Free, Free, Set Them Free

“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,” said Jesus. Standing in his hometown temple, he continues reading a passage from Isaiah: “he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor” (Lk. 4:18-19).

Among the many ways biblical authors talk about God seeking and saving, the themes of healing and freedom from oppression appear often. Healing and deliverance are part of the well-being/abundant life/favor the Lord generously offers. And we desperately need the well-being – shalom – of God’s salvation.

In a world of brokenness, wholeness breaks in. This wholeness is evident in the local church I attend, in which a robust Celebrate Recovery ministry has emerged. Those in this group believe God empowers them to overcome hurts, habits, and hang-ups. God is their deliverer. Through this and other avenues in the church, many find God’s healing and deliverance.

The Apostle Paul says liberation comes from the Spirit and becomes effective through Jesus. “The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and death,” he says (Rm. 8:2). In this liberation, we see God again empowering us in ways that provide salvation from destruction.

A look at the overall scope of Scripture leads one to believe humans are the focus of God’s seeking and saving. But the Bible also says God cares about nonhumans. [1] In fact, Scripture says God intends to redeem all things. “The whole creation” hopes to be “set free from its bondage to decay and will obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God” (Rm. 8:21-22).

We play a vital role in this mission. We can be co-laborers with God’s work for the redemption of all things.  God acts first to call, empower, and guide us in love – prevenient grace. But God seeks our cooperation. This becomes clear in the Revised Standard Version’s translation of Romans 8:28: “We know that in everything God works for good with those who love him” (emphases added).

We can work for good with God. The healing and deliverance God has in mind involves our participation.

Love is On the Move

A God on a mission is a God on the move. And love is the primary and persistent intent of our God-on-the-move. A robust missional theology is a theology of love.

To love is to act intentionally, in response to God and others, to promote overall well-being.[2] God’s initial and empowering action makes response possible. We live in community with others to whom we also respond. We are not isolated individuals, and God desires the common good.

God’s love establishes the God’s kingdom – or what I call God’s loving leadership. Here again, it is through Jesus we believe such things. Jesus preached God’s loving leadership as both possible and actual here in this life. And he proclaimed its fulfillment in the life to come.

As a young child, I learned a chorus I now sing to my kids. It derives from 1 John 4:7-8: “Beloved, let us love one another. For love is from God, and everyone that loves is born of God and knows God. The one that doesn’t love doesn’t know God, for God is love.” John says our best clue about what love entails is this: God sent Jesus.

The God who seeks and saves is revealed best in Jesus Christ. This God of love desires that all creation live shalom. God works powerfully through love to fulfill this desire, and we are invited to join in this love project. The result is the healing, restoration, and liberation of all held captive to sin and death. This holy God revealed best in Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection is on a mission of love.

John takes these truths about God, love, and Jesus a bit further and concludes with this logic: “Since God loved us so much, we also ought to love one another” (4:11). Thankfully God makes love possible, says John: “We love, because he first loved us” (4:19). The empowering God enables us to love.

A missional theology supporting the endeavor to seek and save the lost is not based primarily on an evangelistic canvassing strategy. Nor is it based primarily upon duty and obedience to God. It’s not even based primarily upon worship. Strategies, obedience, and worship are all important. But missional theology is based primarily on love.

We ought to be “imitators of God, as dearly love children, and life a life of love, just as Christ loved us...” (Eph. 5:1, 2a). This missional ethic emphasizes generosity, listening and speaking, both influencing and being influenced by, enabling, mutuality, and community. It’s a strategy that cares for the least of these and all creation.

Conclusion

In short: God loves us, and we ought to love one another and love God. We ought to imitate God’s full-orbed love – agape, eros, and philia as we cooperate with God’s mission to seek and save the lost.

The God on a mission invites us on an adventure of love.

[1] For an exploration of a Wesleyan doctrine of creation, see Michael Lodahl, God of Nature and of Grace: Reading the World in a Wesleyan Way (Nashville, Tenn.: Kingswood, 2003).

[2] I explain the details of this definition from philosophical, scientific, and theological perspectives in my book, Defining Love: A Philosophical, Scientific, and Theological Engagement (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Brazos, 2010).

So… God wants to save us all. This is God’s loving desire, the divine eros. And the God of robust missional theology is affected by others. God is relational: both giving to and receiving from creatures. This is neither the God of predestination nor the status quo.

One temptation we must resist is the temptation to appeal to utter mystery when talking about God's power. We shouldn't say we've got God all figured out either, of course. But a tentative proposal is much better throwing up our hands and saying "let's not talk about God's power, because we'll end up putting God in a box."

