Divine Providence as Risk-Taking by John Ernest Sanders submitted in accordance with the ...

351 Pages·2014·7.09 MB·English

Divine Providence as Risk-Taking
by
John Ernest Sanders
submitted in accordance with the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF THEOLOGY
in the subject
SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY
at the
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AFRICA
PROMOTER: PROF A KONIG
JUNE 1996
Abstract
This study seeks to examine the precise way it may be said that God takes risks
in creating and governing this world. In order to articulate this model of
providence various texts of scripture are studied which have either been
overlooked or interpreted differently in discussions of divine providence. These
texts reveal a deity who enters·· into genuine give-and-take relations with
creatures, a God who is genuinely responsive and who may be said to take risks
in that God does not get everything he desires in these relationships.
Furthermore, the traditional texts used to defend the '!2.-:!"iR.k view of providence
are examined and shown that they do not_, in f<Lct, te<>-Ch the idea that God is the
:•·-----··-
ca_u."E! _of E!v_e_rythinc;r. whic:h h<>-ppens in the world s.uch that the divine will is never
thwa:ict;ed. in .. the .. le<>-~.t <:l,etail. The biblical teaching of God in reciprocal
relations with his creatures is then discussed in theological and philosophical
terms. The nature of God is here ·understood as loving, wise, faithful yet_free,
almighty, competent and resourceful. These ideas are explicated in light of the
more traditional theological/philosophical understanding of God. Finally, some
of the implications of this relational model of God are examined to see the ways
in which it may be said that God takes risks and whose will may be thwarted. The
crucial watershed in this regard is whether or not there is any conditionality
in the godhead. The no-risk view denies, while the risk model affirms, that some
aspects of God's will, knowledge, and actions are contingent. In order to grasp
the differences between the two models the doctrines and practices involved in
salvation, the problem of evil, prayer and guidance are examined to see what each
model says about them. It is claimed that· .the relational or risk model is
superior to the no-risk model both in terms of theoretical coherence and the
practice of the Christian life.
Key Wordsi Divine providence; divine sovereignty; evil; human freedom;
omniscience; omnipotence; love; foreknowledge; risk; prayer; contingency; divine
will; divine plan; divine-human relationship.
Table of Contents
Chapter one: rntroductiOJl 1
Chapter TM>• !!'he Nature of the T'ask 6
2.1 Metaphors and Models ... 6
2. 2 Criteria . . . . 7
2 . 3 Anthropomorphism 12
2.4 A Shared Context 17
2.5 Two Objections 21
2.5.1 God as Wholly Other 21
2.5.2 The Appeal to Antinomies 28
2.6 Conclusion to Ch~pter Two • 33
Chapter !l'hree: Old T'estamant Materials for a Relati0J2al
View of Provide.nee Involving Risk . . . . . . . . . . . 35
3 . 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
3.2 'l'he Creation and its Divinely Established Conditions 37
3.3 Freedom Within Limits . . . ......... . 44
3.4 'l'ha Implausible Bappans ............. . 46
3.5 God Suffers on Account of Bis Sinful Creatures But
Will Not Abandon Them . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
3.6 'l'he Divine Purposa1 Creating a Relationship of Trust 52
3.7 God May Ba Prevailed upon ........ . 57
3.8 Joseph, a Risk-Fraa Modal? ....... . 58
3.9 God Works with what is Available .... . • , pO
3.10 Divina-Buman Ralationality in tha Covenant 68
3.11 Divine Goals with Open Routes ..... . 71
3.12 Excursus on Divina Repantance ..... . 75
3.13 Divine Wrath and Marcy Within the Context of 84
covanantal Relationality . . . . . . . . . 84
3 .14 The Absence and Prasanca of God . . . . ·. 88
3.15 'l'he Potter and the Clay: an Examination of
So-Called Pancausality Texts 91
3.16 Divina Love and BIJllliliation 101
3.17 Conclusion to Chapter Three 102
Chapter Four: New 2'estament Materials for a Relational
View of Providence Involving Risk . . 104
4.1 Introduction ........ ." . 104
4.2 'l'ha Baptism .......... . 105
4. 3 'l'he Birth of Jesus and the Bethlehem Massacre 106
