WiseReader

I don’t seem to hear much about open theism these days - at least not from those I hang around with. But the recent death of Clark Pinnock, a major figure in the openness of God debate, turned my thoughts to that theme this morning. While pursuing that theme, I discovered an insightful paper by Russell D. Moore.

Provocatively titled, How to Teach Open Theism at Vacation Bible School: Three Ways the Evangelical Church Could Lose the Doctrine of God [click on the link and scroll down the page to find the article], Moore creatively outlines the destructive potential lurking in a diluted doctrine of God. Moore develops his theme under the following points:

• Frame the openness of God debate as one of evangelicalism’s intramural discussions.
• Contrast the open god with “God in general,” not the God and Father of Jesus Christ.
• Present God as a means to the goals of Christian values and congregational mission. 

Moore writes from a Southern Baptist context, and in so doing, frames his remarks around how this all plays out in that denominational setting. And though we are not all Southern Baptists, we must be vitally concerned about where the openness debate is taking evangelical Christianity.

In this cogently argued paper, Moore reminds us that an orthodox, biblically-rooted doctrine of God is critically important - not just for theologians, but for children in Vacation Bible School. Moore concludes his paper with these words:

Still, evangelical theology is ultimately not about denominational floor votes or theological arguments. It is about Vacation Bible School. It is about the health of our churches and the heritage we pass on to the next generation. Evangelicals have long had a consensus on the doctrine of the almighty, all-knowing Triune God. Open theism might seem to be a temporary theolgical fad for evangelicals on their way out the door, and it very well may be. But, it might also be a harbinger of great downgrade in our evangelical churches. Not only must we take it seriusly and engage it biblically. We must also build congregations that are energized by the God-focused words of our risen King: “And this is teternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent” (John 17:3).

I recall an online conversation with several theologians and pastors where the question was asked: “What is process theology?” One participant quickly responded: ”Clark Pinnock.” His answer may not have been theologically precise, but it surely did provide an incarnational perspective of what process theology is about.

While I certainly know of him (through his writings, and through writings about him), I never knew Clark Pinnock personally. He passed from this life on August 15, 2010, having profoundly influenced late 20th century, and the first decade of 21st century evangelicalism. His was a journey breath-taking in its sweep from robust, conservative evangelicalism to questioning just about every orthodox view held by evangelicals today. Though many of us roundly criticized Pinnock’s diluted Christian theology, Russell Moore provides an important perspective on how we might view Clark Pinnock’s legacy.

Moore’s “Why Conservative Evangelicals Should Thank God for Clark Pinnock” is a short piece calling for long reflection.

Leslie Rosenblood and Justin Trottier contend that religious groups have no claim on tax dollars. Since tax dollars come from a common pool of monies, provided by all citizens, they should be available only to groups and projects open to all without distinction. This is how they put it:

Some have argued that public money is not secular money. But we do not accept that argument. Public money consists of a large common pool of contributions from citizens of every persuasion and so for that reason it should be spent on programs that are available to every constituent. It makes no more sense to publicly subsidize programs only available to citizens of a specific belief system than it does spend public money on programs that benefit only left-handed citizens or those with red hair.

Their contention begs the question as to what particular group, regardless of its persuasion, would actually be open to every citizen without distinction. Indeed, Fred_001, commenting on the Rosenblood-Trottier blog speaks specifically to the paragraph cited above:

Then you won’t mind that we immediately cease all funding of ethnic cultural centres, women’s programs, programs for the disabled, and a host of other targeted tax-funding? Strange, I don’t recall the secularists getting all hot and bothered about any of these kinds of highly targeted expenditures. Why not just admit that this is a lot of polite justification for anti-religious hatred.

One could, I suppose, believe Rosenblood and Trottier are simply seeking to ensure that government does not, by means of granting public funds to faith-based groups, appear to promote one religious group over another, but it is difficult to reach that conclusion in light of their own closing remarks.

Religious groups should also favour keeping government at a distance. Government subsidies of religious activities leads to politicians defining what constitutes proper religious practices, if no other reason then to determine which religiously inspired programs should be funded. This could easily be construed as an unwarranted intrusion on religious freedom; therefore, a secular state benefits all citizens, religious or otherwise.

But there is more to this argument than mere finance.

Any honest observer of human behaviour will grant that religion has been and continues to be a source of division between people. It is true that religion is not the only source of friction between human beings — but why should government perpetuate and subsidize a fractious and anti-social force?

Ah, there we have it. The tired and threadbare charge that religion is the root of all evil in this world. To think otherwise, in the opinion of Rosenblood and Trottier, is to be dishonest.

One wonders why they chose not to name other sources of division since the point of their column seems to be that government has no business perpetuating and subsidizing a fractious and anti-social force? For example, following their argument, why would tax dollars be used to support organizations involved in any of the areas mentioned below?

Economic - free market capitalism vs. government guided socialism
Racial
Cultural
Pro-life vs. Pro-choice
Gay vs. Straight
Politics - is anything more fractious than Canadian parliament?
Environmental issues

And of course there is nothing fractious and anti-social about labeling and denigrating all people of faith in this way.