Kenosis

A number of contemporary theologians consider the Philippian love hymn especially helpful for thinking about God’s sovereignty. To refresh our memory, here’s the key part of that profound praise chorus:

     "In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness" (2:5-7).

Theologians often focus on the Greek word, kenosis, which is translated here, “made himself nothing.” Other translators render kenosis “emptied himself” or “gave of himself.” These translations suggest that Jesus does not overpower or totally control others. Instead, Jesus reveals God’s servant-style power.

Empowers instead of Overpowers

Kenosis suggests divine self-limitation. The Bible seems to be saying Jesus reveals God's very nature in this kenosis, because Jesus expresses limited power, like a servant.

Perhaps it’s best to say God empowers rather than overpowers. After all, empowering describes servant-style influence better than overpowering or total control. And empowering fits the notion that creatures possess some measure of freedom to respond well or poorly to God. Presumably, God grants power/agency to creatures to make freedom and agency possible. God is our provider.

There are two main ways to talk about God’s self-limitation revealed in Jesus. The first and more common is to say self-limitation is voluntary on God’s part. This view says God could totally control and overpower others. But God voluntarily chooses not to be all determining – at least most of the time. The voluntary self-limitation model says God could totally control others, however, should God so decide.

The main problem with the voluntary divine self-limitation model is the problem of evil. The God who could overpower those who inflict genuine evil should in the name of love. To put it another way, the God who voluntarily self-limits should become un-self-limited to rescue those who suffer needlessly. At least in some cases, God should become un-self-limited to seek and save the lost. Voluntary divine self-limitation cannot provide a satisfactory answer to why God doesn’t prevent unnecessary pain, suffering, and death.

Essential Kenosis

The other way to talk about God’s limited power Jesus reveals says God’s self-limitation is involuntary. It is self-limitation, in the sense that no outside force or factor imposes constraints on God. But it is involuntary, in the sense that God’s power of love derives from God’s own nature.

Because God is love, God never overpowers others. In love, God necessarily provides freedom/agency to others and never completely controls them. God’s loving nature compels God to empower and never overpower others. We might call this “essential kenosis.”

God Can't

John Wesley endorses involuntarily self-limitation in one of his sermons: “Were human liberty taken away, men would be as incapable of virtue as stones,” Wesley argues. “Therefore (with reverence be it spoken) the Almighty himself cannot do this thing. He cannot thus contradict himself or undo what he has done” (emphases added).[1] God must be God, says Wesley, and God’s nature of love involves giving freedom/agency to others.

Although often unnoticed, the Bible offers examples of things God cannot do. (E.g., God cannot lie; God cannot tempt.) In my view, however, these examples fall under the general category expressed in Paul’s words: “God cannot deny himself” (1 Tim. 2:13). God’s power as involuntary self-limitation says God controlling others entirely – coercion – would require God to deny God’s loving nature. And that’s impossible… even for God.

Of course, affirming involuntary divine self-limitation requires new thinking about doctrines of creation, miracles, and eschatology. But these doctrines can still be affirmed: God is still Creator, miracle-worker, and hope for final redemption. They may need recasting, however, in light of God’s persistently persuasive love. Such recasting is not new to Wesleyans, because they typically try to propose Christian doctrines in light of divine love.[2]

God's Persuasive Power

The main point of this section, then, is that the power God exercises in the missional adventure to seek and to save the lost is persuasive power. Missional theologians may prefer one form of divine self-limitation over the other. But they together affirm that God’s power operates through love. God’s kenotic love, revealed in Jesus, is primarily if not exclusively the power of persuasion. God calls instead of controls.

Those called to missions – which includes us all – ought to follow the kenotic example of Jesus: we should express empowering, relational love.

[1] John Wesley, “On Divine Providence,” Sermon 67, The Works of John Wesley, vol. 2 (Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon, 1985) paragraph 15.

[2] See, for instance, my book, The Nature of Love: A Theology (St. Louis, Mo.: Chalice, 2010).

Divine "passability" is the word ancient people talked about God being moved. We might best describe passability with contemporary terms like “influence,” “affect,” or “sway.”

We certainly see Jesus being influenced, affected, and swayed by others. Jesus was passable.

The shortest verse in Scripture describes Jesus’ passability well: “Jesus wept” (Jn. 11:35). Matthew also reports Jesus had compassion on people, because they were “weary and worn out, like sheep without a shepherd” (9:36). In these instances and others, we find Jesus affected by others.[1]

God isn't Moved?

