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.Feinberg initially
positions openness theology as an attractive alternative to both classical
and process traditions.He ultimately lays out for the reader a set of
principles with which openness theology lacks biblical
representation.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.As articulated by Froese
and Bader as a critical or benevolent view of God.[1]
From a theological perspective, Feinberg’s perspective of God
represents the notion that, “He is the king who cares!”[2]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.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)
Though the tendency exists, revealing humanities nature, to
polarize Kingship from compassion or care, is too, anti-
scriptural.Theologically, its simple to prove the motive with which God
acts towards the world, “For God solovedthe world…”(John 3:16), all God
has done for man was out oflove. 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.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.It is both/and, not either/or.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.
