Most Moved Mover Review

[mattrose]

A 10 years too late review of Clark Pinnock's "Most Moved Mover: A Theology of God's Openness"

.

I should say from the outset that I am a 'fan' of Clark Pinnock. Anytime I've read his works, I've appreciated his ability to read the Bible with a seemingly fresh set of eyes and his willingness to ask the tough questions of traditions and majority views. I should also say from the outset that I didn't actually start this book with a very 'open' mind. I had not heard or studied very much on the subject of 'open theism,' but I knew I had some internal resistance to the general idea.

.

Now, if you're looking for a short summary I will give you this: I think Pinnock's book is a thorough and excellent critique of Calvinistic theology. I also think it is not as strong a critique of classical Arminian theology as Pinnock seems to have supposed.

.

Now for the details.

.

I should probably start by giving a very basic statement about what Pinnock is trying to say in this book. He is suggesting that the traditional understanding of God (which emphasizes that God is separate from us, outside of time, and has no limitiations) is more a product of Greek philosophy than some would like to admit. He is suggesting, also, that if we take the Bible seriously we will have to alter some of our long held beliefs about God. Pinnock emphasizes not God's separation, but His participation with us. He suggests that God is not outside of time, but has limited Himself to the realm of time (only the 'present' currently exists, even for God). He believes, actually, that God has voluntarily limited Himself in a number of ways (He delegated sovereignty, even, to some of His created beings).

.

Pinnock makes his argument using the Wesleyan Quadrilateral (in some ways my thesis paper will be very much like his book, just with a different topic). The Wesleyan Quadrilateral dictates that we should build our theology primarily from Scripture and secondarily from tradition, reason & experience. The book, thus, has a chapter for each of these four areas. It boils down to this:

.

The story of the Bible is a story of God's relationship with people. God's greatest desire is for genuine relationship. To truly accomplish this goal, God voluntarily limited Himself to the realm of time & risk of disappointment. Greek philosophy was very uncomfortable with this biblical and self-limiting view of God and so many of the early Christians (coming from Greek backgrounds) brought Greek notions about God in as correctives (God is not primarily a relational being and thus has no such self-limitations in place). These Greek notions became church tradition, but reason and experience cause us to challenge this tradition and take a fresh look at the Scriptures. When we do so, we'll see 'open theism' all over the place.

.

The book is controversial because one of the outcomes of 'open theism' is that the future is largely 'open' to various outcomes. From Pinnock's perspective, if God is outside of time (like Greek philosophy and Classic Christianity suggest) then He knows every detail about the future. If God knows every detail about the future, then we don't have genuine freedom because we MUST do what God knows we will do (otherwise God would be wrong). Thus, Pinnock believes that God voluntarily limited Himself to the realm of time. God doesn't know every detail of the future for the simple reason that the future does not yet exist! God can't know what cannot be known. Pinnock still believes God is all-knowing, but only in the sense that He knows everything than can possibly be known (and what can possibly be known is less than what classical thought thinks).

.

This idea that God does not know every detail of the future is controversial and troubling to people because they think that means the future is totally uncertain. But this is not the case according to Pinnock because God knows every possible future possibility AND God knows what He is going to do (in regard to the master plan). For instance, God knows that He is going to, on the last day, save everyone who is 'in Christ.' He also knows that He is going to speak to everyone's heart and woo each person to become 'in Christ.' But ultimately, according to Pinnock, God doesn't necessarily know which people will respond to His wooing. If He did know, then they wouldn't truly have the freedom to do otherwise (because then God's knowing would have been wrong, and that is an impossibility). Thus, to make genuine freedom possible, God created a world in which He does not know every specific detail. He simply knows what He will do.

.

As I said, I think this book offers a strong critique of Calvinism, but I'm undecided as to how strong an argument it makes against Arminianism. It is certainly worth thinking about (especially because it takes seriously passages which Classical Christianity tries to ignore), but ultimately I think there may be another way to make God's knowledge of the future not militate against genuine freedom.

.

I will go on the record, though, as one who considers this 'open theism' view to be a legitimate Christian view. I see nothing in it that is rendered impossible by Scripture. It is a possibility. It makes sense of a lot and leaves some questions, just like the more traditional view. Pinnock states that the place of 'open theism' within the Christian world will largely depend on its reception by Arminians (He knows Calvinisists, with their exhaustive view of sovereignty, will reject it). Arminians, then, possess the swing vote. I vote yes. I think open theism should be on the table for discussion. I myself am interested to think about it more. If nothing else, by creating extremes on both sides of classical Arminianism (Calvinism on one side and Open Theism on the other), Arminianism may become an even more appealing moderated position.