With skewed views of God’s perfection, some theologians have said God is uninfluenced by others. God is impassable, they argue. God only influences creatures; creatures never influence God.

Many classic theologies implicitly adopted Aristotle’s view that God is unmoved. Aristotle called God the unmoved mover, because he thought God affected others without being affected.

This vision of an unmoved/uninfluenced/unaffected God doesn’t jibe well with the Bible. The God of Scripture expresses love that both gives and receives. God loves as friend (philia), for instance. When believers respond well to God’s love, we find God rejoicing. When they respond poorly, God is saddened, angry, and even wrathful. According to Scripture, creatures really affect God.

Suffering God

Today, many rightly speak of God’s passability by saying our Savior is the “suffering God.” This suffering was most poignant on the cross. In Christ, God suffers pain and death for the benefit of all. In fact, many theologians agree with Jürgen Moltmann and call the one who seeks and saves, “the crucified God.”[2]

A suffering God – one genuinely affected by creation – is the relational God at the heart of missional theology. The influence creation has upon God does not alter God’s loving nature, of course. We best interpret biblical verses saying there is “no shadow of change” (James 1:17) in God as describing God’s unchanging nature.

But creatures do influence the particular ways God relates to creation. Just as a perfectly loving father always loves his children, that same loving father allows his children to influence him, so he knows how best to love them in specific instances. A living God gives and receives in relationship.

God's Salvation is Tailor-Made

To put it in missional terms, the God who seeks and saves does so to best address the specific ways we need saving!

Some of us need saving from alcohol abuse; others need saving from dishonesty; others saving from unhealthy pride.Those things that destroy us and from which we need salvation make up a long list!

God saves from all sin. But because God is moved/influenced by us in relationship, the specific ways God saves are tailor-made for each of us.

[1] For an accessible theology of holiness from a relational perspective, see the book I wrote with Michael Lodahl, Relational Holiness: Responding to the Call of Love (Kansas City, Mo.: Beacon Hill, 2005).

[2] Jürgen Moltmann, The Crucified God: The Cross of Christ as the Foundation and Criticism of Christian Theology (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1993; New York: HarperCollins, 1991; London: SCM, 1974).

In criticizing predestination, I picked the easy fruit. I said predestinarians cannot account well for the biblical notion God wants to save us all. But let’s stretch to pick some fruit less often noticed.

God has Needs?

Many theologies – at least in their sophisticated forms – affirm an idea at odds with the missional notion God wants to seek and save. They say God lacks nothing whatsoever. God is “without passions,” to use ancient theological language.

Only a needy God, say these theologians, has desires. A perfectly complete God wouldn’t want anything. When the Bible says God seeks us, it isn’t saying God’s love desires or wants.

The Greeks called desiring love “eros.” Today, we unfortunately think of eros in sexual terms. But the original meaning of eros isn’t about sex. Eros love might best be defined as promoting what is good when desiring what is valuable, beautiful, or worthwhile. Eros sees value and seeks to appreciate or enhance it.

In addition to denying divine eros, some theologians believe the doctrine of original sin supports their view God doesn’t really have desires related to creation. Their view of original sin denies that anything good remains in creation. Sin – more particularly, the Fall of Adam and Eve – left creation totally depraved, they say.

A holy God would find nothing valuable in a totally depraved world, say these theologians. In fact, God would not associate with such sinful filth. We hear this argument today, in fact, when some say a holy God cannot be in the presence of sin. A holy God, so this argument goes, cannot relate to unholy people, because sin would taint God’s pure holiness.

To which I say, “Hogwash!” (or utter some other holy expletive)

Jesus Reveals that God has Desires

Jesus Christ best expresses God’s desiring love – even, or especially love for filthy people. Jesus was known for hanging around unholy folk. He earned a reputation for befriending with those of ill repute and ungodly character. He wanted – desired – those sick and broken be healed and whole.

In short, the desire for salvation we see in Jesus reflects the desire we find in God. And vice versa: the desires of God are expressed in the desires Jesus expresses in his missional life. In other words, the incarnation is our best argument that God’s desires are so intense and God’s love so radical “that he gave his only begotten son” (Jn. 3:16a).

A robust missional theology, therefore, returns us to the biblical portrait of a God who desires. While God’s nature is perfect and complete, God’s relational experience and passionate heart include wanting something better: the restoration of God’s leadership of love. God’s salvation derives, at least in part, from eros.

I teach students to consider going beyond what is normal when showing love. In philosophical language, this is called “supererogation.” It’s basically what Jesus talked about when he said we should go the extra mile with those who need more than the usual help.

