Customer Reviews

Most Moved Mover: A Theology of God's Openness (Didsbury Lectures)

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(8)

 

 

I was not expecting to like this book.

I read it in the context of a class that was meant to be critical, from a Calvinistic perspective, of Arminianism in its Reformed, Wesleyan, and Open Theist forms. I myself had, until recently, been a typical "angry young man" that you so often find in Reformed schools. But at that time I had begun to re-evaluate my theology. In any case, my preconceived ideas about Clark Pinnock could have been put simply: he was a heretic. Even before he had become an Open Theist, I was under the impression that he was a heretic, not only because he had a weak view of Scripture, but because he had embraced Arminian theology after having been an avowed Calvinist. In all honesty, I read his book rather reluctantly. I had no idea what Open Theism was, and, in all honesty, I had never really examined the arguments for Arminianism from an Arminian perspective. I was only expecting to find "fuel for the fire", you might say, with which to burn an effigy of Pinnock in a critical essay.

But then something unexpected happened. As other reviewers have noted, Most Moved Mover is about God's love and about his relationality. As a Calvinist, I believed in God's love for the elect in the abstract, but was not entirely convinced of his love for any individual I met, even for myself, because I thought it was impossible to know who was truly elect. God loved some people, and hated most, having created them to be tortured for eternity to the praise of his glory. And I understood God's relationality to the world in terms of decrees and legally binding covenants - in other words, my understanding of God was that he was mighty and sovereign, and somewhat distant.

Pinnock's arguments blew that conception out of the water.

Admittedly, having experienced a personal crisis within my family, and having spent some time doing pastoral work and evangelism, my views about God were changing and maturing, but Pinnock really sped up the process by helping me read Scripture in a light I wouldn't or couldn't read as a Calvinist.

And then, a couple days after having read the book, I found myself walking through a mall in Amsterdam and I had something of a religious experience. I've only had a handful of encounters with God throughout my walk as a Christian, so I'm not given to religious experiences on a regular basis (though perhaps I should be). It suddenly occured to me, that God loves me! He loves...me! He... loves. I was at once shocked, humbled, and so full of joy I found myself crying right there in the mall! I had always believed that God was my King, my Saviour, my Judge, my Lord... but I had a hard time accepting or believing that he was my Loving Father. But no longer.

I say all this because I attribute that revelation, that work of grace in my heart to Clark Pinnock's book. I'm not saying I'm an Open Theist, but I cannot bring myself to call Pinnock a heretic. I think his work is worth your attention, especially if you are struggling to understand God's love for you and for the world. In a subsequent correspondence with Prof. Pinnock I found him to be a humble, grace-filled person in love with Christ, totally without the venom you often find in works by other theologians, especially his opponents. I would highly reccomend Most Moved Mover to people whose experiences may have mirorred my own, and who are seeking a deeper revelation of the love of God.

Clark Pinnock offers this monograph as a full-scale explication and defense of the Open view of God. Pinnock and others publicly presented the view in a 1994 book titled, The Openness of God. For those unfamiliar with the basic outlines of this theological alternative, Pinnock provides ample definition and characterization of it in Most Moved Mover.

Openness theology envisions God as a self-sufficient, though relational, Trinitarian being who voluntarily created the world out of nothing. God graciously relates to the world as one self-limited out of respect for the genuine freedom of creatures. This relational, pantemporal God does not exhaustively foreknow future actual events. Above all, the open view of God emphasizes love as God's chief attribute and as the primary priority for theological construction. "The living God is . . . the God of the Bible," writes Pinnock, "the one who is genuinely related to the world, whose nature is the power of love and whose relationship with the world is that of a most moved, not unmoved, Mover" (3).

The book's introductory chapter may be the most interesting part of the book to those already familiar with the general themes of openness theology. In it, Pinnock cites numerous objections to the Open view penned mostly by Evangelical theologians of a Calvinist bent. For instance, "I have to say, with regret," says Don Carson of The Openness of God, "that this book is the most consistently inadequate treatment of scripture and historical theology dealing with the doctrine of God that I've ever seen from the hands of serious Evangelical writers." Robert Morey criticizes the open view by calling the deity it envisions "the finite God of evangelical processianism." "We have here a different God," contends Bruce Ware, "not merely a different version of God. For the sake of the glory that is God's alone, we have no choice but to reject the openness model." R.C. Sproul reacts to Pinnock's theological proposal by stating: "Clark Pinnock is not a believer -- I would not have fellowship with him." Sproul writes elsewhere, "this fascination with the openness of God is an assault, not merely on Calvinism, or even on classical theism, but on Christianity itself."

