Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars
Click to get our FREE MOBILE APP and stay connected
| PentecostalTheology.com
234
book reviews
Thomas Jay Oord
2015.The Uncontrolling Love of God: An Open and Relational Account of Providence.
Downers Grove,il:ivpAcademic.
In his latest book,The Uncontrolling Love of God, Nazarene theologian Thomas Jay Oord more fully articulates his original doctrine of divine providence: “essential kenosis”. Oord has been advocating this position for some time; most thoroughly, perhaps, in his 2010 book, The Nature of Love: A Theology. But his most recent book is a significant expansion of the essential kenosis doctrine in philosophical, theological, scientific, and practical ways. Because Oord’s doc- trine is focused squarely on both free will and divine power, it is of particular interests to Pentecostals and Charismatics. Moreover, because of increasing interest in open theism from contemporary Pentecostal-Charismatic scholars and practitioners,Uncontrollingwarrants serious consideration.
With tact and compassion, Oord situates the doctrine in conversation with real-world scenarios of human suffering. These are not merely anecdotal; they are highly problematic situations that cannot be dismissed with theological aphorisms about God being “in control” or “having a plan”. They underscore the complexity of the theodical quandary that has plagued Western theology for centuries. Although traditional responses from freewill theism provide some solace, Oord’s case studies demonstrate the extent to which such traditional responses collapse under pressure. These stories frame Oord’s entire analysis and proposal. Such cases should be of particular interest to Pentecostals and Charismatics because they beg the question of miracles.
Oord notes that in spite of both materialistic and theological emphases on predeterminacy, what is actually found at the quantum level is indeterminacy, or randomness. This notion becomes central to Oord’s argument throughout the book and is eventually used to support his doctrine of essential kenosis. However, Oord argues, “absolute randomness is a myth … but absolute deter- minism is too”.
Oord explores perennial theological and philosophical problems such as free will versus determinism, the problem of evil, and the problem of good in the context of biological evolution. Rejecting models of creation that suggest either God’s meticulous sovereignty or God’s voluntarily self-limitation, Oord proposes that his doctrine of essential kenosis is superior and solves the myriad of philosophical problems he probes. However, Oord too easily dismisses Philip Clayton’s proposal, which neatly aligns with Oord’s own. Clayton argues for divine self-limitation at the moment of creation; that is, the act of creation itself was a voluntary act to forever relate Godself to a creation and thereby, self-limit.
© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2016 | doi: 10.1163/15700747-03801013
1
book reviews
235
Oord provides a comprehensive summary of open and relational theology, which, to those of us who are already well-acquainted with the tradition, may find pedantic. However, Oord uses this summary to lay the groundwork for his definition of “uncontrolling love”. This, Oord argues, is non-coercive, others- empowering, self-giving kenosis. But, Oord’s original contribution is to assert that such love is an involuntary divine attribute: God does not choose to love, God must love in this kenotic way because it is in God’s nature to do so. To do otherwise would be a violation of God’s own nature.
Clayton argues that God’s decision to create, and therefore to love, was a voluntary act that was forever self-limiting. Oord argues that God could not have done otherwise. Oord contends that God’s very nature is love and therefore, in God’s creative activity, God will always love the creation. God is unlike human parents insofar as a human parent cannot claim that their nature is love. God does not choose to love; God loves out of God’s own nature. Love originates in Godself, but it is not voluntary, it is essential. Oord reinforces this argument by noting that if Jesus was self-giving and Jesus reveals something about the nature of God, kenosis must be essential. How God loves depends on the response of creation in each moment of existence; but whether God loves is indisputable.
Of particular interest to Pentecostals and Charismatics is Oord’s emphasis on God’s love as others-empowering. The Pentecostal doctrine of the Bap- tism of the Holy Spirit and the corresponding exercise of spiritual gifts is highly compatible with this dimension of Oord’s doctrine. Oord contends that God cannot coerce in the metaphysical sense because God does not have a localized, corporeal body. This validates the Pentecostal affirmation that God poured out the Spirit on all flesh at Pentecost and now seeks to empower human creatures to cooperate with the Spirit, doing the work of the King- dom in the world. Oord briefly references my own scholarly work on con- cursus, divine and human cooperation, to support this notion. Pentecostal- Charismatic scholars should find common ground with Oord on this point, especially.