The forty students in the class came up with some creative ideas for showing extra mile love. Here is a small sampling of the ways students went above and beyond in their love.

Rachel Beers decided to write letters to a fellow student whose fiancé was diagnosed with cancer and was going through treatment. Rachel wrote letters of encouragement, prayers, and even sent her gift cards to various stores through her campus mailbox. Although Rachel did not know the girl personally, she continued to show extra mile love through her letters. This project forced Beers to consider other’s problems before her own and show kindness to people she didn’t know well.

Dan Benjamin expressed his extra mile love by serving the homeless in the Boise area. Dan walked around Boise with some warm blankets, offering them to the homeless people he came across and trying to start a conversation. The first man Dan to whom offered the blanket refused it, but Dan still set the blanket near him anyways. Dan went on to find another homeless man and sat down to start a conversation with him. Even though Dan was rejected by the first man, Dan continued on his journey of extra mile love and was able to give some of his time to others in need.

Kelsey Koch decided to demonstrate her extra mile love as a girl’s cheer coach at South Middle School in Nampa. She decided to observe her girls during each game at which they cheered and write each a letter about how proud she was of them. She picked three girls to observe each game and then would give these three girls letters of encouragement at the end of cheer practice. Kelsey demonstrated her love for her cheer squad through words of encouragement and praise. Even though some girls may have been difficult to deal with, Kelsey was able to stretch herself and show love and appreciation for all.

Megan Leis decided to show love to military personnel around the world. To brighten their days, Megan made cards for these men and women. She used an organization called A Million Thanks that deliver cards to active military personnel. Megan made especially sure to create one of a kind cards in a gesture of gratitude and love towards these who may be feeling lonely and unloved. Megan used her time wisely to come up with meaningful and unique saying for these cards. She wanted to make sure that her hard work and love shown through.

Colby McCarty decided to shower his love on Seattle’s homeless population. To do this, Colby filled Ziploc bags with essential items that homeless people may not have, such as toothpaste, soap, shampoo, granola bars, other various food items, and more. When distributing the Ziploc bags in a place dubbed “The Jungle,” Colby had many loving conversations with the people living there.  This project helped Colby realize his potential to love everyone and be thoughtful about those in need.  In the future, Colby hopes to create even more relationships with Seattle’s homeless population.

Stephanie Thomas demonstrated her extra mile love by writing to inmates. Stephanie used an online website to find prisoners to whom she wanted to extend a loving hand. Stephanie wrote to four inmates, all of which responded with vigor and enthusiasm. The inmates wrote pages of letters to Stephanie, and Stephanie responded to them all. Even though Stephanie struggled with what to write these inmates, her pen pals showed her gratitude and love in response to her act of extra mile love.

Kaylee Wilkes chose to focus her extra mile love project on an old high school friend who was dealing with an unexpected pregnancy. Kaylee bought the girl baby supplies, such as diapers and wipes, in order to save the girl both time and money. Kaylee also wanted to show the girl love and support because she was going through a rough time in her life. Kaylee showed her love for this girl by spending what little money she had in order to help her friend with financial problems. In the end, Kaylee learned how to put herself into other’s shoes and show people the kind of live and support that they deserved.

(My daughter, Sydnee Oord, helped with the writing of this blog.)

Square Peg: Why Wesleyans Aren’t Fundamentalists argues that fundamentalism and Wesleyan theology do not fit together. After a historical introduction to fundamentalism by Floyd Cunningham, the book offers short chapters on scripture, science, theology, and ecclesiology. Each chapter has a follow-up reflection on practical implications of the material.

What is Fundamentalism?

Defining Christian fundamentalism has been an ongoing debate, but it is generally thought to have three primary distinctives:

1. Belief that the Bible is inerrant in all matters,

2. Hostility toward contemporary science or philosophy that does not fit neatly with literalist interpretations of the Bible,

3. A “Christ vs. Culture” stance that emphasizes a premillennial notion that saints will be raptured soon.

Contributors to Square Peg show, as the introductory essay puts it, “the differences between fundamentalism and Wesleyan theology are so important that denominations in the Wesleyan tradition cannot adopt fundamentalism without forfeiting essential parts of what it means to be Wesleyan" (8). 

Different Views of Scripture

Many of the differences between fundamentalists and Wesleyans come down to their differing views on how the Bible should be regarded. Both traditions have high views of scripture.

Robert Mulholland points out that fundamentalists believe the Bible has “comprehensive and rationally accessible inerrant divine truths or propositions” (38). The Bible becomes a depository of information either given verbally or dictated to writers.

