Oord calls his new love based theology âEssential Kenosis,â because like myself he is very taken with the Christian notion of a God become man, or as Oord puts it, God as both creaturely and divine, reconciling the world to Himself in the person of Jesus. Oord then goes on to explain that lacking Godâs omnipresent nature we cannot love all of creation directly but only in part. From this Oord concludes that Christâs love is not entirely knowable. There is a quantitative character in that notion of love which I do not like very much, and I would say the opposite that Godâs love is precisely what is knowable of God and it is His nature as an infinite being which surpasses our understanding.
It seems to me there is something just a little bit panentheistic in Oordâs understanding of creation. Choice is one of the two functional differences I can see between theism and pan(en)theism. The other is the independent existence of what God has created as opposed to God required to hold the universe together as if it were only a dream. With the removal of choice to answer the question of why God does not stop evil, Oord makes creation something which happens to God rather than something which He does by His own will.
This involuntary nature of Godâs love also seems to lead to a likewise involuntary nature of our own redemption, with a renewal of Godâs image of love being something which happens to us rather than something we choose to embrace. To be sure there an aspect of redemption which we cannot accomplish because sin destroys free will. But liberation from sin only brings us back to the freedom of choice Adam had â to choose once again between love/life and fear/death. If that choice could be made for us by God, then why did Adam & Eve have to make that choice for themselves?
But when it comes to the multi-dimensional character of Godâs love, Oord and myself are very much on the same page. We can reflect Godâs love for his creation in so many different ways, even choosing to devote our lives to the understanding of a single species of beetle.
But back to the âessentialâ part of Oordâs âessential kenosisâ theology which claims God cannot coerce because He Himself has been coerced by His own loving nature. To me this is absurd and the only coercion I see, is on the part of Oord and other theologians who rip the power to be as He chooses away from God, enslaving Him to their theology. This is in contrast to a overarching principle of my own theology that always says that God CAN and never says that God cannot in regards to anything. What then? Can God make a square circle and other such contradictory nonsense? Sure. We all can â in our dreams, where rational coherence does not hold. That is more about the nature of what is created than any limitation upon God â or a limitation upon what we ourselves can meaningfully say about God.
Next Oord returns to his rejection of creation ex-nihilo and proposes an alternative which he calls âcreation out of creation because Godâs nature is love.â Now Oord examines the part of John 1 about creation, equating creation through the word with âcreation through love.â Oord does conform this to the Bible/Christian-tradition in denying an eternal dualism between good and evil, first creating out of pre-existing materials, or creation out of Himself, or any dependence upon His creatures for His own existence. I have previously observed that a lot of this has been made a mute point because the scientific understanding of energy has dissolved the distinction between thing and action, meaning Godâs action of creation is sufficient for any needed substance of what He creates. But with these cautions, near as I can tell then, the point of Oordâs doctrine of creation is only that Godâs creation is not entirely free because the motivation derived from love dictates limitations. On this I certainly agree.
Oord observes that the creation account can be seen as one of sharing power, i.e. giving power of things over different aspects of His creation. On this we can also agree, and I would point out that the this is an essential part of an act of love as well. There is no love without sharing and in that is an innate vulnerability which is also a part of what love is.
But now we get to the nitty gritty as Oord lists 7 aspects to his doctrine of creation:
- Godâs essential nature of love motivates Godâs creating activity.
- It brings into being something entirely new (without any pre-existing form).
- But God then creates out of what He has previously created.
- God does not coerce when creating.
- Creating in love is a necessary part of Godâs nature.
- Creatures depend on Godâs creative activity to exist. God does not depend on them to exist.
- Creatures play a role in what comes to be, as created co-creators.
My disagreements with this are subtle.
- God creates from a choice of love and freedom over power and control.
- Bringing into being something entirely new is all that creation ex-nihilo means.
- Godâs continued work of creation is not ex-nihilo but from what He has previously created.
- God creates an independent existence which exists and operates according fixed rules. These laws of nature are certainly coercive but not absolutely. There remains some liberty within them in which He can interact and with which his creatures can make their own choices.
- Creating in love is a choice â or it is not love. God is not a computer in the sky following some fixed programming dictated by all-powerful theologians.
- The existence of creatures depends on these independent rules God has created. And God does not depend on either on these laws of nature or His creatures for His own existence.
- Living creatures play a role not only the creation of the world by altering it, but also in the creation of themselves. This is what it means to be alive.
I will stop here. I am now halfway through the last chapter. I must finish with this book by September 9 when the inter-library loan book is due to be returned.