While Reformed criticisms have been harsh, not all Evangelicals object to the Open view of God. Pinnock lists those found mostly in Wesleyan, Arminian, and Pentecostal circles as appreciative hearers and sympathizers. In addition, "there's a whole new large group called `Christians in Renewal' who enjoy a very relational and intimate spirituality and who, when they hear of it," notes Pinnock, "often resonate with the open view of God. Their presence on the scene may make this a truly new debate and more than a rehash of the old one" (18).

Following the lengthy introduction, the remaining chapters follow the four-fold approach of the Wesleyan quadrilateral. Because Pinnock looks to Scripture as the primary source for theology, he addresses how it corresponds with his proposed view. Pinnock admits that he gives particular weight to narrative and to the language of personal relationships in scripture. He also accepts diversity among the biblical witnesses and recognizes the dialogical character of the Bible. But "conventional theists have difficulty with open view of God because it challenges certain well-established traditions," suggests Pinnock, "not because it is unscriptural." He finds Open themes throughout the biblical witness: "for example, the idea of God taking risks, of God's will being thwarted, of God being flexible, of grace being resistible, of God having a temporal dimension, of God being impacted by the creature, and of God not knowing the entire future as certain" (64).

Pinnock turns in chapter two to assess the authority of the Christian tradition. Just as Christians need to render the Word of God intelligible today, the tradition must continually be scrutinized for its soundness and relevance. Unfortunately, formal Christian theology has been less positive in terms of understanding God's dynamic activity than has the life of Christian piety. The tradition's theology has sometimes lost a biblical focus, such that the package of divine attributes presented by theologians leans in the direction of divine immobility and hyper-transcendence. This is due particularly because of the influence of Hellenistic categories of unchangeableness. After briefly considering figures in Christian history, including Aquinas, Augustine, and Philo, and after addressing evangelical responses to the concept of God, Pinnock concludes that the basic tenets in the open view, "grows out of ideological, if not the ecclesiastical, soil of Wesleyan-Arminianism" (106).

This reviewer found chapter three, "The Metaphysics of Love," the most exciting of the book. In it Pinnock explains his preference for dynamic, relational philosophy as opposed to substantive philosophy of classical thought. He believes that addressing philosophical suppositions is important, because "theological integrity and the credibility of the concept of God in our time are both at stake" (118). Pinnock argues that the open view adopts a "biblical philosophy" -- rather than currently available philosophical propositions -- as the basis for itself. He contrasts his biblical philosophy with process philosophy because, as he understands it, process thought places priority on identifying a contemporary conceptuality and looks secondly to biblical teaching. With regard to arguments for the existence of God, Pinnock opts for the cumulative case for God's existence. He supposes that all people have an intuition that deity exists; the philosopher must provide a coherent and consistent conceptuality of the One whom so many intuit.

The Metaphysics of Love chapter provides Pinnock with the opportunity to address how the open view relates with process philosophy. "Process thought is an impressive modern conceptuality with a lot to offer," Pinnock acknowledges (141). The open view shares with process thought the desire to overcome an emphasis upon the metaphysic of being and to emphasize, instead, a metaphysics of becoming. Pinnock believes process theologians are correct to conceive of God as affecting everything and being affected by everything. He agrees with the process notion that God is temporally everlasting rather than timelessly eternal. He also agrees that God should be understood as passable, not impassable, and omniscient in the sense of exhaustively knowing all that can be known. In fact, says Pinnock, "I appreciate Whitehead and Hartshorne much the way the conventional theists appreciate Plato and Aristotle" (143). Pinnock provides a helpful list of convictions that process and open theists hold in common. "We:
* make the love of God a priority;
* hold to libertarian human freedom;
* are both critical of conventional theism;
* seek a more dynamic model of God;
* contend that God has real, not merely rational, relationships with the world;
* believe that God is affected by what happens in the world;
* say that God knows what can be known, which does not amount to exhaustive foreknowledge;
* appreciate the value of philosophy in helping to shape theological convictions;
* connect positively to Wesleyan/Arminian traditions. (142-143)"

Open theism is not process theism, however. "Process philosophy can be helpful," admits Pinnock, "but [it] must be refashioned and cannot be adopted wholesale" (148). Process thought is based upon the metaphysics of Whitehead, whereas openness is a biblical theology not obligated to any philosophical scheme.

