Review of Thomas Jay Oord's Open and Relational Theology
Review of Thomas Jay Oord’s
Open and Relational Theology
I’ve come to realize I am no stranger to Thomas Jay Oord’s work. Having reviewed The Nature of Love: A Theology (2010), The Uncontrolled Love of God (2015), having an essay included in Uncontrolled Love: Essays Exploring the Love of God (2017), been invited to review God Can’t (2019) but couldn’t due to a cancer diagnosis in my family, and now, finally, Open and Relational Theology (2021).
This book – and review – will be much different for me. Touching much closer to home and making this review much more difficult to be objective, if not outright impossible. So, forgive the disjointed mess this book review might be.
Open and Relational Theology is for the layperson, explained in simple terms.
For those who know me, I do not self-identify as Christian, but after understanding what Open and Relational theology can be, I might begin to.
This is not a book to read and put away. This is an exercise in digestion, for as the opening preface suggests, “...I recommend early morning or midnight walks to process [these thoughts].” These ideas, concepts, and theologies are not for the timid or faint of heart. They are not for those who are comfortable in their beliefs and apparent relationships with God. “I’m among many forced out of faith communities, leadership roles, or teaching positions for embracing these ideas.”
I can relate. I have questioned certain presumptions for my entire life. From my earliest days in kindergarten to adulthood. I’ve believed God could not be both Omnibenevolent and Omnipotent; how the God of the Old Testament and New Testament could be so drastically different, yet consistently taught they’re one in the same. A constant searcher for answers, I too have suffered ostracization from religious and theological communities.
Front and centre are the implications of a God that is outside – and thus segregated – of time. Mistakes and predestination. “Does asking God to fix something change the future... If God already knows what happens in the future?”
“If God re-decides everything... freedom isn’t real.”
“Wouldn’t a loving God prevent needless suffering and death?”
Conventional concepts of God makes the future settled the same way the past is settled. It means God either causes or permits all evil. This conventional concept of God says this, “This God is pristine. He can’t be in the presence of unholy creatures like you and me. We are dirty rotten scoundrels wallowing in the pit of sinful despair To overcome this problem, the conventional God had to kill His Son. He now sees us through the lens of this atoning death and thinks we’re pure when we aren’t.” (pg.16)
...and the shocking statement that echoed my core beliefs, caught my attention, and won me over:
“I don’t believe in this God.”
Yes, like Thomas Jay Oord, I’ve heard the same arguments against. “Other conventional theologies accept the inconsistencies and appeal to mystery, saying finite minds can’t understand an infinite God. This kind of mystery helps no one. In fact, it adds another problem: unintelligibility.” (pg.18)
How can a God that IS Love allow rape and genocide? Again, omnipotence and omnibenevolence simply aren’t compatible. And I’ve since come to realize, I am not the only one who holds this position. I might be a bit more honest about it though. The extreme Calvinist position holds that God only love the elite, the saved, or His Christians. This belief agrees but sacrifices God’s Love for God’s power.
And all too often we are – or I am – questioned whether these high ideals really matter, and like Open and Relational Theology consistently repeats, yes it does. The way we answer these questions makes a world of difference. If we believe in Original Sin, if we believe Humanity’s innate state is fallen, corrupt and separate from God, this has to reflect in how we see, interact, and love (or NOT love) our fellow man.
People who believe themselves to be free are, according to scientific studies, more motivated to choose good over evil. Those who believe their negative urges are beyond control rarely resist those urges. And those who encounter evil are unlikely to resist it if they think nothing can be done.
“Belief about God should be reasonable and account for the way we live... Ideas matter.” (pg. 117-118)
Creator and creation are in process.
This book poses some serious questions well worth examining. Is God in Time our Outside of Time? Although I hold my own distinct position on this, Thomas Jay Oord’s ideas and concepts should open the reader’s eyes. The consequences? “God doesn’t have definitive exhaustive foreknowledge,” bringing God’s omniscience into question. (And maybe, just maybe, we need to revisit the entire problem of God’s omni’s).
A God outside of Time, a God that knows or predetermines all, CANNOT be relational and a non-relational deity can’t do what a loving God does. Something has to give. Something has to go.
I love it when ideas that have kicked around in my mind for decades – nameless, formless – suddenly happen upon their names. This too was a treat for me in this book. Amipotent.
Although the difference between Amipotent and Omnipotent is subtle, it is critically important.
Omnipotence is ALL POWER. It leaves no excuse for God and no excuse for the existence or permission of evil.
Oord revisits “essential kinosis” which I first encountered in The Nature of Love: A Theology” and – I believe – expands on it. I love the statement, God does not voluntarily self-limit. I would take this concept a step further and call it involuntary & essential kinosis.
