My Life's Recent Journey

It has been a few years since I posted here. In that time my family has moved to Alaska and we have added new members (I now how three beautiful daughters). A couple of months ago, as part of a Facebook group, I was asked to share a journey that my wife and I have been on for the past 12+ months. Here is what I shared in that group.

        A little over a year ago my wife and I were eagerly awaiting the birth of our third child, and first son, John. His due date was June 8, 2019 (a year ago today), and my wife's water broke at 6:30 AM on May 27 (Memorial Day). So far, nothing unusual. We spent the day preparing for a planned home birth and called our midwife after about 12-13 hours of labor to come on out. She arrived around 7:30 PM and did her normal checkup procedures. This is when she made a startling discovery: John had flipped from head down on Friday to a breach position on Monday (likely what caused the water to break). This presented us with a 1 in 1000 danger.

        Our midwife was trained for these situations, being a labor/delivery RN and having trained specifically in natural delivery of breach births. She has successfully delivered several in her career with no issues ever before. She had to go get some more supplies from her clinic as she had forgotten a couple of supplies and she left Mindy and I to talk the situation over. Our options were to go to the hospital for an emergency C-Section or continue with the planned home birth. The risk factors for a C-Section or a breach birth are statistically about the same. We also live in an area where there was no guarantee that we could get to the hospital in time to do a C-Section given how advanced Mindy was in labor.

        We prayed about the situation and decided to go ahead with the home delivery. Confident that God had everything under control and had a definite plan in all that we were seeing. Our midwife returned and we informed her of our decision.

        At 12:00 AM on Tuesday, May 28, 2019, the midwife told me to call 911. At that point everything was going fine, she was being cautious and wanted an ambulance coming just in case (the ambulance is housed a block away). At 12:02 arms, legs, and body were all out, but not his head. Mindy's contractions stopped. It took the paramedics, our midwife and her 3 assistants 15 minutes to get his head out and complete the birth. John never took a breath.

        This started my wife and I on an emotional roller coaster we had never expected. I tend to plan for the worst possible scenarios and this was something I had never considered. I rode with John in the ambulance to the hospital praying desperately for a miracle. I called friends and fellow pastors in the area, no one answered the phone. I called my parents in Michigan and told them what was happening. My mother-in-law from Indiana called just to get an update on how things were going and I had to tell her the devastating news. The son and grandson we had all eagerly waited for, was gone.

        The last year has been a trial. Many tears have been shed. Much heartache endured. Through it all we have remained confident that God is in control. We refused to allow ourselves to dwell on "Why did it happen?" The reality is there is no answer to that question that will satisfy. Our church family and my fire department family, and our friends, and family stepped up beside us and supported us. They cried with us when it was needed, they laughed with us when able.

        In my grief I wrote a song (one of the things I do). It was a song about the loss of John, it was a song about God giving up his Son for us. It was a reminder that in all things "God is by my side reminding me of his sacrifice. In Jesus arms we all are held, the warmth of love to overwhelm the times of doubt and deep dismay, as hope abounds in Jesus' name."
        On May 17, 2020, at 4:42 AM. My wife and I welcomed our 4th child, and third daughter, Hannah into our lives. Almost a year to the day that we lost John, we added this precious member to our family. She is a true joy to us (even if slightly exhausting) these past three weeks. The reality is that she would not be here if John had lived. We wouldn't have tried again for a while. I don't know what God's plan for her is, but I know that He has a plan for her and for our family in the days to come.

Life Changing Opportunities... Is this your will, God?

Have you ever been faced with an opportunity you were  unsure about pursuing?

I find myself in one of those situations. I find myself in the tension of the known/familiar and the possibility of what could be. I really want to pursue the opportunity, yet it involves some new and terrifying experiences for my wife, making it harder to fully make the decision. This has become one of those times when I wish God would just make it abundantly clear what He desires of us.

The call of God can be one of the hardest things to discern in life. Many people have acted according to what they assumed was God's will, only to realize later they acted on their own ambition and desire rather than God's direction. At this point, that is what I'm trying to avoid. This opportunity is a great one, but are we the right people to take the opportunity?

I wish I could be more specific, and the time will come when I can, but for now it must be left in this vague description. Mindy and I would appreciate your prayers as we listen for the voice of God and His clear direction for us as we seek to be faithful to His call.