The way in which open theists characterize God's relationship with the world receives much of Pinnock's attention as he distinguishes between process and open theisms. "Like process [theism], we want to preserve the transcendence of God while denying the separation of God in the world," explains Pinnock. "But unlike process, we want to conceive the relationship as a voluntary, not a necessary, one" (144). Pinnock argues elsewhere that "the self-sufficiency of the triune God underlines the fact that the world exists by grace, not by necessity" (125). Pinnock continues his criticism of process thought by saying that "we [Open theists] hold that God is ontologically other than the world and in a certain sense `requires' no world. God does not have to relate to some other reality because he is internally social, loving and self-sufficient" (145). The Open vision of the Trinity-world relation provides a way to conceive that God is essentially loving, while also conceiving of creation as a free gift, not a necessity.

The last chapter of the book, "The Existential Fit," addresses theology's adequacy to the demands of life. Pinnock believes that the openness model is more relevant than conventional theologies to real life situations, and open theism confirms deep human intuitions about choice and the future. "It is no small point in favor of the openness model," contends Pinnock, "that it is difficult to live life in any other way than the way it describes" (23). Among the assets Pinnock believes the open view provides are the following: open theism (1) emphasizes that life and our life-decisions really do matter, (2) points to a friendship with the Lord that is possible in cooperative relationship, (3) emphasizes the reality of freedom that we all presuppose, (4) corresponds with our intuition that love ought to be persuasive rather than coercive, (5) emphasizes sanctification in the sense of growth in grace, (6) focuses upon genuine responsibility in discipleship, (7) meshes well with what we commonly believe that prayer is about, i.e., influencing God, (8) corresponds with how we understand God guiding us in new life situations, (9) helps to understand the problem of evil by emphasizing that God does not entirely control all things.

I heartily recommend Most Moved Mover. It is accessible reading for undergraduates, and Pinnock gets at the heart of many perplexing theological issues. Openness theology provides windows for dialogue with both conservative evangelicals and the Christian progressive left. I see the book as a major step forward in the open view adventure to provide Christians with an adequate, consistent, and biblically faithful theological alternative.

Thomas Jay Oord

There is a trend on the fringes of Evangelicalism known as "open theism." Perhaps its best-known expositor is Prof. Clark Pinnock of McMaster Divinity College in Ontario. Open theism is, roughly speaking, somewhere in-between classical theism and process theism. While open theists affirm the doctrine of creation ex nihilo, they reject that claims that God has exhasutive foreknowledge of the future (omniscience), that God is impassible (incapable of suffering), immutable, without emotions, and outside of time. According to open theists, these ideas are the result of the influence of Greek philosophy on Christian theology. While classical theists take Scriptural language concerning God's repenting or changing his mind as anthropomorphisms, open theists take them as literal descriptions of how God's being and his interaction with the world. Not surprisingly, open theists are almost exclusively Arminians (although traditional Arminians oppose open theists as much as Calvinists).

There are some good things about this book. It is reasonably well-written (although it could be more compact and better organized). Also, it contains a good overview of the issue, presenting the opinions of both supporters of open theism and its opponents.

My main objection to this book is that, like some of other of Prof. Pinnock's writings, it seems to be based on what Prof. Pinnock would prefer to believe, rather than what is Scriptural. [See x-xi.] We now have a "sensitive God." Indeed God is just the type of sensitive man a modern woman is looking for - he "risks," wants a relationship based on "love" and not "control" [p. 45]. He "restore[s] the relationship and rebuild[s] the trust." [p. 46.] He "invites us to participate with him in a loving dialogue. . . " [p. 4.] He is "sensitive to experiences." [p. 59.] He is "vulnerable." [p. 92.] (In this respect, see the interesting comments of Leon Podles, The Church Impotent: The Feminization of Christianity, p. 126.)

In addition, Prof. Pinnock fails to discuss in any detail the passages in Scripture that contradict his position. One searches in vain for an exegesis of passages such as 1 John 3:20 and Heb. 4:13 concerning God's knowledge of all events, much less passages such as Ephesians 1:11 that teach predestination. The relationship between God's foreknowledge and predestination is a complex issue. Unless one wants to take the position of certain Calvinists (such as Gordon Clark) that God creates sin and evil, then it is hard to deny that God has given men at least a small amount of freedom, but I think Prof. Pinnock errs to far in the opposite direction.

The following is what Clark Pinnock once said about the theological views he now holds.