By contrast, Wesleyans believe the Bible is a means by which we ought to focus on the message of God given most decisively in Jesus Christ. This shift in focus makes a whale of a difference!

To put it another way, fundamentalists appeal to the alleged inerrancy of the Bible as rationale for its authority. Wesleyans, by contrast, believe “the proof of the gospel resides primarily in its being lived, in transformed life, not in logic and argumentation” (9).

Science and Evolution

Bob Branson addresses the fundamentalist approach to the Bible and contemporary science. Contrary to fundamentalism, Branson says Genesis should not be read as a contemporary scientific account. “If God has used modern explanations to tell ancient Israelites how he created,” argues Branson, “ he would have been using language they could not have grasped. Furthermore, future developments in science will probably make much of our current knowledge obsolete” (45).

It’s important to note that leading theologians like H. Orton Wiley did not read Genesis 1 as a literal or scientific statement. Wiley called the chapter a “creation hymn” and said reading contemporary science onto Genesis does injustice both to the Bible and to science.

Fred Cawthorne tackles head-on the scientific issues in his Square Peg chapter. Cawthorne suggests that Christians can find harmony between Christian truth and a scientific understanding of evolution. “Consideration of evolution should deepen our affirmation that God works above, in, and through creation,” says Cawthorne, “it should strengthen, not threaten, our faith” (106).

Cawthorne’s affirmation of science in general and evolution in particular illustrates a guiding principle in this book: “The Wesleyan tradition offers no haven for any form of Christianity that shrinks from honest and rigorous consideration of all aspects of the Christian faith and its relationship to the world” (10).

Truth

Both Al Truesdale and H. Ray Dunning talk about how fundamentalism goes about ascertaining truth.

Dunning compares what he calls “the control belief” of fundamentalists with Wesleyans. Dunning argues that the fundamentalist control beliefs have chiefly to do with truth and attaining that truth.

By contrast, the control belief of Wesleyans relate to salvation. “This understanding of the Bible’s truth allows Wesleyans to recognize that although there may be minor errors in the [biblical] text, God has been faithfully using the Bible for centuries to bring lost human beings into a saving relation with himself” (66).

After stressing the role tradition, experience, and reason also play in the Wesleyan tradition, Dunning concludes his chapter by saying, “Wesleyan theology and fundamentalism cannot be successfully mixed” (71).

Conclusion

The book has many other strong chapters and responses. The roster of contributors is impressive. And I think the book will have great practical application for honest discussions about how Christians in the Wesleyan tradition should not succumb to the temptation to fundamentalism.

Near the conclusion of the book, I found these statements especially helpful:

“We in the Wesleyan tradition have a responsibility and the resources needed for embracing the best that biblical scholarship has to offer and for processing the results of legitimate science. Let the young people in our tradition know that it offers them solid spiritual and intellectual warrant for becoming leaders in the sciences, in theological studies, in Christian ministry, in social and political service, in commerce, and in all venues graced by the risen, reigning, and coming Lord.”

Amen!

Eladia H. – Intentionally investing in others and yourself.

Brianna C. – Love with humility, wisdom, and grace.

Sheree D.- Love is not selfish but sacrificial.

Myrandda E. – Understanding God, understanding love, understanding life.

Jason H.- God’s love is all you need.

Kaylee W. – Loving deeply makes life worth living.

Joshua W.- Love is better than the movies.

Reid W.- Stretches one’s imagination of what’s possible.

Stephanie T.- Love requires thoughtful action and response.

Nathan T.- Can’t describe love in six words.

John S.- Seeking fulfillment for self and others.

Meghan B.- Love does not always come expectedly.

Rachel B.- Love is the hardest thing imaginable.

Dan B.- Love is powerful. Use it wisely.

Whitney B.- Love is easier said than done.

Briana C.- Love others, love self, love God.

Chelsie C.- Love is past, present, and future.

Reisa F.- Love means something different to everyone.

Melissa H.- Love requires a little self-sacrifice.

Kelsey K.- Love is complicated but incredibly rewarding.

Torrey L.- Love teaches us to be human.

Colby M.- Love is promoting overall well-being.

Phil O.- Love may disappear if not practiced.

Trina C.- Love is intentional, meaningful, and spiritual.

Zach G.- Increase overall well-being for all.

Ben H.- Love gives meaning to our lives.

Meghan L.- Not always easy, but worth it.

Xander M.- Love hurts, but we need it.

Dannea M.- Love shares, love sacrifices, love accepts.

Amanda P.- Love is selfless, immersed, and changing.