Renewing Habits

The best of intentions sometimes leads to the best of results, sometimes it simply leads to us not accomplishing yet another thing on our to-do lists. This blog has been one of my best intended efforts and it hasn't born fruit. In these coming weeks I will be trying to put up one post per week on topics that are related to my life, ministry, family, and church. If you happen to check out the site and notice that its been a couple weeks since a post was made, please drop me an email at revmichaelflowers@gmail.com or simply comment on this or any other post.

Also, if you have a question on Christian faith and practice that you would like to have addressed, please let me know. I may not address all questions as a blog post, but I will try to respond to any question that comes in either as a blog or one-on-one communication.

God bless!

-Michael

"Perfect" Love

This morning I began reading the book "Love Made Perfect: Foundations for the Holy Life" by the late William Greathouse (former pastor, theologian, professor, and leader in the Church of the Nazarene). I came across a quote by Adam Clarke that I want to share. Here it is:

"As God requires every man to love with all his heart, soul, mind, and strength, and his neighbour as himself; then he is a perfect man that does so; he answers the need for which God made him."

We often balk at the term "perfect" but in this case it is correct. Let me explain. In the New Testament the word "perfect" (in the Greek, teleios, a form of the word telos which means "end" or "intended purpose") refers to that which "answers to its true end", that which fulfills its purpose.

I encourage you to seek to be a person who is perfect in the biblical sense of the word, a person who "answers the need for which God made him [or her]."

"At the very heart of the gospel is the promise of a deeper working of God's grace in the heart of the Christian believer, a grace receivable by faith in this present moment, enabling us to be and to act in conformity to the great commandment, which is to love God supremely and to love every other person as we love our own souls!" (William M. Greathouse, Love Made Perfect)

Emergent Theology - A Brief Analysis (not comprehensive)

Defining and explaining emergent theology is a rather formidable task because it is a theology without any specific boundaries or models. Emergent theology is perhaps best defined as a theological conversation between parties with the intended purpose to come to a further understanding of what it means to be a Christian . The persons involved in the discussion come from diverse backgrounds and theological traditions, with each bringing their own unique views into the discussion. In this paper I will examine some of the main features of this conversation, identifying some strong and weak points, and also looking at what this means ecclesiologically for the church.

The central features of this theology involve creating a conversation wherein new and old traditions of the Church are brought together so as to discover what can and must be done in the Church to help people grow in their Christian faith. “Emergents believe that theology is local, conversational, and temporary. To be faithful to the theological giants of the past, emergents endeavor to continue their theological dialogue.” Emergent theologians are not afraid to readdress issues that have long been considered resolved, and instead focus upon discovering the truth of the Christian faith through their own conversation and study. Topics of discussion in emergent theology include ecclesiological questions on how we do church and what are appropriate practices, and also included in the discussion is a concern with the reading and understanding of the Bible.

Ecclesiology is of the utmost importance for the emergent theology. Many have come to see emergent theology as direct reaction against mainline Christian denominations and traditions. However, it is also more than that. There is a push toward recognizing the importance of the mystics in Church history, primarily in regards to monasticism and that way of living, a way of living that focuses upon drawing ever closer to God through means of meditation and of a life focused solely on devotion to Him. Tony Jones identifies emergent theology as “a mash-up of old and new, of theory and practice, of men and women, and of mainline, evangelical, and, increasingly, Roman Catholic Christians.” From such a definition it is obvious that emergent theology is not simply a new idea about how we understand God, rather it is more of a revisiting of the ways in which we understand God, and how we understand the role of the Church in the world. Emergent theology and its proponents are concerned with moving the Church from merely speaking of the role of the Church in the world, to actually fulfilling that role within the world; they don’t want to just “be” the Church but more importantly they want to “do” Church actively in the world.

Jones identifies emergent theologians as striving to approach Scripture with an attitude of humility. He defines this attitude as “humility about what human beings can know, about the limits of human knowledge and our ability to accurately articulate that knowledge” . Dan Kimball supports this idea of humility in theology, suggesting that just because we have certain “fundamental beliefs” doesn’t mean that we can’t explore those beliefs. Emergents recognize the value of Scripture for the Church, taking it so far as to not want to assume ideas individually about Scripture based on what they were taught, but rather wanting to investigate and come to an agreement for themselves about what it means. This further supports the idea of conversation within the emergent theological discussion. There is also an emphasis upon reading the whole Bible, rather than selecting specific parts of it to focus on and leaving out those parts which would be more difficult to understand or preach.

