food and not just dessert is also better for them. Of course, the long-term goal is to train them towards not needing coercion, but the obsession with “non-coercive” does not seem a sound basis for judgement. Similarly, the progressive revelation through the course of the Bible tends to start out sounding more like the approach needed with a toddler “matches bad” and then more nuanced as they learn. [Not to imply that we are inherently ahead of where they were, merely that we have the beginner and more advanced versions of the manual all available.]
1 Like
I really doubt that process theology has much of anything to do with that question. I am rather contemptuous of process theology and philosophy and yet I am utterly convinced non-coercion is essential to love. That is simply not the same thing as the examples you are talking about. The proper process of raising your children is one of slowly transferring power and responsibility to them. Trying to keep them as children and under your power is to refuse your children life itself. Such self-indulgence at your children’s expense is downright evil and the opposite of love.
Love absolutely requires things like trust, and sharing decisions. What you describe sound like the declarations of love you would hear from a rapist or mafia godfather. The cold soul of evil itself.
This is common sense and any experience in love relationships not process theology. And BTW having family members terrified and obedient to you isn’t love – not at all.
P.S. I thought I should edit to point out that I come to a little bit different conclusions later in my discussion of Oord, finding merit in what David has to say here.
I find Nygren and Oord’s argument over Paul to be a bit lame. The question is settled quite easily by Paul’s definition of love. 1 Cor 13:4 Love is patient and kind; love is not jealous or boastful; 5 it is not arrogant or rude. Love does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; 6 it does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right. 7 Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
For the evangelical in particular, Nygren’s idea that the human response to God does not involve love is incomprehensible. We are commanded to love God as the first and greatest commandment. I thus find it a bit incredulous that Nygren would really make a claim like this. Thus I have to admit this made me quickly lose interest in Oord’s argument with Nygren. It became so much harder for me to take anything Nygren said very seriously. I can only continue with the chapter by focusing on what Oord is saying.
- Agape is not the only form of Christian love.
- The Bible portrays even God’s love as other types of love like eros and philia.
- God initiates a relationship and we respond.
- God is the source of love because that enables us to love as well.
- Love is an essential attribute of God’s nature.
- Agape repays evil with good.
I think 4 is not strong enough. All through the Bible it is perfectly clear that it is God intent that we should learn to be a source of love also. As for 5 I have already expressed my objection to the idea that love is an attribute of God’s nature. NO! Love is a choice! To be sure it is a choice which follows quite rationally from His nature. But it is still a choice. God is not forced to love us or anyone by His nature as if love is the only thing He can do. God can also hate. That is also clear in the Bible. And I certainly do not think that 6 means that God always repays evil with good.
That God Can’t has nothing to do with free will whatever that is. An inadequate post hoc excuse that in no way justifies evil. If God could create without everyone involved meaninglessly suffering, He would obviously. He can’t. Can not. If you want butterflies, you have to have maggots. To populate the sublime transcendent, you have to have nature, in the raw. By way of apology, God comes as maggots.
1 Like
. Just You certainly did Alex! Well done! An impressive résumé. I’m the token existential Christian here : ) The rationality of nature tells us more about God than anything else apart from Jesus.
1 Like
Aw, thanks, Klax. Very fortunate and happy to be where I am.
Wow. Couldn’t have said it better myself! Nature and Jesus. Aquinas’ two books v2.0. Cheers!
1 Like
Oord’s examination of Augustine’s view of love in theology focuses on the book, “Teaching Christianity.” My own impressions of Augustine are mixed. I have read some good things which he has written and some terrible things. I shall try to look at this presentation of his ideas with a fresh mind.