Elizabeth F.- Without love there is no life.

Sam H.- Love is the fuel of life.

Kaley L.- Love like a fire. Burn on!

Brenda M.- Love requires humility, vulnerability, and surrender.

Celina M.- Lifetime of searching, never fully knowing.

Aaron R.- Love as God has loved us.

Yuheng W. - Before love others, love yourself first.

To which I say, impressive!

In Luke’s Gospel, Jesus says the following: “Today, salvation has come to this household. For the Son of Man came to seek and save the lost” (19:9-10).

Jesus says these words to the rich man, Zacchaeus. But we find the message repeatedly in the Bible: God seeks and saves. The missional adventure these words inspire prompts me to wonder:

       “What would it mean to believe Jesus’ loving pursuit of the lost – which seems to include you, me, everyone, and everything – tells us something essential about who God is?”

This question may seem boring. But upon closer examination, I think we’ll find it’s revolutionary!

In fact, the missional theology emerging from believing God lovingly pursues creation radically alters the status quo.[1]

The God who seeks and saves is a God on a mission!

Overcoming the Status Quo

“Of course, God wants to save us all,” someone might say. “Who would argue otherwise?”

Unfortunately, a host of theological voices in the past and present argue this way. The theology supporting these voices is sometimes hidden or unconscious. But sometimes the not-really-wanting-to-save-all God is explicitly preached.

Let’s start with the easy pickings.

Those who believe God’s sovereignty and election means God predestines some to hell say God doesn’t want to save everyone. At least they would say God’s effective will doesn’t offer salvation to all. They argue for predestination, despite St. Peter’s claim that God is not willing that any should perish but all should come to repentance (2 Pt. 3:9).

Their peculiar interpretation of this verse, in my opinion, undermines their own doctrine of divine sovereignty. I wonder, why isn’t a sovereign God supposedly capable of anything also able to save all?

Those in the Wesleyan tradition walk in step with theologians who reject this view of predestination. Wesleyans, instead, affirm genuine creaturely freedom. In philosophical terms, Wesleyans affirm “libertarian” freedom. [2] The God on a mission is not interested in predestinarian status quo.

John Wesley stressed the Apostle Paul’s admonition to “work out your own salvation, with fear and trembling, for God is at work in you both to will and to work for God’s good pleasure” (Phil. 2:12). Wesley believes passages such as this one argue God’s loving action (“prevenient grace”) precedes and makes possible free creaturely responses. He advocates a theology of freedom, not predestination. This freedom has limits, of course. But it is genuine freedom nonetheless.

The God who wants to save all, however, may not actually save all out of respect for creaturely freedom. Wesleyans can affirm a missional theology that says God’s intent is universal salvation. Yet they can also say universal salvation may not occur. After all, free creatures may choose to reject God’s loving invitation. And God respects such decisions, despite their devastating consequences.

Conclusion

An important step toward a consistent missional theology, then, is to argue that the God on a mission does not predestine some to hell. God’s intention is for all to find salvation. And free creatures play some role in the fulfillment of God’s intentions.

Other steps must also be taken if missional theology is to be robust. I intend to take those steps in future essays. I intend to flesh out an answer to my previous question: “What would it mean to believe Jesus’ loving pursuit of the lost – which seems to include you, me, everyone, and everything – tells us something essential about who God is?”

[1] For a short and accessible introduction to the gospel of love, see the evangelistic book I co-wrote with Robert Luhn, The Best News You Will Ever Hear (Boise, ID: Russell Media, 2011).

[2] The distinction about forms of freedom is necessary, because some predestinarians say they affirm creaturely freedom but also the idea God alone decides the chosen few who will be saved. They are, to use the philosophical language, “compatiblists,” at least when it comes to issues of salvation.

I have argued thus far that God acts as an efficient cause in the world. We cannot perceive the Spirit’s causation with our five senses, because we cannot perceive causation itself. And we cannot perceive with our five senses an immaterial Spirit. God is like the wind Jesus describes in John’s Gospel.

I also argued that God, as Spirit, is present to and influences all entities in the universe – from the most complex to the least. As a necessary cause, the Spirit neither intervenes from the outside nor coerces by acting as sufficient cause. God always acts lovingly.

Personal Means Relational

What I have argued thus far might fit the view that God is an impersonal force field in the universe. This God might be called, to use Paul Tillich’s words, the “ground of being” or “being itself.” It might be what Whitehead early his career called the “principle of concretion.”

I believe Christians can affirm much more.

I affirm the classic Christian view that God is personal. By “personal,” I do not mean the divine Spirit has a localized body similar to humans. My view differs from Mormon views on this matter.

