Religious School Fires Theologian For "Open Theism"

Open or Closed Case? Controversial theologian John Sanders on way out at Huntington. By Stan Guthrie | posted 12/22/2004

While John Sanders and the Board of Trustees at Huntington College in Indiana disagree on whether God exhaustively knows the future, they agree that his days as a theology professor at the evangelical school are running out. The issue, according to both Sanders and G. Blair Dowden, the college's president, is not Sanders' belief in open theology, but his notoriety in advocating the doctrine. Both acknowledged that others on the faculty hold the same open theology views.

"You can be an open theist," Sanders told CT. "You just can't be a well-known one. That makes this a very interesting case."

After an executive session of the board was held in October, Dowden told members of the faculty that there "was very little support for John's continued employment at Huntington." Neither Sanders nor Dowden expect him back for the 2005-2006 academic year, which begins next fall. Dowden told ct that while the controversy is "directly related" to open theism, there is no requirement for professors on the issue.

"Not at all," Dowden said. "We have some other faculty who are open theists, but they're not teaching theology or Bible. It's not a litmus test."

Sanders, who has taught at the school of about 1,000 students for seven years, has been a focus of controversy over open theism for the past four years, he said. In November 2003, Sanders narrowly avoided being expelled from the Evangelical Theological Society over his beliefs. Some society members believe open theology violates the society's commitment to scriptural inerrancy.

Huntington removed Sanders from the tenure track over the controversy, but school officials attempted to give him some financial security by signing him to three-year rolling contracts, automatically renewable annually, unless the administration or board says No. In the event Sanders were to be dismissed, he would receive payment for the balance of the contract.

Sanders told ct he expects to be relieved of his position shortly, and that Dowden has "made it clear that my contract will not be renewed after the 2004-5 academic year." Sanders said that he is looking into other teaching positions and research grants, but that he has no other options waiting in the wings right now.

Earlier reports in ct and the Chronicle of Higher Education that Sanders had been "fired" were inaccurate. Dowden, who called Sanders a "brilliant scholar" and "excellent teacher," has been a defender of Sanders.

"John has done everything we have asked of him," Dowden said. But Dowden said that the United Brethren in Christ, which sponsors the school, "finds open theism troubling—some [leaders find it] very troubling."

Dowden added that academic freedom, while important, is not absolute. "For all Christian colleges, academic freedom is bounded in some way."

Sanders said the school is not following its own guidelines. "I do believe that the right to publish and academic freedom statements that the professors actually are working under are being violated," Sanders said. "They are being trodden upon."

Some students at the school are upset. Joni Michaud, a senior history major who is a leader in a student group supporting Sanders, said the controversy is "a case study in academic freedom." The group meets weekly to discuss strategy, has sent letters supporting Sanders to the board, and is seeking to raise awareness among other students. Michaud said the treatment of Sanders violates the school's statements lauding the "benefits of controversy" in an academic setting.

"If Dr. Sanders is indeed fired, I will graduate with a much lowered opinion of the institution," said Michaud, a pre-law major. "I will probably not make any financial contribution, and I will discourage people from attending."

Such talk is no doubt troubling to administrators, who have announced a freeze in tuition rates for the 2005-2006 academic year. Huntington College, to be renamed Huntington University in mid-2005, says the annual U.S.News & World Report survey of colleges consistently ranks it as one of the top comprehensive colleges in the Midwest.

Dowden said the board will next meet January 19-23, and the fate of Sanders could be formally decided then.

Your thoughts on Genesis 6...?

Genesis 6
5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.

13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

Why did He, from a Calvinist's perspective, "plan to fail?" How can God be sorry for something He did (again, from a Calvinist's perspective)? How can He repent? God doesn't change His mind...or does He?

God does change His mind (thus, the future is in flux because God is sovereign over the course of it...and He is no slave to Calvin and has the right to change His mind):

Exodus 32
8 They have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them: they have made them a molten calf, and have worshipped it, and have sacrificed thereunto, and said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which have brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.

9 And the LORD said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people:

10 Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation.