4.4 'l'he T9111Ptation of Jesus ....... . 109
4. 5 confession and Transfiguration . . . . 111
4.6 Compassion, Dialogue and Healing Grace 112
4.7 Qethssmane1 'l'he Pathos of Jesus 115
4.8 The cross of Jesus ...... . 122
4.9 'l'he Resurrection ....... . 127
4.10 Grace, Judgment and BIJllliliation: Divina Love in 130
Jesus• Teaching . . . . . . . . . . . 130
4.11 Various Texts on Providence 135
4.12 Conclusion to tha Life of Jesus 139
4.13 'l'he Jeopardy of God's Project in the Early Church 142
4.13.1 Acts 10-15 ... . 142
4.13.2 Romans 9-11 ..... . 147
4.14 'l'he Nature and Goal of the Divine Project 152
4.15 Eschatology and Providence ....... . 154
4.16 Excursus on Predictions and Foreknowledge 160
4.17 Conclusion to Chapter Four ..... . 169
Chapter Pive: Risk and the Divi.ne .Character 173
5 . 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . 173
5.2 summary of a Risk View of Providence 175
5.3 'l'ha Natura of the Divina Risk ... 177
5.4 'l'ha Divina Character and Providence 181
5.4.l Introduction 181
5.4.2 Love ..... . 184
5.4.3 Wisdom .... . 193
5.4.4 Faithful Freedom 195
5.4.5 Almightiness 204
)ii, 5.5 Excursus on Omniscience 212
5.5.l Introduction .... 212
5.5.2 The Main Alternatives . 214
5.5.3 The Uselessness of Simple Foreknowledge for Providence 220
5.5.3.1. Introduction .... . 220
5.5.3.2 Sin and Divine Risk ..... . 224
5.5.3.3 Damnation and Divine Risk .. . 226
5.5.3.4 Divine Guidance and Protection 226
5.5.3.5 Mistakes and Divine Predictions 228
5.6 Conclusion to Chapter Five 229
Chapter 6: Applications 0£ the Risk Modal 0£ Providence 232
6.1 Divine Sovereignty .. . 232
6.1.1 Introduction .... . 232
6.1.2 Types of Relationships 233
6.1.3 Specific Versus General Sovereignty 237
6.1.3.1 Specific Sovereignty 237
6.1.3.2 General Sovereignty 239
6 .1. 4 Divine Permission . . 245
6.1.5 Human Freedom . . . . . . . . . .. 250
6.1.6 The Concept of Divine Self-Limitation 257
6.1.7 Can God's Will be Thwarted? . . 262
6.2 Divina Purpose With Open Routes 266
6.3 Salvation and Grace ..... . 273
6. 3 .1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . 273
6.3.2 The No-Risk Model of Salvation 274
6.3.3 The Relational Model of Salvation 280
6 . 3 . 3 . 1 Sin . . . . . . . . . 280
6.3.3.2 Contingency in Gad 281
6.3.3.3 Grace for Fellowship 283
6.3.3.4 Some Objections ... 285
6.3.3.5 Conclusion to Salvation 292
6 .4 ZVil .......... . 292
6.4.1 Introduction ..... . 292
6.4.2 Evil and the No-Risk Model 295
6.4.3 Evil and the Risk Model 301
6.4.3.l The Divine Project . 301
6 A. 3 . 2 Gratuitous Evil . . . 305
6.4.3.3 Natural Evil ..•... 308
6.4.3.4 Jesus is God's Answer to Evil 310
6.4.3.5 Questioning God's Wisdom 312
6.4.4 Conclusion to Evil 315
6.5 Prayer .... 315
6.5.1 Introduction 315
6.5.2 The No-Risk and Prayer . 316
6.5.3 The Risk Model and Prayer 319
6.6 Divine Guidance ..... . 325
6.6.l The No-Risk View of Divine Guidance 325
6.6.2 The Risk View of Divine Guidance 327
6.7 Conclusion to Chapter Six 330
331
Bibliogz::apby 334
Chapter one: Introduct1on
The police car, lights flashing and siren roaring, sped past me as I was driving
home. When I reached the stop sign at the corner I could see several police cars
and an ambulance up ahead at the scene of an accident. Since I worked for the
local newspaper as a photographer I decided to take some pictures of the
accident. When I reached the scene I could see a semi-truck blocking the road,
a motorcycle laying on its side, and a white sheet covering something near the
truck. Everyone just stared at me which I thought was strange until someone came
up to me and sa_id, "You don't want to take any pictures here, that is your
brother Dick under the wheels of that truck." The next few minutes are a blur in
my memory but I do recall that when I got home I went to my room and put this
question to God: "God, why did you kill my brother?" As I look back on this
question I am fascinated that I asked it since I was a nominal Methodist at the
time and I did not believe that God caused everything which happened. Perhaps I
had picked up from the broader culture the belief that God was the cause behind
everything including all tragedies. In years to come many a Christian would
1
attempt to provide me with "good" reasons why God ordained my brother's death.