To be personal is both to influence and to be influenced. I believe God both influences others and others influence God. Many theologians call God “relational” to describe this view, because God moves others and others move God.

In short, God gives and receives in relation to others in existence.

God Calls All

In each moment, God causally influences others. In this causal activity, the Spirit calling others to actualize possible ways of being. While God provides all relevant possibilities when influencing creation, God encourages creatures to choose those possibilities that contribute to the good of the whole. In short, God always invites creation to participate in shalom or what Jesus called the Kingdom of God.

Choosing what is good leads to what Jesus calls “eternal life” in John 3:16. “Eternal life” refers more to a high quality of life here and now and less to a large quantity of life in the future.

The forms the Spirit’s calling take are influenced, in part, by what creatures have done in previous moments. God takes into consideration the moment-by-moment actions of all others when deciding how best to encourage creatures to act for the common good. This is part of what it means to say God receives from others when loving.

The Spirit’s calls are influenced by what is possible for each creature, given each creature’s inherent capabilities and external environment. God encourages creatures to actualize possibilities that reflect God’s desire – promoting overall well-being. God invites us to respond in love.

Thy Kingdom Come

The effectiveness of God’s activity hinges upon several factors. One is the appropriateness of creaturely response to God’s calls. God’s persuasive causation is highly effective when creatures respond well.

Positive responses express love, beauty, and truth in their fullest possible expressions, given the circumstances and actors involved. The Kingdom of God is fulfilled, at least in that time and place.

The effectiveness of God’s activity also hinges upon the diverse forms of God’s calls. Complex creatures, given particular circumstances, encounter more sophisticated forms of possibilities than less complex creatures.

The possibilities God offers Mother Teresa, for instance, differ greatly from the possibilities available to a garden worm. And while worms as a whole can greatly influence the good of creation, no single worm has the capacity for goodness (or evil) Mother Teresa enjoys.

In sum, the effectiveness of divine action is determined not only by how well Mother Teresa and the worm respond to God. It also depends on the particular forms -- among the possible relevant forms -- God encourages creatures to actualize.

The Spirit’s Diverse Activities

Although God offers various possibilities to creatures, God always exerts the greatest influence possible to persuade creatures to act in ways that promote overall well-being. God does not voluntarily decide to be more or less influential. God’s love always runs full-throttle.

The ways God acts in the world, however, are immense. This is no cookie-cutter God. The Spirit presents possibilities for new creation in every moment, to every creature, throughout all time. Not only are God’s mercies “new every morning” (Lam. 3:23), they are new every moment!

The only constraint’s God faces derive from God’s nature, the key attribute of which is love. I described these limitations in terms of lack of coercion earlier. But God cannot do other things that would contradict Godself. God cannot deny himself, to use Paul’s language. The steadfast love of the Lord never changes (Lam. 3:22).

Appreciating the Miraculous

The diversity of effectiveness – along with God’s intentions to promote love – account for the miraculous we see today and reported in Scripture. The miracle of second birth Jesus describes to the scholar in John’s gospel is possible because of God’s loving, diversely formed, efficient causation and appropriate creaturely responses. We can even account for the resurrection of Jesus as an expression of God’s persuasive love.[1]

So-called “natural” miracles can also be appropriately described as God exerting efficient but never coercive causation at various levels of creation. Acts of “special providence” do not involve God totally controlling others. The novel or unexpected form of these events surprise us or strike us as extraordinary, however, as creatures cooperate with God’s causal influence. In these moments, we often readily acknowledge God doing a new thing (Is. 43:19)!

We not only rejoice in the powerfully loving and diverse ways the Spirit acts in the world. We also rejoice when creation responds well to Spirit’s calls – both ordinary and extraordinary – to express love, beauty, and truth.

In such moments, we rightly credit God as the source of every good and perfect gift (James 1:17). And we are right to appreciate the positive responses of creation. In such moments, we see most clearly the abundant life – shalom – Jesus provides!

[1] For my argument that God uses persuasion rather than coercion in resurrecting Jesus, see The Nature of Love: A Theology (St. Louis, Mo.: Chalice, 2010), ch. 5.

Intervention 1

What people mean by “intervention” is rarely clarified. The word, “intervene,” suggests coming into a situation from the outside. When used in reference to God, “divine intervention” suggests that God enters a situation from the outside, a situation previously devoid of God’s presence.

In my most recent blog essay on the Spirit active in creation, I claimed that God is always present to and always influencing all others. This claim implies that I reject divine intervention. That is, I reject the idea that God intervenes from the outside, because I believe God is directly present to all creatures, all the time.