What also happily caught my attention was Thomas Jay Oord’s acceptance and incorporation of other religions. (As I am a firm believer that the idea of a God of One-True-Religion is a bigot-God, and a bigot cannot be loving). I have always believed in a truly magnificent and incredible God. One that refuses ownership to one religious tradition over another; one that counts his children among ALL humanity; one that does not and cannot have an equal or enemy. One who squeezed whatever good can be squeezed from the bad God didn’t want in the first place. One who can – when needs be – create beauty from ashes.
I adore Oord’s description and understanding of Panentheism. It is a position I hold to. It is also one vehemently rejected, yet, in my experience, without merit.
“Distinctions between Creator and creature remain. We are in God’s experience, but not identical to God.”
“Creatures can be in the divine experience without altering the divine nature Creaturely sin – lust, killing, cheating, and more – can affect God’s experience without altering God’s perfect love.” (pg.103)
There are moments, I swear to God, Oord steals challenges and ideas from my very mind!
“Jesus talking to the reader: “I created humans able to be tempted to sin, created a tempting tree and a tempting serpent. Then, I killed nearly every creature with a flood because humans did what I made them able to do: sin. Later, I impregnated a woman with myself as her child, so that I could sacrifice myself to myself to save you from myself. Somebody had to die, because I’m angry that you do what I created you able to do: sin.”” This is Syndrome from Disney’s The Incredibles. (And let’s not kid ourselves; Syndrome is a villain). This belief, this “theology”, this analogy cannot be correct.
This book is a breath of fresh air, escaping from the convoluted theological arguments that are bound to erupt. The simple truth of, The inability of conventional theology to explain evil is a good reason to reject them. Plain and simple truth. If it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, and walks like a duck – chances are, it’s a duck. No amount of education, degrees, or doctrines can counter this – or are needed.
Having taken the Alpha Course I was always challenged (and in disagreement) with “The Four Spiritual Laws” – and criticized and ostracized for it.
“The second law says, “Sin separates us from God.” The accompanying graphic shows God on one side of a chasm – labeled “your sin” – and a person standing on the other.... To say we’re separated from God suggests both spatial and relational distance. A pure God keeps His distance over there while impure sinners stand sullied over here. God cannot relate to the vile and shameful. But thanks to Jesus’ death, God can bear to look at us... if we accept what Jesus has done. Those who don’t accept have real estate in hell awaiting them....This view of salvation makes no sense to me now.... There’s no relational separation... We do the estranging, not God. God’s mind doesn’t need to be changed about us. God’s mind is set: God will always relate with and love us. That’s guaranteed. We need to change our minds (and actions) about God. And about ourselves and others.... Accepting God’s love is fundamental to salvation... Another turning point comes when we realize divine love extends to’” everyone, even our enemies.” (pg.108-109)
“God loves everyone, every creature, and all creation. No exceptions... God doesn’t retaliate... God keeps no record of wrongs and condemns the payback of eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Natural negative consequences come from saying no to love.” (pg.122-123). Wow. This sounds like Karma! Talk about incorporating other religious traditions into one’s truth!
Thomas Jay Oord touches upon afterlife concepts I studied in Edward William Fudge’s The Fire That Consumes (no light read). Briefly detailing Eternal Conscious Torment, Universalism, Purgatory, and Annihilationism (ALL of which are extensively Biblically supported!) leaves little options. We’ve got it wrong. We’re asking the wrong questions. It’s about Love, not punishment and hatred. That’s our shtick, not God’s.
Oord offers another option. That of “relentless love.”
“Although God always loves, we can reject God’s invitations. When we do, we suffer the natural negative consequences that come from saying no to the positive power of love. God doesn’t exact revenge when we reject love. We don’t get a divine spanking, nor are we annihilated. God always invites, calls, and woos us towards well-being.... God’s love never gives up and always hopes.” (pg.113)
I very much like the ‘other’ option. Like Spencer Burk’s idea of Opting Out (A Heretic’s Guide to Eternity, 2007), we, as “Open and Relational Theologians” favour God’s love over anything and everything else.
I opened the book review about how I was no stranger to Thomas Jay Oord’s work. But I will close in that my assumption – my projection – of this author was something I discovered in this book that surprised me (and, I suppose, revealed my biases).
“As a twenty-something, I moved from A) a personal relationship with Jesus to B) skepticism about religion, to C) atheism, and then D) thinking God exists as an impersonal force... For now, let me talk about why D was not my final stop.” (pg.130)
Damn near my story...