I didn’t have to read far before that determination was shattered completely. It was promising with the idea that things are either meant to be enjoyed as end in themselves or to be used as a means to an end. These are terms in which I have looked at things many times myself. But then Augustine asserts that only God is to be enjoyed as an end while people are simple to be used as a means to an end. This is very much in line with the terrible things I have read by Augustine before, both justifying and magnifying all the contempt that I have felt for him previously. Let’s remember that modern ethics is founded on the principle stated by Kant that people are always to be treated as an end in themselves and never as a means to something else. I can thus only see Augustine’s teaching as a complete perversion and annihilation of Jesus’ teaching – the first step in the transformation of Christianity into a Satanic religion of evil. And the more Oord explains of Augustine the worse it gets.
Oord explains that for Augustine love is not about dong good or promoting well-being. Augustine, he says, seems to equate love with desire or craving – something morally neutral. The word “love” is certainly used in this way in English where we can say that one loves ice cream, or power, or even doing evil. Oord tries to argue that the Bible predominately uses the word love for doing good, but that may simply be because this is the sort of love that the Bible is calling us to practice and experience. It certainly uses the word in the other way such as when it condemns the love of money. Even detesting Augustine, I do not find credible Oord’s argument that Augustine was single handedly responsible for changing the meaning of the word “love” from goodness to this morally neutral thing. This causes me to reflect once again on Oord’s definition of love given previously, and to conclude this only covers the agape type of love.
Oord explains that Augustine says you must only love others because you love God first. In other words, others are not to be loved for their own sake but as a means of loving God. For me this equates to the opposite of faith, where you only love others as a way of appeasing God and obtaining merit for salvation. It explains a lot of Christian history filled with brigands, who murder, rob, and enslave people then adopt a self-righteous superiority by building churches and doing acts of charity for their conquered slaves and surfs. This disgusting sham of Xtianity hasn’t fooled anybody into thinking these pretenders have any measure of love for anyone but themselves.
So once again I have too hard a time stomaching the one Oord is examining and have to restrict myself to what Oord himself is saying (all opposed to what Augustine says):
- Loving God means loving His creations and His children for their own sake.
- Loving God includes loving oneself.
- Loving God with all your heart, mind, and strength means devoting ourselves to overall well being and not just giving ourselves to religious activities exclusively.
- God loves us for our own sake and is not just making use of us to love Himself as Augustine claims.
- Loving God does not mean we can only love the spiritual and eternal and not anything of this world which God has created.
- Love is both giving and receiving. So God’s perfection does not mean He gets nothing from us.
- Oord denounces the idea of D’Arcy and Augustine that God is inexpressible, i.e. that nothing worthy of God can be said about God. Oord demonstrates this is incoherent because this says something about God.
- Oord rejects the idea God is completely different from His creatures in every way. I observe that even the most radical difference cannot change the fact that God is their creator, and as a result they cannot help but reflect the nature and choices of the creator.
- Oord observes that the denial of bidirectionality, describability, and comprehensibility has ultimately undermined the belief in God itself and led straight to atheism.
- Without analogy (i.e. without a meaningful connection to our own experience of love) all talk of God’s love becomes meaningless.
- Furthermore making such a connection to our own experience of love is what Christ was all about. Christ is the analogy which enables our understanding of God’s love.
- Oord rejects Augustine’s removal of time from God as contrary to the Biblical description of God.
- God’s love is unchanging. Or in my own words, God is unchanging in His choice of love and freedom over power and control.
From number 6 Oord introduces us to the Augustinian theologian Martin C. D’Arcy. It is he who comes up with this justification for Augustine’s thinking about love in Christianity from God’s unchanging perfection.
On number 8, it is my idea that God is an infinite being and this is radically different than is finite creatures and this is what makes for an eternal relationship. And even though we can say that God is the one who gives and we the one who receive in this relationship. The relationship makes for a greater whole in which we can contribute our receptiveness and God can thus appreciate the good He sees in us.