Another of the main tenants of emergent theology is an engagement with the idea of the Kingdom of God and seeking to find out what the Kingdom is. This topic carries significant weight because it addresses an ecclesiological and eschatological question which many in Christianity struggle to answer. The fact that the emergent theologians are looking into this question is nothing new for the Church, but it is important because they desire to reform how we as Christians go about doing and understanding Church as a result of our understanding of the Kingdom of God.

Tony Jones writes about the nature of God and the requirement of the Church to fulfill the Great Commission in his book, The New Christians. He argues that contrary to what much of history has shown the Church to believe, God’s action in the world does not depend upon the actions of those who follow him. “God is a being whose activity is, by definition, not contingent. God can forgive whomever God wants to forgive, whether or not the forgiven person has adequately confessed his or her sins. And God can return whenever God pleases.” Jones is pointedly addressing what he considers a misconception in Christian theology, a misconception that says that the entire world must be evangelized before the second coming of Christ can take place. He prefers to view the subject through a lens where God can act apart from the human endeavors of his people, and do what He wills. In such a model the Church gains a much more intense mission as it is indicated that Christ could return before the work of the Church, as man understands it, has been completed.

The principle advocates for this theology are Brian McLaren, Tony Jones, and Doug Pagitt. Other advocates of renown include Dan Kimball and Leonard Sweet . Many of those involved in the theological conversation are pastors, who came into ministry in or since 1990. Many have served as youth pastors and have evolved their ministry and ideas while working directly with the post-modern culture.

There are many writings on emergent theology, but the clearest are those written by McLaren and Jones. These works include McLaren’s Generous Orthodoxy and Jones’ The New Christians. There is also a book edited by Jones and Pagitt called An Emergent Manifesto of Hope which outlines the place of hope within emergent theology and practice as expressed by multiple persons involved in the discussion including Dan Kimball. Jones’ book, The New Christians, clearly defines emergent theology to be “talk about the nexus of divine and human action. In other words, it’s how we talk about the points of intersection between God and us, the places where God’s activity meets our activity. But theology isn’t just talk… human life is theology.

The Biblical support varies largely depending upon the subject being addressed at the time. Most evident is the emergent emphasis upon being in community with other believers and their use of the book of Acts to support that emphasis. Passages such as Acts 2:42 lend credence to their idea of community, emphasizing that the Christian calling is to that life. Unfortunately biblical backing is often sparse in the writings of emergent theologians as they are seemingly more concerned with the conversation of people, rather than the conversation of people and Scripture. Certainly there are biblical statements behind their ideas, but they are often hard to identify or find.

This theology most aligns with traditional orthodoxy in its endeavor to reach out to the world, its ecclesiological ideas may vary in certain degrees, but the mission remains the same. It is also similar in that it is investigating the very topics that were addressed by the councils hundreds of years ago, and which were again addressed in the Protestant Reformation. Protestants were concerned with how it is that a person is saved, and emergent theology is concerned with the very same thing. It recognizes the oneness of God, Christ and the Spirit, and also the role of the Church in relationship to the work in the world.

This theology most differs from traditional orthodoxy in its readiness to ask any question of any topic within or outside of the Christian faith. A further departure from Orthodoxy is its inclusion of practices such as transcendental meditation and yoga type exercises which seem to ally it more with the New Age movement rather than with Christianity. Roger Oakland stresses such points in his book, Faith Undone, making the statement that “No Bible-believing Christian would ever fall for such deception.” This statement might be taking things a bit far, but it does assert the need to look for meaning in what we do as Christians.

The most inviting or appealing aspect of this theology for me is the fact that I do not see myself as being very far outside of this. I see no problem with revisiting the topics of faith, for example, defining the kingdom of God. I see this as a very healthy exercise, so long as it is done in conversation with Scripture and with the understandings of the past. A discussion does not necessarily have to lead to a new understanding; it can simply prove to back up how we already understand something.

I also find the call to live a life of devotion to God very appealing. As Christians this is something that should not be a radical idea, but it seems to have become one. Many Christians do not see a problem with the way that they live their lives, as long as they have surrendered to God. However, surrendering our lives to God involves allowing Him to transform us into his likeness in our attitudes and lifestyles. This surrender is not just a commitment and an endeavor to live a life for God; it is an endeavor to live always in complete relationship with God.

