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