Such discussions have spurred my reflection on divine providence for over twenty
years.
The belief that God is the ultimate cosmic explanation for each and every thing,
including all bad things we experience, is quite widespread, at least in North
America. At the funeral service for the death of a young child whose parents were
close friends of mine, the pastor said, "God must have had a good reason for
taking her home.n Of course, "taking her homen is a euphemism for God killing
her. In a little while the euphemism wore off and the parents inquired as to why
God killed their daughter. Several weeks later when I was visiting these friends
they put. the question to me: "Why did God kill our baby girl?" They were angry
with God but did not feel safe to cry out in lament at church for they were told
that God's ways are best and it is sin to question God. In answer to their
2
question I sought to provide them with a different model of God--the one
explained in this thesis. But the point I wish to make here is that there is a
fair amount of anger and even hatred towards God both in and outside the church.
Anger directed at a particular model of God.
After talks had broken off between Iraq and the United Nations over the invasion
of Kuwait, then Secretary General, Javier Perez de Cuellar, said, 11War is now in
God's hands." When former president of the United States, Gerald Ford, heard this
statement he remarked, "I wish it were, I'd feel a lot better about it." Is it
the case that de. Cuellar's remark manifests, while Ford's comment lacks, faith
in divine providence? Not at all. But it might be the case that they reveal
different understandings of providence. The two major models of divine providence
are the no-risk and risk views. According to the no-risk understanding no event
ever happens except that God specifically selected it to happen. Nothing is too
insignificant for God's meticulous and exhaustive control. Each and every death1
civil war, famine, wedding, peaceful settlement, or birth happens because God
specifically intends it to happen so God never takes any risks that things will
turn out differently than God desires. According to the risk model of providence
God has established certain boundaries within which creatures operate but God
sovereignly decides not to control each and every event. Some things go contrary
to what God intends and things may not turn out completely as God desires. Hence,
God takes risks in creating this sort of world. It is commonplace for some
theologians to claim that only the no-risk model affirms divine sovereignty. That
is, they believe that divine sovereignty, by definition, means exhaustive control
of all things. However, this claim is questioned in this research. We should not
dictate the sort of providence God must exercise. Instead, we should look to see
'l
what sort()f_sovereignty God has freely chosen to practice. Providence refers to
';;'
'
the way God has chosen to relate to us and provide for our well being.
Consequently, God may or may not have chosen to exercise no-risk sovereignty. We
have to observe what God has chosen to do in history.
3
Yet, it is probably the case that most Western theists have thought that God does
not take any risks in governing the world. After all, if God is a God of order
then there is no room for a God who, in the words of Einstein's famous phrase,
"plays dice with the world." Yet, views are changing in science, philosophy, and
theology from a deity who is the "will-to-power" to a God who is the "will-to-
conununity, 11 a God who desires to be in relationship to all his creatures and who
desires a personal relationship with humans. The task of this thesis is to give
a coherent account of what is involved in the divine-human relationship and to
explicate, from within this view, the ways in which divine providence is risk-
taking. The sensibilities of many people will be shocked by the notion that God
is a risk-taker for the metaphor goes against the grain of what we have become
accustomed to think regarding divine providence. Theorists on metaphor, however,
hold that a good metaphor is supposed to challenge conventional ways of looking
at things and suggest an alternate perspective. Metaphors disclose a way of
viewing life and relationships yet metaphors may also conceal things from us.
When certain metaphors, such as God as kingr reign for so long in theology we
risk being conditioned to overlook aspects of our relationship with God. When
this happens we need new "iconoclastic11 metaphors which reveal to us something
that was missing. It is my contention that the metaphor "G.....o..._d__ _,t __h__e_ _, risk' -t--a--··-k--e-r" does
this in that it opens up new ways of understanding what is at stake--even for
God--in divine providence. Things which may have been overlooked in the biblical
record by exegetes as well as in our theology and liturgy.