I find it very disconcerting that certain practices are being allowed in emergent ecclesiology. Meditation wherein one loses consciousness of their physical being and is only involved as a spirit in conversation with the supernatural is very dangerous and I cannot believe is even Christian. It opens one up to connecting with spiritual forces, but I do not think that God is the only force to be met in this way. I find this practice nowhere in Scripture and therefore it is very troubling to me. Meditation wherein one ponders a thought or secludes oneself away to meet with God are alright, but practices wherein one loses their self in their connection with the supernatural should be avoided or at least approached a measure of serious caution.

The outcomes of this theology if carried out to its logical conclusion are hard to identify, because the theology itself is largely fluid and in formation at this time. McLaren, Jones, Pagitt, and other theologians all bring their own diverse ideas on things. In this paper, I have focused largely upon Jones’ emergent theology, and I cannot say what the outcomes would be. I fear that one outcome might be a loss of viewing Scripture within the uniqueness of each text, but rather engaging the entire text together and looking for a specific meaning for a postmodern context. The way to avoid this would be to practice proper hermeneutics and to not let personal bias dictate understanding.

Another potential outcome involves a loss of the theological traditions and heritage of the Church. As previously mentioned, Jones considers emergent theology to be a mixing of the old and new, and this could lead to a loss of the meaning of the old traditions and understandings. The two types of ideas, old and new, can co-exist, but they have to still be recognized as such and the distinctions must still be made about how things have been understood in history, and how they have now come to be understood in the present.

The profile of those who are most likely to find this theology attractive is that of people belonging to my generation: post-moderns. We are looking for places to belong; we are intent upon finding answers and discovering truth for ourselves. This theology expresses those desires and embraces our culture in a way that many feel Orthodox Christianity does not. In terms of ecclesiology it makes worship of God within the Church exciting and experiential, two things which my generation desires. It reaches out to a demographic that desires to experience things for themselves, rather than just learn of the experiences from those who have come before.

Bibliography:
Jones, Tony. The New Christians: Dispatches from the Emergent Frontier. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2008.
Oakland, Roger. Faith Undone: The Emergent Church… A New Reformation or An End-Time Deception. Eureka: Lighthouse Trails Publishing, 2007.
Mark Scandrette. “Growing Pains: The Messy and Fertile Process of Becoming.” In An Emergent Manifesto of Hope, ed. Tony Jones and Doug Pagitt, 22-32. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2007.
Dan Kimball. “Humble Theology: Re-Exploring Doctrine While Holding On to Truth.” In An Emergent Manifesto of Hope, ed. Tony Jones and Doug Pagitt, 214-224.Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2007.

What is the Promise of a Trinitarian Ecclesiology?

Christian doctrine and theology have been debated for centuries; one such doctrine is that of the Trinity. The debates have dealt with questions regarding defining what the Trinity is, how its three parts exist and operate, what the Trinity means for Christian faith, and also how we are to explain the Trinity without appearing to sound polytheistic. This paper will touch on some of these questions as it explains the place of Trinitarian belief in ecclesiology.

Augustine explained the relationship of the members of the Trinity as “each is in each, all are in each, each is in all, all are in all, and all are one.” This is a somewhat confusing, yet at the same time clear, description of the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This statement speaks to the all inclusive oneness of the relationship, while also allowing for the possibility of each part to stand out in their respective roles and identity. A perichoretical understanding of the Trinity says that “the Father exists in the Son, the Son in the Father, and both of them in the Spirit, just as the Spirit exists in the Father and the Son.” This provides what I consider to be clearer picture of the relationship than that described by Augustine. This view expresses the individuality of each while also emphasizing the connectedness of one to another; it also seems to correspond with what we know from the opening of the Gospel of John when it says in verse one “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” This does not mean that this relationship is not confusing to a degree, but it does help to at least make the triune relationship somewhat understandable. The three persons or personalities of triune God must be understood in their individuality, as well as in their unity, because it is in their individuality that they can then see their divine interaction with one another. The relationship of the three must exist in a communal setting wherein each individual part is communing with the other two in their relatedness as well as in their existence and actions so that they are truly in unison in all things.

Kevin Giles identifies three approaches to Trinitarian ecclesiology: (1) The Trinitarian origin and edification of the church; (2) The Trinitarian model of ecclesiology; and (3) The Trinitarian ontological basis of the church. Each one has its own way of doing things, though they are not entirely different than one another. It is in light of these three approaches that the promise of a Trinitarian ecclesiology can be discovered.

