d d 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. d Feinberg initially positions openness
theology as an attractive alternative to both classical and process traditions. d He
ultimately lays out for the reader a set of principles with which openness theology
lacks biblical representation. d 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. d As articulated by Froese and Bader as a critical or benevolent
view of God.[1]
d d d d d d d d d d From a theological perspective, Feinberg’s perspective of God represents
the notion that, “He is the king who cares!”[2] d 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. d 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)
d d d d d d d d d d Though the tendency exists, revealing humanities nature, to polarize
Kingship from compassion or care, is too, anti-scriptural. d 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. d 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. d It is both/and, not
either/or. d 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.