Modern theology is characterized by an acute awareness of the historicity of the interpreter and an equal passion to relate to what contemporary people bring to the text. It is as if the awareness of our time-bound condition has made us determined to conform theology to our situation rather than to protect it from possible corruption. I see the current tendency to relate theology to struggles of the present day, while commendable if it were to represent a desire to apply the Scriptures, to be a recipe for Scripture-twisting on a grand scale. The desire to be relevant and up-to-date has caused numerous theologians to secularize the gospel and suit it to the wishes of modem hearers (Cf 2 Tim. 4:3-4). The desire to be relevant has overcome the desire to be faithful to God's Word with the result that a great accommodation is taking place. . . . Our desire to be politically radical, or feminist, or gay, or religiously tolerant, or academically respectable-these are the factors moving much modem theology, not God's Word. And we must resist it as resolutely as the Reformers resisted the mistaken human opinions in Catholic theology at the time. Of course, I too am moved by all these pressures. I too would like to think that the Buddhist will be saved by faith apart from Jesus Christ and that the darker picture found in Romans might be overdrawn. But I cannot enjoy the luxury of such speculations when the Bible already indicates its mind on such matters.

In relation to reason I have to strive to integrate independently arrived at convictions with Scripture in a biblically faithful manner. Reason may tell me, for example, that if God knows the future exhaustively, then every detail of it is fixed and certain and the freedom most humans believe they have (and which Scripture itself seems to say that we have) is an illusion. Biblical teaching about the divine foreknowledge appears to contradict biblical teaching about human freedom, and it is nigh unto impossible to see how the puzzle can be resolved rationally. The writers simply do not seem to feel that the two notions are mutually exclusive, but instead they place the two ideas in juxtaposition at every turn and seem indifferent to our intellectual dilemmas. This drives us back to a more precise definition of freedom, to speculations about time and timelessness, to problems of theodicy, to discussions about God's will(s), and the like. The whole issue has been debated practically nonstop for hundreds of years and resists a final word. The lesson we have to learn from this is not to reduce such questions to a simple solution which tampers with the scriptural data. We must not seize the sovereignty pole and block out the human freedom pole, or vice versa, which would violate the Bible's integrity. Theologies which have tended to do this have resulted in really unfortunate positions by way of implication and extension. The biblical balance is what we should strive to maintain in our theology too. The mark of a wise and sound theologian is to let the tensions which exist in the Bible stay there and to resist the temptation from reason to tamper with them. In this particular case, the metaphysical competence of our reason is humbled. I cannot tamper with the data as regards divine sovereignty and human freedom just because it would be easier if one were at liberty to do so.

The principle is that what is not revelation cannot be made a matter of theological truth. Only what is taught in Scripture is binding on the conscience. This was always our objection to earlier forms of Roman Catholicism-we must not add human traditions to the scriptural revelation as if they were binding on the church. . . . We take our stand against all those who infringe upon the authority of the Bible and the liberty of God's people by imposing on the church their own opinions as if they were final and enjoyed a status above God's Word. As Ramm put it, "The encroachment of the word of man upon the Word of God is a danger we should be constantly alert to, and with all our strength we should maintain the freedom of the Word of God from the word of man." Fortunately the inexhaustible richness of Scripture ensures that our loyalty to it does not leave us without a relevant word to say to modern culture but actually unfailingly provides a compelling word to speak into the culture whatever that is.

Reason is a faculty of great usefulness to theology and exegesis. Occasionally it rises up to challenge Scripture and when it does we ought to put it in its place, its place being a supportive, ministerial, non-legislative one. But for the most part reason serves us well.

Clark H. Pinnock, "How I Use the Bible in Doing Theology," The Use of the Bible in Theology: Evangelical Options. Ed. Robert K. Johnston. John Knox Press, 1985. Pages 29-33.

Finally a good foundation for being able to view God through the scripture and not through the lens of Greek philosophy that has distorted the scripture for way too long. God is omnipotent and chose to create the world that he has, though he could have created a world that was totally deterministic, he chose one instead that had freedom. One where free beings, created in his image, could share his triune love for all eternity. Only through freedom can true love exist.

A great primer for Christian growth and a deeper understanding of God's love toward us.

This is an open arena, where everyone can read your words: it is not the place to call other Christians who disagree with you "heretics." Open theism does not call into question any of the basic tenets of the Christian faith such as the deity of Christ, the atonement, the resurrection etc... Does God having only partial knowledge of the future mean Christ didn't save us?