11 And Moses besought the LORD his God, and said, LORD, why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people, which thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power, and with a mighty hand?

12 Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say, For mischief did he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people.

13 Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it for ever.

14 And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.

God SAID He was going to destroy rebellious Israel, but He listened as Moses pleaded a case on behalf of the Lord's own reputation. As fantastic as it may sound, the Lord agreed with Moses and did not "consume them." Why did He go along with Moses here? Why did He change His mind? Because God made man in His image to have communion with us--in real time. That's why we are urged to walk with Him and pray. We can have a real living, breathing relationship with the God of the universe through faith in Jesus Christ.

9 And the LORD said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people:
10 Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation.

God gave Moses a choice. A) Leave him alone so that he may consume them or B) stay with him (opposite of leave him alone).

Moses used the choice to make a case for his people and to "not leave him alone". Moses volunteered to be an advocate for his people. Later in 33:18 God tells Moses he will "show mercy on whom I will show mercy". Clearly he is not leaving it to Moses's intercession.

That's why I think there are places in the Bible where the Bible must be incorrect because God is said to change his mind or be surprised. Either God must not be omniscient or the Bible must be wrong.

You're right to make the choice for God's omniscience. But maybe you can look at the Bible as instructional as well as historical so that we're not slandering God's word as "incorrect.".

IMO, God does not "change His mind." Every word of Scripture is one, complete retelling of God's plan for His creation and how He has accomplished the salvation of His people. (By the grace of God, all Trinitarian Christians who possess a true faith in Jesus Christ are among the elect, chosen by God from all nations and races and times.)

But just like God became man in order to reach our human minds and become a human substitution as payment for our sins, God likewise instructs His people with human words and vocabulary, using Scripture in the if/then conditional subjunctive tense -- "if you do this; then that will happen."

But none of this supersedes God's righteous and complete sovereignty. Every leaf falls by the hand of God. Every hair numbered.

The greatest paradox for the Christian mind to grasp is the Trinity. Once we get that one, concepts like Predestination and eternity should be easy.

(PS: this is all according to Open Theism and not according to me. I'm simply relaying their views as I understand Greg Boyd's writings.)

The above was the last sentence of my post. It is important that you see it again.

Now, what would the open theist say about God prophesying sin. It's an excellent question. This will be off the top of my head.

Perhaps he'd say that God works through people, and when they let God down then he's aware of it in the present because of settled events in the future that He knows will come certainly come to pass.

For example, if I know that Iran starts a nuclear holocaust in the next decade, then I'm able to say that Iran does develop a nuclear weapon.

The question is this: what did the Lord know about the future that was certain and settled that would have required Peter to have denied him early that morning?

I can't think of a single thing.

I guess that's as good an answer as I'll get...it just seems that I have to believe in the bible, to get any answers to questions of the bible.

I don't see why. Either the bible describes truth or it doesn't. I claim that it does and base my belief upon the evidence it describes, the evidence of my experience and the evidence of generations that have gone before me.

You apparently reject anything described by the bible as truth and dismiss any evidence from any source as being relative beliefs You further attribute that any truth is relative to other truths without realizing that there are absolutes and they are knowable.

Why did He, from a Calvinist's perspective, "plan to fail?" How can God be sorry for something He did (again, from a Calvinist's perspective)? How can He repent? God doesn't change His mind...or does He?

The human mind struggles to envelop the totality of God, but it will always fail. We are left with the divine paradox.

At first glance and in light of Scripture, your questions appear valid. But they can only be answered in one of two ways:

1) Either God planned His creation, made mistakes, erased His blueprints, fudged the numbers, altered His plans, had second thoughts, regretted His actions, went to Plan B, and ultimately, is a reactor to His own creation.

Or...

2) God is omnipotent, omniscient, sovereign, eternal, absolute, infinite, and truly "knows the beginning from the end" because He authored the entire production. God does not err, make mistakes, have regrets or second thoughts, nor does He fail at anything He does.

This question is at the heart of the Christian paradox.

I choose Door #2.

While Scripture is instructional, it is first and foremost a witness of God's redemption of His elect.