The first of these approaches strives “to emphasize that all three persons of the Trinity are involved in the emergence and life of the Christian community.” This differs from what Giles considers to be the mistake that the church has made in emphasizing a christocentric approach in the past. This approach places equal emphasis upon the involvement of the Spirit and Christ in the establishment of the church, because the Spirit carried on the work of the church after Christ’s time on earth had passed:

“The church is the place where the Spirit is ever-active in giving new life to old forms, and constituting again and again the community called into existence by Christ. The church has an historical beginning in the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ, but the Spirit of Christ enables it to grow as the body of Christ, and to adapt to the ever-changing circumstances of subsequent history.”
This means that the church is not some static entity that has been doing things the same way for two thousand years; it indicates that the church has been growing and changing as its understanding of triune God and its relationship with the same increased.

The second approach makes a case for the life of the church needing to be a reflection of the life of the triune God. This requires that the church be communal, ecumenical, egalitarian, and non-sexist. In striving to be communal the church is more than just a gathering of believers or individual congregations in varying traditions and denominations; rather, when the church is truly communal it is the church universal as it is bound together by its faith in Jesus Christ and reflects the communion of triune God. This relates directly to the church’s need to be ecumenical. There are differences within the Christian tradition, depending upon many different factors, primarily surrounding a particular understanding of Scripture. These differences should not be divisive, but should actually serve to further unite the church together as it engages in a quest to come to know God more and more. The church is meant to be unified not divided; the church cannot fulfill its commission if it allows itself to be divided, and does not strive to be united.

This approach also recognizes the need for the church to observe the equality of all believers, and the equal worth of everyone in the eyes of God. This approach directly opposes hierarchal models of leadership and authority, such as that employed by the Roman Catholic Church:

“Trinitarian ecclesiology does not question the need of leaders, or the exercise of authority as such in the life of the church, but it does call into question all forms of domination by those who claim some innate right to rule, and al expressions of authoritarianism. It encourages instead the ministry of all believers, democratic and participatory decision-making, and everything that promotes the communal nature of the church.”

No person in the church is of more importance than another and each member should have a say in matters appertaining to the entire faith community. Men and women also are both seen as equal in this approach, which is why the fourth characteristic is non-sexist. “A Trinitarian ecclesiology demands a fully communal understanding of man and woman in Christ. It suggests that in all our relationships we should affirm what the Athanasian creed says of the Trinity: all persons are ‘co-equal’, ‘none is afore, or after other: none is greater, or less than another’.” Galatians 3:28 addresses such an ideal when it says that, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” In this approach there is no room for individualism or segregation, all are equal and all are to be in relationship with one another, just as all three persons of the triune God are in perfect communion with one another.

The third approach of which Giles identifies the church as being those people who are in relationship with Jesus Christ and communing with others of the same beliefs. The church must have unity among the believers or else it cannot be the church. This is a direct result of the model which we have in the triune God of what communion really is. The church needs every part of itself in order to fully be itself. In Ephesians 4:4, Paul writes that there is “one body” and that is the church; there are not multiple bodies for multiple churches, but one body for one church that is made up of the united believers in Jesus Christ.

So then, what is the promise of a Trinitarian ecclesiology? The promise seems quite simple to me. The promise is unity in the church, both in its relationship with God, and in its relationships within itself. We are called to “keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.” This is the promise of a Trinitarian ecclesiology because if the church truly follows the communal example of the Trinity, then there is no reason why the church would not be unified in its own communal purpose and endeavors.

Process Theology - A Brief Analysis (not comprehensive)

The discussion of theology has many voices and many trends involved, some which differ greatly from one another and others which are virtually identical. This paper is focused upon a theology that differs greatly from Orthodox Christian theology; this theology is known as process theology. Samuel Powell defines process theology as “a set of ideas” rather than “a church that demands total belief from its members.” This theological trend strives to harmonize faith and science and so abolish the controversy that is constantly taking place between the two. In the words of Powell: “Theology has nothing to fear and much to learn from science.” This theology believes that everything is in process and that the God and creation never stop progressing and developing toward some unknown point at which the task of the process will be fulfilled; everything is constantly in process. In order to comprehend what process theology believes we must take a look into its various doctrines regarding God, Christ, Scripture, revelation, etc. For this paper we will examine the four specifically mentioned and strive to discover what is so appealing about this theology and what its implications are for Christian faith.

