f f It is rather simple to perceive the tension that exists between Feinberg’s
position and openness theology. Perhaps the most diluting element within the
scope of openness theology is their attunement to Scripture, as if they have
covered the “evangelical” base of authority. f Feinberg initially positions
openness theology as an attractive alternative to both classical and process
traditions. f He ultimately lays out for the reader a set of principles with which
openness theology lacks biblical representation. f Openness and Process
theology struggle with the dichotomy that seemed to be expressed in
America’s Four Gods, by Froese and Bader. The attempt to fight the temptation
to distance God, such was the tendency of the classical thinkers, in an effort
to draw God close, ultimately led Openness and process views to abandon the
authoritative and judgmental attributes of God. f As articulated by Froese and
Bader as a critical or benevolent view of God.[1]
f f f f f f f f f From a theological perspective, Feinberg’s perspective of God
represents the notion that, “He is the king who cares!”[2] f Of course, there are
two theological imperatives buried in that sentence, one of which being His
kingship, the other holding His posture. Both of which, contained in His very
nature. The theological truth that God is king, meaning He is chief authority
and head of all things, is a difficult truth to entertain in a modern or
postmodern culture. This is primarily because authority is delegated to a being
outside of the self. f This idea of kingship is sprinkled all over the Old and
New testament, the Old Testament unveils prime examples of kingship as a
means of subjection, or to come underneath the authority. The Syrians falling
under subjection to Israel in 2 Samuel 10:19, or the Israelites under the
authority of the Egyptian Pharaoh. However the kingship has been littered
across human history, when considering its authoritative and judgmental office,
God in His perfect will, notated by Paul, “has put all things in subjection under
his feet.” (1 Cor. 15:27) David Wells and Feinberg agree entirely with this need
for a biblical view of God that captures the culturally juxtaposed elements of
his nature. “He has the power “to subject all things to himself” (Phil. 3:21) …
but not all things have been subjected to him yet.”[3] This is what Wells
characterizes as the “paradox in our existence.”[4]Therefore, the first theological
imperative agrees with Feinberg, God is King. This is challenging for man to
comprehend, for “the mind of the flesh is hostile to God.” (Rom. 8:7)
f f f f f f f f f Though the tendency exists, revealing humanities nature, to polarize
Kingship from compassion or care, is too, anti-scriptural. f Theologically, its
simple to prove the motive with which God acts towards the world, “For God
so lovedthe world…”(John 3:16), all God has done for man was out of love.
How can it be that every large sporting event guarantees the presence of a
banner inscribed on it John 3:16, a pervasive bible verse, yet holds such widely
subjective application. Most likely, this is because many forget the true nature
of love. f A worldly example is provided in Hebrews, that of a father’s care and
love for a son, even this imperfect discipline, “for they disciplined us for a
short time as it seemed best to them,” is compared with the intent and
purpose of God’s love and care, “but (God) disciplines us for our good, that we
may share his holiness.” (Heb. 12:10) Thus, you cannot reduce God as a
careless, ethereal being.
Even more so, you cannot separate His love from His Authority, nor can you
separate his authority from His love. Feinberg does not mention, but illudes to
the third theological view in opposition to free-will theism, or an open view of
God. It is the idea of God’s Holy-Love. Seeing his holiness and his love
together is the epicenter of what both Feinberg and Wells chase after. f It is
both/and, not either/or. f This is the gap in openness theology, and explicative
of the fruitful target by Wells and Feinberg, to see God as he truly is.
[1] Paul Froese, Christopher Bader, America’s Four Gods: What We Say About
God and What That Says About Us, (New York, NY: Oxford University Press,
2010), 24.
[2] John S. Feinberg, No One Like Him: The Doctrine of God, (Wheaton, IL:
Crossway, 2001), 32.
[3] David Wells, God in the Whirlwind, (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2014), 65.
[4] Ibid., 64.