Number 12 is something I have said often myself, explaining it to be derived from an antiquated notion of absolute time that has been discarded in science. Time is just an ordering of a set of events and there in no reason to think there is only one such ordering for all events. So even if God is outside of the temporal structure of the physical universe, this does not mean that God cannot make use of His own time (temporal ordering) as He chooses. Thus we can reject the ludicrous notion of these theologians that God cannot do any of the things in a long list which any of us can do.
I think the simple conclusion can be summed that a theology of love means rejecting the ideas of D’arcy, Augustine and Nygren.
So next time I will move on to chapter 4 entitled “Open Theology as a Theology of Love.”
1 Like
Love is not all there is to parenting. There is also provision, discipline, training, responsibility, wisdom, etc. I think it always gets reductive when we try to subsume the entirety of God’s character and manner of relating to creation under a single abstract construct (love). There is a reason we are given multiple multi-dimensional metaphors and models to help us grasp God’s character and ways of interacting with creation.
3 Likes
In chapter 4 Oord examines open theology and particularly that of Clark Pinnock and the book written in collaboration with Basinger, Hasker and Rice: “The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God.” In this chapter, Oord’s own theological background as a process theologian becomes clear as he makes frequent comparisons. It will eventually become clear in my comments that I am an open theist and quite hostile to process theology and particularly its inspiration in the writing of Alfred North Whitehead. I read His book, “Process and Reality,” and criticized it as an attempt to resurrect the philosophy of Plato which I am likewise hostile to – and frankly making it worse by making it reductionist.
Oord correctly portrays open theology as a back to the Bible movement… returning to the God described in the Bible from that which theologians (i.e. Church fathers) concocted using Greek philosophy (i.e. Plato and Aristotle). Oord also sees open theology as seeking a coherent union of God’s love and power, so that God’s love has all the meaning and fulness from including responsiveness, generosity, sensitivity, sharing, and vulnerability. Thus it criticizes traditional theology for losing Biblical focus with a set of philosophical attributes, replacing the God of the Hebrews with the God of pagan philosophy. The end result is a God which is only to be engaged by the intellect rather than in a more intimate relationship.
Oord seems to see an irony in the rejection of open theology despite its Biblical approach, and perhaps this provides justification for seeing no reason to cater to the Bible so much himself. The conclusion seems to be that so much of Christianity is a runaway train that will not change for any reason regardless of its obvious poverty (just look above at the ideas of divine love in Nygren and Augustine). So even though Oord sees immense improvement in open theology over the traditional, he is inclined to go much farther in a philosophical naturalist direction than the open theists would.
Oord lists the similarities to his own process theology: the priority of God’s love and human freedom, seeking a more dynamic understanding of God with real relationships in which he is affected by others, God knows what can be known, and despite criticizing the distortions of Greek philosophy continuing to see the value of philosophy in doing theology.
Oord also thinks there is a positive connection to Arminian/Wesleyan traditions, but I do not. I see small improvement in Arminian theology over Calvin/Reformed theology. To me it looks like both are seeking entitlement which is the poison which has profoundly corrupted Christianity. So instead, I see open theism as a third alternative rejecting both Calvinism and Arminianism.
I think this is good place to pause before Oord launches into the reasons why open theology does not satisfy Him. And the curious thing is that those reasons are not about love but theodicy.
True, and that is part of why the preoccupation with “uncontrolling love” is problematic - everything is being assessed on how well it fits that abstract concept, rather than on the total biblical picture. But on the other hand, it is not correct to say that, e.g., discipline is inherently not loving - the various aspects go together. As several passages point out, neglecting discipline is not a truly loving approach.
The appeal to uncontrolling love assumes that we have the ability to respond appropriately to it and is thus definitely at least Arminian if not Pelagian. As such, it is subject to similar critiques and support that such ideas have had through the ages.
