Musings on Openness Theology, Part 1: Is God Impassive?

We just finished up a study of John Sanders' book A God Who Risks: A Theology of Providence in our Wednesday night class at the Highland Church of Christ.

Sanders' book is one of a few books out on the market that make the case for what is known as openness theology. The general contention of openness theology is that the future is "open," which is to say, contingent (as opposed to being fixed and predetermined by God).

By contrast, a great deal of theological thinking (notably Augustine and Calvin) has suggested that all past, present, and future events are determined, fixed, and known by God. In this view, the entire timeline of history exists, unalterable, before the eyes of God.

In this "closed" view the future is not "open" or contingent. By contingent I mean "if..., then...". In the closed view of the future there is no if/then. The future is what it is and God has known it for all eternity. There are obviously important nuances to be added here, but, to start, I'm painting in broad strokes. As a representative of this theological perspective Sanders quotes John Calvin:

"Nothing happens except what is knowingly and willingly decreed by God." Further, God "foresees future events only by reason of the fact that he decreed that they take place."

In contrast to this view, openness theology suggests that the future is open and contingent. The world unfolds in an if/then manner. If humans do X God will respond with Y leading to future Z. But if humans do X' then God will respond with Y' leading to future Z'. Given this contingency there is a whole (possibly infinite) set of futures--Z'', Z''', Z''', Z''''', Z'''''', and so on--that might come to be. It all depends upon human/divince interactions RIGHT NOW. Sanders quotes Richard Foster to represent this view:

"We have been taught that everything in the universe is already set, and so things cannot be changed. And if things cannot be changed, why pray? ... In fact, the Bible stresses so forcefully the openness of our universe that it speaks of God constantly changing his mind in accord with his unchanging love...We are working with God to change the future!"

The openness view of God is also called a relational view because human/divine relations are infused with spontaneity and portent. The if/then dynamic makes relational activities with God such as prayer pop and come alive. The future, literally, hangs in the balance.

But openness theology is wildly controversial as it seems to call for the revision of some classic theological commitments regarding the qualities of God. Specifically, God is considered to be (relevant to our discussion here) omnipotent, omniscience, and omnipresent. These adjectives are taken to describe the Transcendent Perfection of God.

The issue is, if God doesn't know the future (either because the future doesn't exist, a view known as presentism, or because God doesn't know which path the future will take) then isn't this a limitation on his omniscience? Can God not know something? Further, can a Perfect God change his mind or make a mistake?

Although these are interesting questions which I will return to, the big issue for me during the study was God's impassibility.

The doctrine of God's impassibility states that God does not experience emotions (as humans understand them). That is, God his "impassive" in the face of events. God is not surprised, alarmed, chagrined, amused, charmed, angered, happy, frustrated or saddened by events the way we humans are. God isn't, like us, affected by events. If God were affected by things then God isn't Transcendent and omnipotent. You can't "touch"--physically, causally, or emotionally--God.

This doctrine is simply the logical outcome of God's omnipresence, omniscience, and omnipotence. If God knows all things from the beginning of time then he can't properly be surprised by the outcome of events. True, the bible does suggest that God experiences emotions, even strong and violent emotions. And God even seems to regret some of his choices. But according to the adherents of divine impassibility all this is just metaphor and anthropomorphism. God doesn't have feelings. (God is love, of course, but this has more to do with his steadfast goodness, his hesed, than the feelings of human love. In fact, most churches downplay human love in favor of this vision of "God-like love." Love is a "commitment," a "choice," it isn't a feeling. Which is true to a point, but it's a crappy notion of love. Imagine me saying to my wife, "Baby, I love you. And by this I mean I'm choosing to stay committed to you." Very romantic.)

Openness theology, by contrast, claims that, because the future is open and contingent, God is passable, God does experience emotions. Those biblical passages speaking of God's anger, joy, longing, frustration, regret, and sorrow speak to something real which parallels the human experience of emotions.

So there is a tension. A tension between the Greek notion of God's immutable and unchanging Perfection. And a Hebrew notion of a psychologically complicated and emotional God. The bible hints at both.

So, I ask: Which is it?