The doctrine of God that one finds in process theology has some similarities to that of orthodox Christian tradition, but it also differs on specific points which are important to the Christian faith. One point of interest is that process theology believes that God is constantly changing as he experiences new things. Powell writes that “events in the universe have an impact on God’s experiences and being. They contribute to (they constitute) God’s life.” This stems from the philosophical side of process theology which holds to a naturalistic theism. According to John Write, naturalistic theism dictates that “God is every bit as ‘natural’ as the ‘world.’ God and the world comprise a common, natural realm in which all is ‘becoming,’ except God’s primordial (eternal or abstract) nature.” This supports the process theory that God does not change in that he is constantly striving toward a specific goal for himself and the rest of the universe, yet at the same time process theology also indicates that God changes as he progresses toward that goal, with only his focus and intent being unchanged.

Process theology understands the role of God as creator in a different way than Orthodox Christian tradition. In process thought, in order for God to be God he must always be creating, just as he always has been creating. Thomas Oord considers the idea that God created out of nothing to be wholly unbiblical, even opposed to Scripture, and proposes that such a belief should be thrown out. Oord instead brings a different way of viewing creation to the table, a view in which “God creates out of creation, because God’s nature is love.” Love is of primary importance to Oord and it drives his entire understanding of creation. He considers that a true view of creation must recognize the existence of something because of the important fact that the Word was with God at the beginning and God’s loving and creating nature suggest that he has always been acting in this way. “In each moment of God’s everlasting life, God creates something new from what God created in the past. God’s creating has always been occurring in the past and will always occur in the future.” Thus we find that in process theology, God as creator is essential, but it must be in the understanding that God is always creator and thus is always creating.

John Cobb, Jr., agrees with Oord and considers that Genesis 1:1-2 is not speaking of Christ creating out of nothing; he instead looks at the description of the world as formless as indicating that God is creating out of something and thereby is “bringing into being richer and richer forms, or formed things” out of that which is described as formless. Just as in Oord’s description of the creating God, we find the idea of an ongoing process of creating, not a singular event, but a process working toward some future fulfillment. “In the beginning, in every beginning, God was creating, and in the continuation, God continues to create.”

Process theology also questions the omnipotence of God. David Ray Griffin sums up the argument when he says that “a theistic postmodernity, to be viable, must challenge the idea of divine power traditionally associated with the generic idea of God.” For Griffin, understanding God to be omnipotent makes believing in him impossible, and so Griffin rejects the idea of an omnipotent God. He claims that this view of God drove the modern world to reject God; thus, in the postmodern era we must bring to light the understanding of God that is not omnipotent, in order that people might once again believe in God.

Process theology understands Jesus Christ in a totally different way than Christian tradition. Nathan Kurr explains that the Jesus of process theology “unveils what God is like by demonstrating what human life can become when its potential is fulfilled.” This view destroys the idea that Jesus Christ is anything but a perfect human being; it promotes the idea that any person can achieve a state of Christlikeness in that they reach the full potential that God desires for all humanity to reach. Jesus is not the only incarnate one, but anyone may be incarnate because it is a “human decision to accept the divine aim [of God for man], a decisive moment in one’s own subjective self-determination.”

Process theology also addresses Scripture quite differently than Christian tradition. Process theology considers the Bible to be “one illustration of how God is active in all history – except for one important difference. The Bible is a record of the many different kinds of divine messages received throughout history.” This view makes the Bible into merely a kind of guidebook to God, a tool to understand how God might act in the future rather than an authoritative Word to live by. The Bible is also considered to prove that God is changing and that he can be changed by external influences. Stories like that of Abraham pleading for the life of the city of Sodom in Genesis 18 indicate that God is capable of change depending upon the circumstances involved, and process theologians use many other texts to argue this point as well.

This brings us finally to the topic of revelation and this one has implications in the understanding of all three of the doctrines previously mentioned: God, Jesus Christ, and Scripture. Process theology looks to nature as the primary source of revelation about God, and diminishes the role of Christ and Scripture in that task. The experiences of the world and of individual lives are how God is revealed, and serve as a “provisional guide for anticipating God’s future goals.” This stems from what was earlier mentioned about the doctrine of Christ wherein Jesus is no more than just a perfect person, rather than the only incarnate Son of God. Christ is only a single revelation of who God is, not the complete revelation of who God is, just as Scripture is a revelation of something that God might do as opposed to something that God will do. “Instead of the Word made flesh (John 1:1-19), process theology delivers a God made fully present through human activity and divine intent.”