2 Likes
Agreed. And I can now see from reading more of Oord’s book how process theology might be going too far with this – particularly with this idea of freedom being irrevocable. As I have said many times, whatever free will we have is far from universal or absolute. It varies greatly and it is fragile. In particular, sin destroys free will. And when human beings turn themselves into robots controlled by sin they are practically wearing signs on their sleeves which say “push my buttons” (i.e. they are practically asking to be manipulated). This I believe is the explanation for Exodus 10:1-2, where it says God hardened Pharaoh’s heart (also spoken of in Romans 9 by Paul).
God wants to revive our free will and it is perfectly natural and good for God to employ whatever manipulation is needed in order to accomplish this.
Continuing with chapter 4 with the issues Oord has with open theism (Pinnock).
This begins with his claim that God is not perfectly loving if God could but fails to prevent genuine evil. This is, of course, where I disagree. The problem starts with the observation that there is no sharp line between good and evil. It is not a matter of black and white but indeed also a lot of gray in between. This means Oord’s claim is equivalent to saying that in order to be perfectly loving God cannot allow any of us to commit the tiniest bit of evil. The logical result is that we would not be allowed to develop any integrity or moral sense whatsoever. What would be the point when God doesn’t even allow us exercise such things? So the answer to why God would allow the possibility of evil is that God is seeking a genuine relationship with fully functioning adults capable of integrity and a sense of morality. Oord’s God it seems only wants toddlers and the kind of sheep people we see in the eloi of H. G. Wells “Time Machine.”
Oord claims that Pinnock is inconsistent with regards to whether God is restricted to persuasion only and never coercive. And this is where David Cambell’s ( @paleomalacologist ) objection holds true… because Oord has failed to take into account the whole parenting process which takes one from the infant to the adult with the gradual transfer of power. The good parent most certainly DOES start as largely coercive and only gradually shifts to persuasion. After all, persuasion is meaningless before the child is even capable of reasoning. Pinnock argues that if God is capable of coercion then He is also capable of preventing evil. But the objection wasn’t that God is incapable of preventing evil, but that we refute his foundational premise that a perfectly loving God must prevent evil whenever He can. It is becoming clear that Oord and process theology wants to solve this problem of theodicy a different way – by actually making God incapable of preventing evil.
Next Oord engages another argument of Pinnock, “God’s decision to make this kind of world constrains His freedom to act,” referred to by Pinnock as the “relative irrevocability of freedom.” Open theism affirms that God is capable of self-limitation – that He has the integrity to make decisions and abide by those decisions. Process theology is clearly unsatisfied with this and wants to make the limitations upon God involuntary – it is the only way that Oord believes God can be considered perfectly loving. But consider the implications of Oord’s argument in the context of human parenting. He is essentially saying that parents can only be said to love their children if they do everything they possibly can to control their child for their whole life and make sure they never make a wrong choice. In other words, Oord is saying there is no room for trust and faith in a parent’s love. Only the total control freak is a good parent.
Next Oord goes off in what might seem at first like a rather bizarre direction in this criticism of Pinnock – the question of creation ex-nihilo. Certainly open theology has no problems with this idea, but it really has no part in what open theism is about. But the opposition to creation ex-nihilo is apparently very much a part of process theology for it provides a justification for placing involuntary limitations upon God. In other words, process theology seeks a kind of marriage between theism and naturalism. God may be the creator of the world but He is not the creator of nature itself – that which limits what God can accomplish.
To support this Oord argues that creation ex nihilo is unbiblical. The truth is that while the Bible speaks of God creating some things out of pre-existing materials, the Bible also says many times that God created everything. So yes, not everything God created was simply made to appear suddenly out of nothing. Some things were created out of materials which He previously created. That is the most reasonable understanding of what the Bible is saying. It not reasonable to take the examples of when God created out of pre-existing material as reasons to ignore and dismiss the many many places where the Bible says that God created everything!
Oord makes much of how the Bible begins in Genesis. But even there, the support for his claims is very poor. The very first statement is that God created the heavens and the earth. THEN it says the EARTH was without form and void. Changing that to say that ALL things were without form and God created the whole universe out of this formless beginning is quite a drastic alteration.
