Customer Reviews

The God Who Risks: A Theology of Providence

5 star:		(19)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(7)

 

 

I thank God for this book.

Although I was not raised within the Church--my Father was an unbeliever, and forbade me to attend church--I came to know Christ as my Savior as an adolescent. Perhaps because of my peculiar circumstances, I soon experienced an overwhelming hunger to know my God more intimately. I devoured whatever books pertaining to God and theology (esp. apologetics) I could lay my hands on. Men like R. C. Sproul, Francis Schaeffer and J. I. Packer were powerful influences in my formative years.

As a Philosophy major in college, I was also profoundly influenced by the works of Plato and Aristotle. I was not infrequently amazed, even delighted at the ways in which the Platonic conception of the Divine seemed to dovetail with the Biblical portrait of God.

Because of these various influences, however, I eventually began to have difficulty relating to God. How can an immutable, impassive God feel anything for or with me? Can such a God truly relate to my sufferings? And if not, then is He truly loving? To my mind, at any rate, love necessarily entails openness, vulnerability . . . A God Who remains eternally unaffected by the sufferings and joys of His creation is indeed Wholly Other; we might describe His actions as loving, but not His nature.

Worse, I found myself deeply troubled by the question of evil. What is one to think of an omnicausal God in light of the Holocaust? It is one thing for those who have never experienced such horrors to piously assert that "All is well; God is control!"; it is another matter entirely, however, for those who have suffered the horrors of an Auschwitz.

Despite the oftentimes Byzantine strategies of the defenders of the omnicausal view of God to maintain some sense of human accountability, I could never free myself of the awful sense that this God was like Nietzsche's Superman--i.e., beyond Good and Evil. In fact, the more I thought on it, the more their God acquired an almost Machiavellian cast: The Divine ends justify His means, however painful or horrific or wasteful.

As a child, I suffered abuse (mostly verbal) at the hands of my Father; how could I not conclude that it was ultimately the hand of my omnicausal God that had struck me? He had sovereignly ordained that I be made strong, and my Father had apparently been the means to that end.

"Ours is not to question why," a Calvinist friend once told me. Yet I could not let it go . . . As painful as my own sufferings had been, they were trifling when compared with those of the African slaves or the Jews of Nazi Germany. As a Christian, what was I to say to them? Should I insult them with pious platitudes like "Be not troubled; God is control! Our God reigns!"? It is an easy way out, to be sure; but is it Biblical? Could it be that people embrace this theology because they do not wish to truly grapple with these questions, preferring to treat them as abstractions, as intellectual puzzles to be pondered in the security of their libraries and studies?

Could it be that they (unconsciously) fear genuine intimacy with God?--For how can a God Who is Wholly Other be in any sense intimate? How can God love what is only object to Him?--For the omnicausal God is sole Subject; all else--mankind included--is object. Such a God is not so much a Person as an abstraction, a philosophical explanation like and unlike Aristotle's Unmoved Mover. Just as it easier for many to love Man the abstraction than individual men, so, too, is it easier for some to relate to God as an abstraction, a distant Wholly Other, than as a Person desirous of genuine intimacy.

It is long past time to abandon this unbiblical conception of the Divine as Unmoved Mover and return to what Abraham Joshua Heschel aptly called the "Most Moved Mover" God of the Bible. John Sanders' _The God Who Risks_ is indispensable to this task. Along with _God of the Possible_ and _The Openness of God_, _The God Who Risks_ is destined to become a manifesto for a new Reformation, a return to the Biblical faith of the Apostles.

ABSOLUTELY recommended!

Contrary to Justin's opinion (he must not have read the book very carefully), Sanders presents a view of God that harmonizes with Scripture (something the clasical/reformed tradition cannot do without discarding thousands of texts), reason and our experience as human beings. Sanders takes the reader through those pesky Old Testament texts that so many want to dispose of, as well as the New Testament, and demonstrates that God's interaction throughout salvation history has been one of relation and risk. He further explores Christian tradition, and shows the relational aspect of much of the thought of the early Church Fathers and other avenues of Christian thought. While more of a survey than an exhaustive analysis, there are numerous endnotes which direct the reader to more expansive research. There is enough about this book to keep you studying for a long time.

Despite what has been asserted, Sanders does not contradict himself. God could have chosen to create a world in which relationaily was not a component, although trinitarian theism recognizes the eternal relational aspect of God's being. However, because God IS relational, He sovereignly chose to create a universe in which relationship, not control, was the primary focus. Those who dogmatically define "sovereignty" as meticulous control will certainly not agree with Sanders' conclusions, but will have a hard time refuting him without resorting to name calling and charges of "heresy".

This is not a book one can skim through, it must be read thoroughly and studiously. This book requires thought on the part of the reader, something that is not too often evident which much "evangelical" Christian material these days.

This book gave me finality to the argument between both extremes of Calvinism and Arminianism.

...I agree with Sanders that, on the other hand, man is mostly a "theomorph" of God since we are created in His image instead of God having anthrophomorphic qualities in order to communicate with man.