Anyone who has read Pinnock on any subject besides this (I'm guessing most Calvinists have not) will find a man who makes arguments for the absolutely centrality of Scripture and the need to avoid twisting it to fit cultural biases. Yes, he sometimes seems guilty of this himself with some of the issues of open theism and I most definitely disagree with his annihilationist view of Hell. But pointing out one or two verses which seem to say the opposite is not sufficient. Scripture has tension in it and one must go with what he/she believes is the best summation of the general direction of Scripture.

The preface and introduction of the book were the most important for me as an evangelical theology student. Seeing the absolute vitriol to which a new idea was faced including baseless accusations of being "unbiblical" (it is built on Scripture, perhaps a misreading in your view, but the appeals to Scripture are numerous and in context)

After having read MMM, I am still what I was - basically a classical Arminian, but I found open theism to be a valid reading of Scripture, simply not the one I find most compelling. Early on I kept bringing up problems with the view and he kept answering them. The answers were not always fully satisfying, but apparently he is aware of the areas in his argument is open to attack and ready to meet them. Of course there are verses that "plainly" show open theism is wrong. There are also verses, many of which Pinnock points out, that "plainly" show the wrongness of Calvinism. Many verses are swept under the rug in Calvinism as in all Christians traditions because none of our theologies are perfect. We see through a glass darkly. This is one reason I find Arminianism more compelling, it holds God's sovereignty and human free will in tension without overly simplistic sweeping answers - which is what one finds in the Bible.

Calling serious Christian scholars with other theological positions "heretics" is simply adding to the vitriol that makes our evangelicalism worthless - no one wants to join a group that hates itself. It also makes the reviewer (whether on Amazon or in Christianity Today) sound a fool who cannot make an argument without reverting to name calling and attacks ad hominum. Disagree with Pinnock's conclusions and views all you want (I certainly do in several respects), but if we are all Christians, can't we show love one to another?

Pinnock offers a fuller expression of the Openness of God position he and others drafted in their book 8 years ago. After a chapter relating some of the ways in which openness theology has been critiqued (both positive and negative), he uses the Wesleyan Quadrilateral (Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience) to argue his openness case.

There is much to admire about this book. I consider myself an exponent of open theism, and this book provides open theists like me with a meaty offering to consider and to recommend to others.

My main criticism (despite giving Most Moved Mover a 5-star rating) is that Pinnock does not go quite far enough in conceiving of God as truly open. The God he envisions is still capable of acting coercively (by totally controlling some situation, event, or individual) and occasionally does so act. This coercive power was expressed most powerfully in the creation of the universe from nothing and will be expressed at the eschaton.

A God who totally controls -- even though only occasionally -- is not essentially open to others, however. Because of this, my criticism is that the open God he envisions is still culpable for failing to use the kind of controlling power that prevents genuinely evil occurrences.

In sum, while I commend this book to readers as a moving vision of a loving deity, I encourage Pinnock and others in our openness community to think deeply about reconceiving divine power in such a way that this vision of God eludes being susceptible to a crash upon the problem of evil rock.

Dear Reviewer:

It is a unfortunate that a theological/intellectual debate cannot exist in Christian circles without one party condemning another for heresy.

Had you ever enjoyed the pleasure of conversing with Dr. Pinnock, you would have found him to be the sincerest of believers.

"Be devoted to one another in brotherly love. Honor one another above yourself." Romans 12:10

Pinnock, regardless of what his detractors would have us believe, is a responsible Christian thinker who is deeply faithful to the scriptures. His willingness to openly examine what the Bible teaches about the nature of God even when it conflicts with popular Christian tradition is refreshing, and his is a voice that needs to be heard. Pinnock and the other "open theists" make an excellent case, one that many will find persuasive once biases are set aside and the Bible is read with a willingness to reassess what "we've always believed."

Like many contemporary thinkers, Pinnock is too quick to reject the traditional position concerning philosophy of God. A close reading of his book reveals that although he claims to reject the views of Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, and Anselm, he only cites Aquinas and Aristotle once each in the entire book (and in the version I read, he mistakenly cited Aristotle's Physics as if Plato had written it!). In other words, he hasn't actually researched the primary sources for the view he is rejecting, he simply relies upon other twentieth century thinkers who are hostile to the traditional view for his depiction of the traditional view. His positive case for his view is better than his negative case against the traditional view, but I simply cannot respect a scholar who would treat any view with this degree of carelessness. (This is a classic 'straw-man' fallacy for those of you who have experience with logic... he rejects a caricature of the traditional view rather than the traditional view itself)