Oord’s next concern about the necessity of God’s love is I believe something that follows from his naturalistic creationism. It is not a problem in creation ex-nihilo because everything is a product of God’s intent – if God did not want us then He would not have created us. But Oord’s process theology doesn’t provide such assurances and thus just as He seeks to make God’s limitations involuntary, He also needs to make God’s love involuntary as well. I think this points right to the bankruptcy of Oord’s theology – requiring Him to force the pieces that do not fit into the puzzle.
Next Oord asks what he calls diagnostic questions:
- Could God stop loving us.
- Would God stop loving us.
- Why are you confident God would always love us?
My answers:
- Yes. God is perfectly free to make His own choices. God can do evil if He so chose to do so. He can stop loving us if He chose to do so.
- No. God’s integrity is perfect. He makes decisions and He follows through perfectly. God chooses goodness, so He will not do evil. God chose us as His children to love unconditionally. So He will not stop.
- God’s character is evident in everything He has done. For it is about character and that character is a product of choices He has made about who He wants to be. This is frankly essential for any God I could possibly admire and respect.
Oord thinks these diagnostic questions point to flaws in the analogy of God/world relationship to the parent/child relationship. I think they point to a flaw in Oord’s theology, where he must make God smaller even than we are ourselves in order to make God fit in his theology. Furthermore, it appears that Oord wants guarantees, and I see that as the poison in much of Christianity. With guarantees comes entitlement and with entitlement comes the use of religion as a tool of evil.
In any case, this criticism Oord makes of open theism is the basis for proposing what He thinks is an improvement in the last chapter “5: Essential Kenosis.”
The Wikipedia article on Thomas Oord describes him as an open theist and says nothing about process theology. Nor does the article on process theology mention Oord. But at the end of a website from the City University of New York there is a sentence describing Oord as integrating “process theology with evangelical, openness, and Wesleyan theologies.” This book I am reviewing “The nature of love: a theology” is copyrighted 2010. I surmise that Oord was an open theist and has since been been moving in the direction of process theology.
I would say that natural “evil” is a misnomer. A powerful rain storm is evil if we mean that it causes more damage to humans than a regular rain fall (which is good,) because it produces more rain, wind, and lightning as the result intensified natural forces, which are the same.
There is is no evil intent, so it is not evil. There are some unfortunate results although these are mixed. Our task is not to try to eliminate all rain, but to mitigate harmful results as much as possible.
I think it is important to keep in mind that open theism and process theology are umbrella terms used to describe a line of theological inquiry that is still open and in process and includes a diverse set of thinkers who have started from different places and travelled to different places and haven’t necessarily “ended up” in the place they think is definitively true and correct. It is one of my pet peeves that Christians do not allow scholars and thinkers to explore ideas and imaginatively hash them out in an ongoing way. They want black and white categories, labels, and clear boundaries delineating who is in and who is out. That’s not how intellectual curiosity and the pursuit of truth works.
ETA: This critique is not directed at you @mitchellmckain, just the people who write Wikipedia entries telling us what camp people are in based on things they wrote 10 years ago.
2 Likes
It is a welcome correction. This is a point I often make myself. These categories and labels are rough approximations. The labels and categories are valuable communication tools to get us in the right ball park as long as you don’t treat them as strict absolute boxes. For example, I say that I am an open theist. Doesn’t mean I agree with Pinnock on everything, even when He says that is what open theism means. I definitely have my own take on things and I am only too likely to describe it in my own way. In fact you can see an example of this above when I said… “Open theism affirms that God is capable of self-limitation.” It is more accurate to say that SOME open theists affirm this and I happen to be one of them. Others describe open theism a little differently. I didn’t even get that from some text on open theism… rather it is a conclusion which I thought followed logically from the premises in open theism.
And yes that is not even bringing in the fact of how we all change over time as you mention.