Some people – often those scientists with an atheistic bent – believe the universe and its causes and effects are closed to God’s activity. They say the universe is causally closed and therefore persists without divine influence.

Christians who embrace interventionist language may be unwittingly reinforcing this notion of causal closure. Their insistence that God intervenes from the outside seems to assume that there is some truth in the notion that, most of the time, nature is causally closed and does not need God’s activity. Consequently, I think Christians should drop their claim that God "intervenes" in nature. God is always already present to all things!

Intervention 2

Some people use “divine intervention” in a second way. This sense has more to do with God acting as sufficient cause, which is how philosophers talk about one thing totally controlling others.

Divine intervention in this second sense refers to God’s total control – ontological coercion – of some event. Those who affirm this idea believe God intervenes at least occassionally to determine unilaterally an outcome or entity. God totally controls others.

I also don’t like this second way of talking about intervention. I think God is best conceived as never controlling others totally. I don’t think God ever coerces, where “coerce” is defined in the ontological sense of unilateral determination or sufficient cause.

I do think God, as one always present to and always influencing others, acts as a necessary cause in the persistence of all things. Nothing can exist without God’s influence, because all things necessarily depend upon God for them even to be. But God never coerces creatures.

The Noncoercive God

One of my basic beliefs is that even the most basic entities of existence are not entirely determined by their surroundings. And there's quite a bit of scientific theory and evidence to support this belief.

I also think complex creatures – people, dogs, dolphins, others – possess some measure of genuine freedom. The degree of freedom among less complex creatures -- ants, worms, etc. -- is difficult to gauge. But I do think less complex creatures possess agency that God provides but cannot entirely control.

In other published writings, I have provided extensive arguments for why I think we should think God incapable of coercion.[1] My argument says that God’s essential nature is love, and God always acts lovingly.

I think the loving creative Spirit loves all creation, and God’s love involves granting freedom/agency to all others. In fact, because God’s nature is love, I think God cannot fail to grant, override, or withdraw this freedom/agency at any time. Giving freedom/agency to others is part of God's essential nature of love.

Essential Kenosis

The view I am advocating might best be called, “essential kenosis.” This view says God’s self-limitation derives from God’s self-giving nature.

Essential kenosis is different from what many in the science-and-religion discussion call “divine self-limitation.” Their view of divine limitation says God voluntarily adopts limitations when granting freedom or agency to others.

Essential kenosis, by contrast, affirms God's involuntary self-limitation. Any constraints God possesses derive from God’s eternal nature. They are not imposed by external forces, and so they are rightly called self-limitations. My view expands what the Apostle Paul means when he says "God cannot deny himself." [2]

One of the major advantages of essential kenosis is that it overcomes the central aspect of the problem of evil. This aspect plagues other theologies, even those theologies that embrace voluntary divine self-limitation. Essential kenosis says God isn't culpable for failing to prevent evil, because God necessarily gives freedom and agency to others. And God cannot prevent others from using these gifts in evil ways.

Another advantage of essential kenosis is that it means a full explanation of any event in the world requires appealing to both God’s action and creaturely actions. We cannot fully describe an event by appealing to theology alone or science alone. Fully adequate explanations require both. If those in the science-and-religions conversation would recognize the importance of this view, the conversation would change in radical ways!

Conclusion

The implications of the thoughts above, I believe, are both far-reaching and revolutionary. They require further amplification, but a blog post is probably not the best place to pursue that task.

I have one more facet in this multi-blog essay argument for why it makes sense to say God as Spirit is active in the world. That facet has to do with the diverse ways God acts. I’ll address that issue soon.

[1] See, for instance, Defining Love: A Philosophical, Scientific, and Theological Engagement (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Brazos, 2010), The Nature of Love: A Theology (St. Louis, Mo.: Chalice, 2010), “Testing Love and God’s Causal Role” in The Science and Theology of Godly Love, Matthew T. Lee & Amos Yong, eds. (DeKalb, Ill.: Northern Illinois University Press, 2011), “Love as a Methodological and Metaphysical Source for Science and Theology,” Wesleyan Theological Journal 45:1 (Spring 2010): 81-107.

[2] Although I do not have space to develop my thoughts here, I believe what we typically call “laws of nature” are compatible with the theological notion of divine providence. But my view says God does not act providentially or provide laws of nature on an entirely voluntary basis. Instead, I think God’s diverse providential workings and any such laws are an expression of God’s eternal nature of love. This is also part of my essential kenosis proposal.