This is about a few reflections that I was making as I was
lying in bed, getting ready to go to sleep, a couple of nights ago. That is to say, this isn’t really a “well
researched” article. That, of course,
makes it, perhaps, a bad idea to publish this on the blog. However, it does give others the opportunity
to educate me concerning my very limited understanding of open theology.
Dr. Thomas J. Oord |
And, yes, I admit a very limited understanding of open theology. I have done next to no real reading about
open theology. Thus, I would be happy
for those who are proponents of open theology (e.g., Tom Oord )
to correct me. (Well, kinda’ happy. I would hate for them to completely make this
article sound stupid!)
That part of open theology that I am questioning in this
article is the idea that God does not know the future. This idea is an attempt to explain true human
freedom. Traditional Arminianism, at
this point, says that God does fore-know, but God does not fore-determine the
future. That is to say, traditional
Arminianism wants to safeguard human freedom, on the one hand, and God’s
omniscience, on the other hand.
Jacob Arminius |
Open theology would be seen as a subset of Arminianism. That is to say, it cannot fit under a
Calvinistic perspective which says that God not only knows, but also pre-destines
all that will ever happen. Arminianism
says that God does not pre-destine all that will ever happen. Traditional Arminianism, however, says that
God does know all that will ever
happen. Open theology is a subset of
Arminianism that differs from traditional
Arminianism by saying that God neither pre-destines, nor knows what will happen.
- As I understand it, at least
some open theologians would say that God may know all of the possibilities for
the future, and perhaps even the probabilities.
Nevertheless, God cannot know, with certainty, the future, for the
future cannot be known.
That is the idea that I want to challenge.
If I understand open theology correctly (and that is a big “if”),
then it seems to me that open theology makes God subject to the time-space continuum
(at least the time aspect, and as Science indicates, time and space are
connected). - This is different from the traditional
Arminian (and Calvinist?) idea that God is situated outside of time; above
time. -
If God does not know the future (because it cannot be known, because it
has not happened yet, and because we are all truly free), then God is not “above”
time, but rather “within time;” limited by time.
(The argument that I am about to make is dependent upon the accuracy
of the previous paragraph. If I have
completely misunderstood this, then my argument will likely be easily torn apart.)
Now, if God is limited by future time, it seems to me that it would be difficult to argue
that God is not limited by past time, as well. - This
is where Stephen Hawking comes in.
Stephen Hawking |
Stephen Hawking has stated (if I remember this correctly!)
that he believes that Science proves that God does not exist, or at least that
God the Creator does not exist. - Here
is what he says (as I remember it):
Time and space exist in a continuum, i.e., they are linked. Time is affected by space, in particular, by
gravity. Einstein came up with the idea
that gravity warps space. And, since
space and time are linked, time, too is warped in the same way. Further, time gets slower the greater the
gravity. This explains why the clocks on
satellites have to continually be adjusted.
It also explains Hawking’s theory that it could, at some point, be theoretically
possible to “time-travel” into the future (though not to the past). - But
that is another subject!
At any case, Hawking argues that when one (figuratively!)
goes back in time to the point of the “big bang,” due to the density of space,
time would slow down to the point that time actually stops. He argues, then, that there would literally be
no time (or space?) for a god to “say,
‘Let there be . . .’” There would be no time for anybody to say anything or
to do anything. There would be no time.
Hawking’s assumption, interestingly, is very much like the
assumption of open theology. Namely,
Hawking and open theologians, both, understand God to be One who is subject to,
bound by, limited by . . . time. The
open theologian understands God to be limited by (present and) future time
(i.e., the reason for God not being able to know the future is an issue of
time). Hawking sees God as being limited
by past (and all) time.
If open theology subjects God to future time, I find it
difficult to understand how God would not be subject to time in the past. That is, why would Hawking be wrong about the
existence of this god?
That is my question for open theology. (Now, it may easily be answered by open
theologians, but I would like to hear the answer; an answer that views time
consistently and takes what Science says about time, seriously.)
So, if open theology is correct, why is Stephen Hawking
incorrect? And if Stephen Hawking is
incorrect (i.e., if God actually exists outside of time and space, and actually
is the Creator of time and space), then why should we assume that open theology
not also incorrect?
This, by the way, is a subject that Fred Cawthorne,
Associate Professor of Physics at Trevecca Nazarene University, takes up in his
chapter, “The Harmony of Science and the Christian Faith” in Square Peg: Why Wesleyan’s Aren’t
Fundamentalists (Beacon Hill Press of Kansas City). - There, he is not arguing with open
theology. He is, however, using the
conclusions of Science and the beginning of creation to affirm the traditional
Christian understanding “that God transcends space and time, that the universe
was created ex nihilo (out of
nothing) and that the universe is fully dependent at every moment on God’s
continual creative and sustaining work.”
Now, where, some might wonder, do Guinan and the “worm-hole
prophets” come in? (I saved this for the
last part of the article to make sure that my non-Star Trek friends would not
stop reading before getting to the main point!
- So, here we go.)
Guinan |
Guinan is a character played by Whoopi Golberg in Star Trek
the Next Generation. Guinan is an
El-Aurian, a very long-lived “race of listeners.” Last night I watched the “Yesterday’s
Enterprise” episode of STNG. In that episode,
there is a rift in the time-space continuum, allowing the Enterprise-C to enter
into the time period of the Enterprise-D; some 22 years into their future (if I
remember the time correctly). This event
caused a seismic change in the time-space continuum. It altered the timeline.
Now, no one was aware of this change in the timeline
(though, or course they were quite aware that the Enterprise-C was displaced in
time). -
No one, that is, except Guinan.
Guinan had the clear . . . “sense” that this time-line was wrong. - Data
suggested that she might have a sense that went beyond linear time. (Some have speculated that this sense might
have to do with her connection to the Nexus, but that is another story!) The point is, she had a sense that went
beyond linear time.
The “worm-hole prophets,” on the other hand are from Star
Trek: Deep Space 9. Suffice it to say
that they were . . . aliens . . . who existed outside of time.
Of course, Guinan and the worm-hole prophets are fictional
characters. (I do know that!) The point is only to say that, if the God of
open theology were to be a part of the Star Trek universe, then, at least in
this regard, Guinan and the worm-hole prophets would be greater than God. . . . And do we really want to say that! :0)