I especially agree with his implied hermeneutics, i.e., we cannot know God outside of Biblical revelation and SHOULD not attempt to guess His attributes and its qualities outside of revelation. Worse, we should not develop dogmas and doctrines out of these guesses/extrapolations especially when they contradict the rest of scripture, i.e., God relents, God repents, God weeps, etc. The hyper-Calvinist side is especially fond of making "intelligent" guesses about God which redound to creating a different God other than the God of revelation. This is subtle idolatry.

Sanders builds his case impliedly on the example of Christ. Christ is God, BUT he limited His omnipotence (Philippians 2), He limited His omniscience ("Only the Father knows..."), etc. One must remember that Christ is co-equal with God, is the image of the invisible God and, hence, God can do what Christ can do including that of limiting Himself. Hence, God's sovereignty, according to Sanders, should not be limited to what man "thinks" God should be, but WHAT HE IS according to revelation in scripture.

This book has made me say a final GOODBYE to Calvinism and its roots in Classical Greek philosophy and its attempt to extrapolate a God BEYOND the Bible.

Some of my Evangelical brothers will hate this book because it presents a coherant, biblical, and powerfully attractive alternative to aspects of historical Calvinism. Being a reluctant Calvinist, I found myself hard pressed to argue against this well-reasoned theology of a God who is really like the God of the bible--a God of passion, who acts and reacts, who takes human freedom seriously, committing himself to an authentic history of salvation, not a pre-scripted story written before time. What is at risk here is a particular theological tradition, not biblical revelation. This book is forcing me to reexamine my own assumptions.

This book has been an eye opener to me. Its essential assumption is the question, how can we know God? And the answer: only in asmuch as He has revealed Himself. I always thought that Scriptures that wrote about God as changing His mind were an anthropomorphism, a human way of speaking about God. But where would we get the knowledge about God to decide if this were the case? We would need higher information, so to speak. But there is none.......
So reluctantly, at first, I had to admit that most of my views on God were actually based on what I thought God would be like. We know all the "omni's". Sanders challanges this idea and he does so forcefully.
To my surprise, this did not diminish God. On the contrary, in stead of being a director dictating His play, He actually uses the input of the actors (good and bad) and still proceeds towards His goal. Like using David's sin to have the Messiah come forth (ultimately) from Bathseba. An amazing God, a great God indeed. Reading this book I was moved to tears and I stand in awe before the Lord of Lords. My Lord and my God!

Even though this volume first appeared years ago, it remains the most thorough standard presentation and defense of the openness view of God. The author, John E. Sanders, is a professor of philosophy and religion at Huntington College in Indiana, and has also served as an Extraordinary Fellow at the University of Notre Dame Center for Philosophy of Religion. He recently survived an attempt to remove him from the Evangelical Theological Society for his novel views of Scripture and of God. In this book Sanders approaches his work from the standpoint of religious philosophy, but he also spends much effort defending his position in the areas of biblical exegesis, systematic theology, and pastoral ministry.

After explaining his basic position, Sanders seeks to demonstrate it and to defend it against objections arising from various areas of study: the Old Testament, the New Testament, historical theology, and systematic theology. He concludes with a lengthy discussion of practical conclusions and insights gained from the openness view of God.

Sanders begins his book by summarizing his position concerning the providence of God. He objects to the traditional definition of providence as God's "exhaustive control of all things." He rather prefers his own definition: "The word providence refers to the way God has chosen to relate to us and provide for our well-being" (p. 11). With this new definition (actually, a non-definition), Sanders can claim to believe in providence, while denying its traditional meaning. Actually, the way he has defined it, everyone who believes in a god at all can be said to believe in providence.

The tests Sanders employs to evaluate his and other doctrines are the following: public intelligibility, conceptual intelligibility, and adequacy for the demands of life. He maintains that his view of God will rescue the idea of God from a premature death. The old understandings are dying (at least in the academic circles Sanders travels in); a new, revived doctrine of providence will enable intelligent and sensitive people to still affirm it.

One point he belabors is that there are many statements in the Bible in which God is said to react to what humans do. He sees and hears them; he tests them to see what they will do; he is angry when they sin; he is sad and even frustrated when they turn aside from his good plans for them; he is pleased when they obey; he answers their prayers; he pleads with them to believe in him and obey him. All these passages, Sanders maintains, show us the true nature of God as open to us and responsive to us. We affect him. He is not static, unchanging, uninfluenced by us. Those passages that seem to teach the unchangeableness of God, Sanders insists, are few in number compared to the passages that show his responsiveness to us. Since Scripture cannot contradict itself, we should interpret those few passages to agree with the other, more numerous passages. Traditional theologians have called the "changeable God" passages "anthropomorphisms," figures of speech that describe God in human terms, to make the writing more dramatic or understandable. Sanders objects to this refuge of "anthropomorphisms." Rather, it is the "unchangeable God" passages that need to be reinterpreted. They show, he says, that God always has the same moral character, love, and faithfulness in all situations, while we sinners fail to be consistent. They do not teach that God is unchangeable in some Greek philosophical sense, but that he is blessedly consistent in all his virtues.