We can have a real living, breathing relationship with the God of the universe through faith in Jesus Christ.

Only by the will of God alone.

"God gave Moses a choice."

God always gives a choice--starting with: "...Thou shalt not eat of it...."

But, to take God's word at face value, what He said was:

"Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation."

Did God mean what He said here? This is an important point. Was He lying? Bluffing? Playing games? Or, did He mean what He said, and THEN change His mind later?

How can a God that knows everything in advance, every single detail, CHANGE His mind? Change is, well, CHANGE. You know, as in different than moments before.

Your list of choices is not sufficiently detailed for me, but I'll take door #2 as well.

If the bible says that God repented of a certain thought or act, then God did do so. It just might not mean what the average human means by the same thing.

My interpretation, however, does not change the clear words of scripture.

Prior to the flood, God did repent that He had made man because that is what scripture said He did. The interpretation of what that means must be weighed against God's omnipotence and omniscience as elucidated elsewhere in scripture.

You're right to make the choice for God's omniscience. But maybe you can look at the Bible as instructional as well as historical so that we're not slandering God's word as "incorrect.".

I wouldn't slander God's word. God's word can never be incorrect. It would be perfect, just as God is perfect. The Bible is incorrect and contradictory in many places. Therefore, the Bible is not God's perfect word.

Inspirational, yes. Offers many lessons to mankind, yes. Divinely inspired, some parts more than others. Inspired by man, maybe in a few places.

But if people insist on taking every word as literal and true, they are going to run into theological road blocks like the fact that the Bible states in places that God changed his mind or God was surprised yet God is supposed to be all-knowing and immutable. The open theists have taken the route that God is all-knowing of the present and past but not the future - a limitted God. Some Classic theists use mind-numbing contortions of logic. Atheists say it proves God doesn't exist. I say it proves there are problems with the book, not with God.

An interesting book I am reading on the subject is "What Does God Know and When Does He Know It?" described as "As "openness theology" becomes increasingly controversial within evangelicalism today, divine foreknowledge threatens to join predestination vs. free will among Christianity's divisively debated doctrines. Now one of America's most respected theologians examines the question from both sides. Thoroughly evaluating all relevant arguments with graceful deliberation, Erickson offers thoughtful conclusions with less heat and more light." An example of the debatable Bible verses is 1 Samuel 15:11 ""I greatly regret that I have set up Saul as king, for he has turned back from following Me, and has not performed My commandments." Here it seems that God did not have perfect foreknowledge because of Saul's free will. Believe in John 3:16 and your questions will be answered in Heaven

No. Wait. You said: "Open Theism is blasphemy."

Now you're saying that we are not to take Scripture at face value?

You should consider an apology for the blasphemy comment. You're placing your Calvinist doctrine over what's written in black and white in the Bible. There many, many occasions in the Bible where God "repents" (i.e. changes His mind). Just do a keyword search in an electronic version of the King James. Read them. Don't try to explain them away or force your doctrine...read the passages. Read the chapters for context.

God created the world and the universe and it was "good." God had good plans, BUT HE GAVE MEN FREE WILL. Men rebelled against God, and God made new plans. He intended for man to obey Him...not to sin.

This question is at the heart of the Christian paradox.

And these statements reveal the heart of man:

Yet you say, "The way of the Lord is unjust." Hear now, O house of Israel! Is My way unjust? Is it not your ways that are unjust? Ez 18:25

On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it? Or does not the potter have the right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use, and another for common use? Rm 9:20-21

How can a God that knows everything in advance, every single detail, CHANGE His mind? Change is, well, CHANGE. You know, as in different than moments before.

I still don't see where God changed his mind. If Moses had left God alone, he would have followed thru. God's statement is provisional, "Now let me alone.... Moses chose to stay. Moses later led his people into agreeing to accepting God's offer for the Hebrews set themselves apart as God's people.

Again, If the statement God made wasn't prefaced with "Now therefore let me alone" I would agree that Moses effectively convinced God otherwise but that isn't what is being said here.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.