Oord’s threefold definition of “almightiness” is critical to those who seek to affirm creedal Christianity. Process theologians, for example, have been accused of violating the creeds by rejecting divine omnipotence, at least in the classical sense, because they cannot affirm that God is “almighty”. Although not the focus of the book, this is perhaps one of Oord’s finest contributions. Oord argues that the God of essential kenosis is “1. Mightier than all others; 2. The only One who exerts might on all that exists; 3. The ultimate source of might for all creatures”. Of course, the third point will be of most interest to Pentecostals and Charismatics.
PNEUMA 38 (2016) 215–243
2
236
book reviews
Perhaps most challenging for Pentecostal-Charismatic scholars will be Oord’s definition of miracles. Oord rightly exposes the emperor with no clothes, asking, “If God can enact miracles to do good or prevent evil, why doesn’t God enact miracles more often?” This is a question that Pentecostals and Charismat- ics tend to avoid, but, I contend, must confront. While Pentecostals and Charis- matics affirm miracles—and some affirm divine healing as guaranteed by the atonement—we have not adequately answered Oord’s question throughout the history of our movements or in contemporary scholarship.
Oord argues that miracles are possible within the framework of essential kenosis. But, he rejects terminology such as “supernatural” and “intervention” as too dualistic. I agree with him. Instead, Oord argues that creaturely coop- eration is essential to God’s ability to bring about miracles in the world. This idea should be appealing to those Pentecostals and Charismatics who affirm faith-healing and may actually give credence to the oft-maligned “word of faith” movements. But most importantly is Oord’s contention that victims should “rarely if ever” be blamed for their own sickness, suffering, or disease because of a lack of faith. Other causal forces, such as a person’s own body, environment, etc, are at work in the healing process. While faith can be efficacious when we cooperate with God, it is by no means a guarantee that it will sway other causal forces to God’s will to heal. I find this to be a sobering solution that Pentecostal- Charismatic theologians should take seriously.
However, Oord’s argument weakens when dealing with nature miracles. Oord is correct in noting that nature miracles do not involve the same level of agency as those of humans or higher order mammals. But, Oord maintains, we should not assume either a natural or supernatural explanation for event such as the parting of the Red Sea. I agree with him, but I find his solution to be underdeveloped. Oord argues that we might point to quantum inde- terminacy as the space in which God might work to bring about miraculous macro-events. Philip Clayton has argued that this approach quickly devolves into another “God’s of the gaps” hypothesis, especially if no observable mecha- nisms can be discerned to point to God’s influence over otherwise apparently quantum randomness. This is a problem for miracles as a whole: they cannot be experimentally controlled and therefore, cannot be observed in “real time”. The effects, however, can be observed. Leaving his solution underdeveloped, Oord may be simply appealing to mystery in his own way, which he other- wise claims to reject as any viable solution to philosophical problems. While I applaud Oord’s interdisciplinary endeavors in this book, he may have been better-served to leave this hypothesis to scientists who are more acquainted with the complexity of the quantum world. He rightly admits that “we need both theology and science when trying to understand reality”.
PNEUMA 38 (2016) 215–243
3
book reviews
237
In sum, Uncontrolling is unquestionably Oord’s most comprehensive theo- logical contribution to date. In it he coheres many of his thoughts into a single volume and presents a rational, systematic defense of his doctrine of essential kenosis. As Oord has done for some time, at great personal cost, he upholds God’s self-giving, others-empowering loves God’s supreme divine attribute; it is love that defines God’s providence and ultimately, God’s power. Without a doubt, Oord’s solution to the problem of evil and the suffering of individuals in the case studies he presents, is more appealing than classical alternatives. Oord has done original theological and philosophical heavy-lifting that Pentecostal and Charismatic scholars should engage, appreciate, and appropriate as highly compatible with the theological distinctives of our own movements.
Joshua D. Reichard
Vice President for Academic Affairs, Assistant Superintendent, Valley Christian Schools, Youngstown, Ohio
joshua.reichard@gmail.com
PNEUMA 38 (2016) 215–243
4