Sanders builds the case for a "project" concept of the creation. God limits himself voluntarily as he creates and guides the universe and its inhabitants. Whether or not he was limited in this way before the creation Sanders is not willing to speculate. But he does strongly maintain that God's limitations regarding us are a voluntary choice. God has made us as a sort of "project." He subjects us to certain conditions, and waits to see what we will do. He wants us to know and love him. But he will not force us to do this. He does not even know ahead of time what we will do. He hopes for the best, but often is surprised, hurt, and frustrated when we don't love him in return. He is "a God who risks."

If God were to know ahead of time what we would do, then our freedom of choice would be compromised; and God regards our freedom as a nonnegotiable requirement. This is Arminianism with a vengeance. God does have complete knowledge of the past and the present, just not of the future. With this knowledge of the present, God can make pretty shrewd guesses as to what will happen. If necessary, he can arrange circumstances, or even interfere with a special miracle, but he tries to keep those at a minimum. And when things don't go his way, he's very resourceful at thinking of alternate plans. God's really fast on his feet.

That's what happened with Adam and Eve. God was surprised and saddened when Adam sinned, but he immediately thought of a solution--to have his Son die in the place of sinners. Then God could be confident that some humans, at least, would choose to believe in Christ and be saved, and that he could fellowship with them in eternity. So, while he does not know who will be saved or lost, he is pretty confident that things will turn out in the end overall. This enables him to make some prophecies in the Bible that will come true, although some of his prophecies failed to come true, due to unforeseen aberrations in someone's free will. But we don't need to worry--those were not the important prophecies.

Sanders exhibits a wide-ranging scholarship, but perhaps of limited depth. The authorities he quotes for support for various points (the book has over fifty pages of footnotes in small print) represent a very wide variety of scholarship. There seems to be little effort to distinguish traditional, orthodox theologians from modern, unorthodox, or postmodern theologians or philosophers. Although he discusses many biblical texts (the Scripture index is seven pages), he does not always present the strongest texts for the traditional view (e.g., Eph 1:11 is not discussed at all).

The portrait of God painted by John Sanders is so radically different from the God that Christians through the centuries have seen in the Bible, that we can say it is a different god altogether. However, we can be grateful that he has presented this lengthy work defending this view. By bringing the various arguments for open theism into this full a discussion, Sanders has provided a helpful resource for those who wish to defend the traditional, and I would say Scriptural, teaching about the providence of God.

This book gave me finality to the argument between both extremes of Calvinism and Arminianism.

...I agree with Sanders that, on the other hand, man is mostly a "theomorph" of God since we are created in His image.

I especially agree with his implied hermeneutics, i.e., we cannot know God outside of Biblical revelation and SHOULD not attempt to guess His attributes and its qualities outside of revelation. Worse, we should not develop dogmas and doctrines out of these guesses/extrapolations especially when they contradict the rest of scripture, i.e., God relents, God repents, God weeps, etc. The hyper-Calvinist side is especially fond of making "intelligent" guesses about God which redound to creating a different God other than the God of revelation. This is subtle idolatry.

Sanders builds his case impliedly on the example of Christ. Christ is God, BUT he limited His omnipotence (Philippians 2), He limited His omniscience ("Only the Father knows..."), etc. One must remember that Christ is co-equal with God, is the image of the invisible God and, hence, God can do what Christ can do including that of limiting Himself. Hence, God's sovereignty, according to Sanders, should not be limited to what man "thinks" God should be, but WHAT HE IS according to revelation in scripture.

This book has made me say a final GOODBYE to Calvinism and its roots in Classical Greek philosophy and its attempt to extrapolate a God BEYOND the Bible.

I think it was a wonderful book. I am only 14 years old and understood it. I am his son and I think his writing is excellent. His ablity for writing helps a lot, for someday I too, would like to write. The ways he portrays God and Jesus are easy to understand. I recommend his other books also, No Other Name, What About Those Who Have Not Heard, or The Openness of God. Also recommend some of Dr. Gregory Boyd's, such as God at War, Jesus Under Siege or Letters From a Skeptic. Thank you.

NEVER before have I read more persuasive words explaining why bad things happen in this world. This book makes the "theory" that it's possible to have a relationship with God, become a given truth that you can trust.

A veritable tour de force of Open Theism. Sanders has built on years of excellent scholarship by himself and others. This work is the culmination of a long time passion with the Bible and "dividing it correctly." He has dared to tread on the toes of classical theism, but does so with grace and kindness. At times he hits hard, but his overall approach is one of love, and real truth seeking in Christ. This book can open eyes to a new relationship with our Christian God. Liberating in it's relational approach to the divine, yet conservative and cautious in it's approach to exegesis, The God Who Risks is the God I read about in Scripture. I look forward to more scholarship from this author. Whether you agree with each of Sander's theses or not, this book demands attention and needs to be heard.