Understandably these doctrines are a source of concern for Orthodox Christian tradition. The doctrines described carry severe implications that challenge orthodox theology and place quite a bit of authority in hands of mankind, rather than God. God has been revealed through creation certainly, but to say that Christ is not the Christ and that Scripture doesn’t reveal God but illustrates to us about God, is heretical, just as to say that God is not omnipotent is to deny the power, love, and creative potential of God.

Orthodox Christian tradition holds to the idea that God created out of nothing. This directly ties into our understanding of the omnipotence of God in that anyone is capable of making something from resources, but to create from shear nothingness, is beyond the capacity of any mortal being, and thereby requires the omnipotence of God. The idea that God has always been creating and is still creating is not a thought that is necessarily destructive to the faith; I see it having very positive potential. However, when the idea goes on to stress that God could not create out of nothing, as both Oord and Cobb argue, the problematic implication arises. It raises the question as to just how powerful God truly is, and Scripture reveals to us a God who is all powerful and has no equal.

The idea that Jesus Christ is merely a perfect person, and that anyone can become incarnate, is heretical. Christ was not merely a perfect person, he was the very Son of God who became incarnate in order to restore the relationship between God and creation. If this is not so, then Scripture is in error when John 3:16 quotes Christ as saying, “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son.” In process theology, it would appear that this verse could be modified to suggest that God would give his sons rather than his only Son. This doctrine of Jesus Christ is for me the most disturbing aspect of process theology, because it reduces the person of Jesus into just a mere man who served God with all that he was. If that is the case, then why was it necessary for Christ to die on the cross for the forgiveness of sins? The implication becomes that it was not necessary, but that we can attain perfection with God upon our own merit, as Christ must have done.

The implication that the Bible does not reveal God, but merely the possible actions of God, is very disturbing because it brings into question that which we hold to be authoritative in our understanding of God. Orthodox faith holds that the Bible is the written and inspired Word of God, but process theology appears to place the emphasis on the writers of Scripture rather than on the inspiration of Scripture. The implication that the Bible does not reveal God to us is that the Bible would become worthless as we draw closer to perfection and know about God for ourselves through our own interactions and experiences of Him. This leads to the potential of limitless theories and possible understandings of God, and the only judgment as to whether they are correct would be an individual’s personal conviction.

The revelation of God is seriously undermined in this theological trend. Christian tradition holds that God is revealed through human experience and creation certainly, but he is revealed in his fullness in Christ as made known to us in Scripture. The idea that creation and experience alone reveal God leads to the possible outcome that I mentioned for Scripture, limitless understandings of God, both correct and heretical, with no way to judge which is which. God is revealed in Scripture and we find nothing contrary to Scripture in the life of Christ who revealed to us the nature of love that is God. Oord is right to believe that God is love and created out of his loving nature, but that love is ultimately revealed to us through the life and sacrifice of Jesus Christ that brought us the potential to once again fully commune with the Father.

Ultimately this theological trend is going to appeal to people because of the stress it makes on human capability. It takes away the need for God to a certain extent and places responsibility upon the person. People want to believe that they have control over their own lives and destinies, and do not want to entertain the thought that there is some force who is determining everything that happens. A God who is capable of change is appealing because it means that we can pray and ask him not to do something and He might not do it; and we could expect him not to do it.

A postmodern generation would definitely find this approach appealing because of its attempt to reconcile faith and science in how it approaches creation. The idea that something already existed and that God has always been creating, even before the creation of the world, entertains the possibility that the evolutionary theory is correct and that the creation account found in Genesis is simply man’s understanding of that event. Postmodern people want to discover answers for themselves and this approach allows them to do that. They do not have to rely on God at all times for all things; they are capable of doing some things on their own apart from God, and it also promises that at some point they can reach perfection, and that is a very enticing proposition.
 
Bibliography:
Cobb, John B., Jr. Can Christ Become Good News Again? St. Louis: Chalice Press, 1991
Griffin, David Ray. God & Religion in the Postmodern World. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1989.
Oord, Thomas. The Nature of Love: A Theology. St. Louis: Chalice Press, 2010.
Truesdale, Al, ed. God Reconsidered: The Promise and Peril of Process Theology.
Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 2010.