It should be pointed out that thinking of God as risk-taker only makes sense
within a particular theological model: a personal God who enters into genuine
give-and-take relations with his creatures. Neither an impersonal deity nor a
personal deity who meticulously controls every event takes risks. In order to
articulate the heuristic value for the Christian life of God the risk-taker a
model of·God as a personal being who enters into personal relationships with us
must be established. In order to explicate the model, of a God involved in
personal relationships who takes risks with his world several tasks must be
4
accomplished. These tasks are done in the various chapters of the thesis. Chapter
two will discuss various methodological matters important for assessing the
success of the proposal. The next two chapters will examine the Old and New
Testament material supporting this model. These chapters look at biblical texts
which are commonly ignored or radically reinterpreted in order to remove the
element of risk from divine providence. Focus will be on the nature of God and
the divine project this God has undertaken. Chapter five seeks to develop, in
light of the biblical material, the nature of the God who undertakes the project
of entering into reciprocal relations with the creatures. The attributes of God
should not be arrived at <lignum Deo (what it is dignified for God to be) but,
rather, by looking at the particular sort of project God is seeking to
accomplish. When this is done it becomes clear that the classical attributes of
God need some revising. The final chapter spells out the p:actical implications
of this model of God for the Christian life. Comparing and contrasting different
views is one way of clarifying positions. To this end the risk and no-risk models
of divine sovereignty are compared regarding several key areas of providence:
salvation, suffering and evil, prayer, and guidance. It will be argued that it
makes a significant difference for the devotional life which view of providence
one affirms. Moreover, issues such as whether or not the divine will may be
thwarted in any respect and whether God's plan for the world is a blueprint or
only concerns general overall strategies will be explored.
At this juncture I would like to make a number of qualifications. To begin, this
thesis is constructive. That is, it attempts to develop a particular theological
model rather than critique a standard position. Although there will be times for
critique that is not the primary goal. Second, I am not writing a general
treatise on the doctrine of providence covering all the topics normally examined
in such works. Rather, it is al/examination of providence through the lens of
·\
divine risk-taking. Consequently, those aspects of providence which are studied
are done so to see what should be said concerning a risk-taking God. Third, I
have no delusions that this study will settle all the questions for I am all too
5
aware of the work which remains to be done. Fourth, though this work will touch
repeatedly on the subject of theodicy, it is not a book about the problem of
evil. Instead, it is about a personal God who enters into genuine give-and-take
relations with us. From this particular model of God implications may be drawn
out for the problem of evil.
Finally, I would like to acknowledge the help provided by Terence Fretheim, Mike
Holmes, William Hasker and David Basinger who were kind ·enough to read various
chapters and give me their responses. Also, thanks goes to Dean Fredrikson, my
colleague and dialogue partner on this topic for over fifteen years. Last, but
certainly not least, is Adria KBnig who has given me guidance and sometimes
spirited debate in order to improve this thesis. I am truly thankful to God for
the opportunity to work with these scholars and complete my doctorate.
Chapter TM>: 2'be Nature of the Task
2.1 Metaphors and Models
The working out of a theological project is done within a framework of beliefs
regarding methodology, epistemology and language. This chapter discusses these
sundry issues in order to inform · the reader regarding some of the broader
theological context in which the present study is done. The first topic of
discussion is about language. In this thesis metaphors matter for it is through
various metaphors that we understand and relate to God.1 By use of metaphors we
organize and give meaning to all of our experience, they are basic to all thought
and language. They are •reality depicting• in that what we understand to be real
is filtered through them.' They help us make sense of things with which we are
initially unfamiliar by making comparisons. When we assert that Elvis is the king
of rock and roll we make a comparison between kingship and this particular
singer's relation to other rock and roll singers. When we assert that God is king
of the earth we also make a comparison between kingship and God's relation to the
world. Metaphors have the peculiar quality of saying that something both "is" and
"is not," that is, in a certain respect what is asserted is correct but it is not
the whole story.3 Saying God is a rock tells us something about God but not all
that needs saying for we need a number of metaphors to describe God and God's
relationship to us. Yet, metaphors--'even those about God--are reality depicting
in that they tell us of a real relationship between God and the world .. If we
claim that metaphors depict nothing about God or portray no genuine relationship
then we have severed God from the world and we are locked into silence about God.
1Helpful on the application of metaphors to God is Terence E. Fretheim, The
Suffering of God: An Old Testament Perspective, Overtures to Biblical Theology
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 1-12.
'See George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, Metaphors We Live By (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1980) and Janet M. Soskice, Metaphor and Religious
Language (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985). On the primacy of metaphor
for developing a post-critical philosophy see Jerry H. Gill, On Knowing God: New
Directions for the Future of Theology (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1981).
3See Sallie McFague's two works: Metaphorical Theology: Models of God in
Religious Language (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982) and Models of God: Theology for
an Ecological, Nuclear Age (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987).