Have you ever wondered how an all-loving, all-powerful God can allow suffering? This age-old question has puzzled theologians and everyday believers alike. Enter Open Theism, a perspective that’s sparking discussions among scholars, especially within evangelical circles. Open Theism challenges traditional ideas about the future and God’s knowledge of it, suggesting that even God might not know every detail about what’s to come. This approach offers a unique take on an age-old dilemma in theology: the problem of suffering, or “theodicy.”
Let’s dive into the basics of Open Theism, explore its views on God’s knowledge and human free will, and see how it reshapes the conversation about why suffering exists in our world.
What is Open Theism?
To understand Open Theism, we first need to understand Classic Theism, which includes beliefs like Calvinism and Arminianism. In Classic Theism, God has exhaustive foreknowledge, meaning He knows every detail of the future, right down to the choices we’ll make. However, this view comes with a challenge: if God knew or even caused future events, does that mean He is responsible for the existence of evil and suffering?
Open Theism suggests a fresh answer. Instead of viewing the future as fixed and known, Open Theism proposes that the future is open—it’s not completely settled or known, even by God. According to Open Theists, this allows for genuine free will and a world where not everything is controlled or anticipated by God. This doesn’t make God any less powerful; instead, it portrays Him as a skilled “chess player” who can anticipate many possible moves without determining each one.
The Role of Free Will in Suffering
One of the big draws of Open Theism is its emphasis on free will. If the future isn’t entirely mapped out, then humans (and even spiritual beings) play a real role in shaping it. With true free will, people’s choices carry significant weight, and with this freedom comes responsibility for the consequences of those choices.
In Classic Theism, free will is somewhat limited; even though people can choose, those choices might still fit within God’s predetermined plan. Open Theists argue that this limitation leads to tough questions: If God foresaw every action and event, why didn’t He prevent tragedies? Open Theism’s response is that, because the future is open, God is not directly responsible for every instance of suffering. This perspective shifts some of the responsibility to human choices and natural processes, making it easier to believe in a loving God who isn’t the cause of our pain.
Perspectives on God’s Knowledge: Zeeb vs. Mody
Two theologians, Janelle Zeeb and Rohintan Mody, offer different views on Open Theism and its take on suffering. Zeeb, a proponent of Open Theism, believes it provides a compassionate framework that lets God empower humans with freedom, while not making Him the author of suffering. For example, in Open Theism, if someone chooses to harm others, it’s because of their own decisions, not God’s intervention or lack thereof.
Mody, on the other hand, is critical of Open Theism. He argues that it denies God’s complete control and makes God seem less powerful. Mody believes that Classic Theism’s perspective on suffering is ultimately more comforting, as it emphasizes that even in the worst situations, God’s purposes prevail. He suggests that embracing God’s mysterious plan, even if it’s beyond our understanding, can bring peace.
Real-World Example: Suzanne’s Story
Imagine Suzanne, a devout woman who prayed for guidance before marrying. She believed God approved of her marriage, but later her husband betrayed her trust and became abusive. This shattered Suzanne’s faith because she couldn’t reconcile her suffering with her belief in a loving God who knows everything.
From an Open Theist’s view, like Zeeb’s, God didn’t necessarily foresee her husband’s actions, though He knew the potential for such an outcome. Zeeb would say God walked with Suzanne through her pain, working to bring healing without being the cause of her suffering. For Mody and Classic Theists, however, this situation fits into a divine plan that we simply don’t understand yet—a mystery that God will eventually reveal.
Where Does This Leave Us?
At its core, the debate between Open Theism and Classic Theism isn’t just academic; it’s deeply personal. Open Theism offers an image of God as a loving parent, empowering His children with true freedom, and respecting their choices. Classic Theism, meanwhile, leans on the “mystery” of God’s purposes, suggesting that suffering has a place within His grand design.
Each approach gives us something valuable. Open Theism emphasizes personal responsibility and freedom, while Classic Theism offers reassurance in God’s control and purpose. For those wrestling with questions of faith and suffering, both perspectives provide pathways to understanding and peace.
Final Thoughts: What Do You Think?
Open Theism invites us to imagine a world where the future isn’t fully settled—a world where human choices matter, and where God empowers us to shape our lives. This viewpoint may comfort those who struggle with the idea of a predetermined life, offering a fresh perspective on an old question.
As you reflect on this, consider: Do you find comfort in the idea of an open future, or do you prefer the mystery of a God who knows all?