Pluriform Love - a Review
Back in late May of 2011 (Wow! Ten years ago!) I wrote a book review, as a guest blogger, of The Nature of Love: A Theology by Thomas Jay Oord. My first encounter with Oord or his work.
I had concluded by saying that it "goes a long way in forwarding my understanding … of the problem of evil in this world. However, I believe it isn't a… complete or finalized theology."
It was in Pluriform Love's preface that caught my attention. On page 7, Oord says that he rewrote and published his doctoral thesis into what became The Nature of Love: A Theology.
I hadn't realized that.
So….I was dead on the mark. It's definitely a work in progress. And Pluriform Love is absolutely fleshing this out and exploring further.
Just within the Preface and first two chapters, it was checking nearly all my boxes.
When I was first approached to read and write this review, as opposed to his last title, Open and Relational Theology, which was aimed at a lay audience, I was warned Pluriform Love would be more of an academic book. (So, I had better get my theological thinking cap on! No small feat when dealing with the likes of the doctoral work of someone like Oord.)
But I think there is a needed and healthy possibility in this book that has been glazed over, possibly addressing a major multifrontal problem with Christianity and Christian theology. Although not directly mentioned, biblical literalism and, ultimately, bibliolatry.
One major issue and challenge I have always had is the apparent God-commanded act of genecide given to the Hebrews upon their arrival in the Promised Land, Canaan. And let's be honest, it is a major Christian issue and challenge. Christians are forced to come face-to-face with their beliefs of biblical literalism, biblical inerrancy, and bibliolatry.
Thomas Jay Oord answered this dilemma early on (in his first chapter) in an open, honest and refreshingly shocking statement; the future of Christianity will have no choice but to address and answer. "To put it bluntly: Sometimes biblical writers get God wrong."
"We should consider some biblical passages misguided portrayals of God's actions or wishes."
This is the first time I have ever heard a theologian or clergy or church or Christian, answer this blatantly obvious question.
Why cannot theologians, clergy, churches or Christians get this answer? Because of an ulterior motive: bibliolatry.
Is this a good point to open this book review with? I'm not sure. But to those who have sought out - and worst - found certainty in faith, to those who are close-minded, blinded by dogma over the desire to seek truth, this will clear the playing field. This book is not for the timid. This book is not for those seeking to be right over searching for the truth of God. This book will not grant you a comfortable religious certainty. But I have always said, I would prefer a Faithful Doubt over a doubtful faith.
I know what the argument will be. I know the stones that will be thrown. Cherry-picking.
Appealing to common decency and morality means rejecting biblical passages that condone violence.
Sometimes the Bible gets God wrong.
Better to be honest about the problematic ways biblical writers portray God than pretend they don't exist.
The problem with this methodology is that the Bible could become only what we want it to be. But the reality is that so many churches and Christians throughout history, and today, have already done so and continue to do so. They're just not honest about it.
There is a biblical witness of this very thing, by none other than Jesus himself.
Jesus contradicts the plain reading of Leviticus (24:19-21) and Exodus (21:23-27), for instance, when he says, "You have heard that it is said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also." (Matt 5:38-39).
The real question becomes, to the believer, what sits on the throne of their faith? God? Love? Jesus? The Bible itself? Or their desired version of truth?
It is an inescapable question.
I have always held that God cannot be both Omnipotent and Omnibenevolent. I have only recently been made aware that even the diehard staunch Calvisit holds this same belief. The only difference being that they choose Omnipotence over Love and they aren't honest enough to admit it.
But I digress. Thomas Jay Oord's Pluriform Love does not point fingers or make accusations (that's what I'm doing). It simply, logically, biblically, and eloquently lays out sound theological arguments and evidence.
With traditional religions dwindling and church attendances evaporating, it would seem faith and God don't have a future.
Our honesty and answers to these questions are the future of Christianity, if indeed it has one. The alternative is isolated denial-based fundamentalism.
This book review of Thomas Jay Oord’s latest will be different from what I usually offer. I will not go through the entire piece, highlighting various points that I agree with, or disagree with; showcasing interesting, revolutionary, or eye-opening points. You will just have to take my word for it; they’re there. As they are with all of his work that I’ve reviewed to date.
Pluriform Love is yet another exploratory chapter in Oord’s ongoing path of learning and teaching. (Of both himself and the reader). One that legitimately chases and longingly grasps at the tails of a living, active and loving God. A God that does not easily nor happily fit into neat, easily defined boxes of categorization. A God that not only lives, but thrives in the Wilderness.
Not only would I suggest Pluriform Love's reading, but to read this entire string of books, culminating in Pluriform Love….the next exploration continues.
Comments