Gregory A. Boyd (1) (1957–)

A book developed out of the author's sermons explaining his posture during the Bush administration. Its material is no less relevant.

The author does well at exploring the nature of the powers of government vs. the work of God through Jesus, using the helpful imagery of "power-over" forms of domination and coercion by the state vs. "power-under" forms of service and sacrifice manifest in Jesus and in early Christians. He proceeds at length indicating how nationalism can easily become show more idolatrous and what generally passes for American Christianity has a lot more to do with America than Christianity. He does well to expose the fallacies and myths behind the story of America as a Christian nation, and how such a thing does not truly exist in this fallen world. He explores the dangers for Christians and the church in the pursuit of worldly power. He speaks well regarding what went wrong with the Constantinian compromise and Jesus' death as a means of triumph over the powers and principalities, and why we need to follow Jesus' way to gain that victory. His concluding concerns about violent means of protection and military service are worthwhile.

You'll either agree with it and appreciate it or hate it. If the latter, please prayerfully consider why the discomfort exists, and search the Scriptures to see what is so. show less

A theological discovery/exploration in regards to the question of evil, God's sovereignty, and the existence and nature of the spiritual powers and principalities and spiritual warfare.

The author is upfront regarding the frame of reference: whether or not all evil can be truly attributed to God's mysterious will as would be demanded by what he deems the "classical-philosophical" view of God as manifest in Augustine. He then proposes the spiritual warfare prism, as if God is constantly at show more odds with forces of evil and darkness and they are the ones truly responsible for the evil which takes place. He then explores both Old and New Testament passages suggesting a spiritual warfare framework and the various possibilities for spiritual forces and the like. He concludes with an explanation of how Christians could envision themselves as part of that spiritual conflict in light of some New Testament passages.

The author is quite aware of the controversial nature of much of what he has to say. He communicates well in a "discovery/journey" type context, and is willing to offer suggestions and possibilities regarding which he himself is not convinced are true. He does well at discomfiting the modern Western post-Enlightenment reader and Bible student by taking very seriously a lot of passages and ideas which are often de-emphasized or "mythologized" in some way, such as an angel being hindered by the prince of the kingdom of Persia in Daniel 10, or the psalmic odes regarding YHWH's defeat of primordial beings as reflecting actual warfare.

The author has written elsewhere regarding his open theism views; perhaps he is willing to entirely dispense with the "classical-philosophical" view of God a la Augustine, but he might well be rejecting more than he ought. The question of Hellenistic influence on good theology is quite the knotty one, and neither extreme is likely accurate in its assessments. The author also gives great weight to the consistency of narratives throughout cultures around the world; while this kind of apologetic is often used in terms of, say, the Flood, and it might well be good evidence for his claims, we do need to keep in mind the Pauline denunciation of idolatry in Romans 1:18-32 and the possibility that these stories do not represent a valid substratum of divine conflict with primordial forces of chaos.

The premise that the creation is actually much older than the Genesis 1 account and featured all sorts of primordial contests between YHWH and various beings and forces as seen in various psalms, consummated in the final defeat of the forces of chaos, allowing YHWH to "re-create" all things as good in Genesis 1, suggested by the author yet without affirmation, is at least intriguing, even if on the merits it probably cannot be fully sustained based only on what has been revealed in Scripture.

Nevertheless, while there are many questionable statements and certain arguable propositions, it's hard to resist the author's general conclusion. We have de-emphasized the spiritual warfare element of things and do not see evil as existing in any kind of systematic way. Demonology and such things are often seen as the arena of quacks and holy rollers; our faith has been very much "rationalized" thanks to the Enlightenment, and we're all quite convinced that those matters of superstition of the past have no basis in reality, but that's certainly not the picture presented in Scripture, and perhaps our theology, our faith, and our ability to understand the creation and God's purposes within it have suffered accordingly.

A work worth reading and with which to grapple and contend, if nothing else. show less

When Bible Study Becomes Scary

When I was young, my parents hosted a couples’ Bible study on Sunday nights. While my parents studied in the community of believers, I listened to music and played video games in the office.

One Sunday evening, I remember my mother visibly shaken after a study. During the Bible study, one member shared with the group his personal study on the actions God cannot perform. The very thought, to my mother, seemed heretical. God is God right? God can do anything!

But show more the personal study held certain amounts of truth. God promised that he would never destroy the earth by flood again; the Bible tells us that God cannot lie. In both instances, God intentionally limits himself.

Despite general agreement amongst the Evangelical church about God’s limits, many Christians believe that the all-powerful God knows the future comprehensively. But does Scripture point to this theological belief?

In God of the Possible, theologian and pastor Gregory Boyd argues for the open view of God: a perspective that suggests God does not conclusively know the future.

The Classical View of Foreknowledge

Classically, Christianity echoes platonic sentiments which espouse a philosophy of an unchanging and limitless God. From these principles, Christians argue that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omni-present. But Boyd questions,

“If the future is indeed exhaustively settled in God’s mind, as the classical view holds, why does the Bible repeatedly describe God changing his mind? Why does the Bible say that God frequently alters his plans, cancels prophecies in the light of changing circumstances, and speaks about the future as a ‘maybe,’ a ‘perhaps,’ or a ‘possibility’? Why does it describe God as expressing uncertainty about the future, being disappointed in the way things turn out, and even occasionally regretting the outcome of his own decisions? If the Bible is always true—and I, for one, assume that it is—how can we reconcile this way of talking about God with the notion that the future is exhaustively settled in his mind” (11)?

The Open View of God

Given these questions, Boyd proposes the open view of God: the idea that God, as illustrated in Scripture, is capable of changing his mind regarding future events. Instead of a God so set in determined actions as a micromanager, Boyd argues that God is personable, capable of being swayed, and a kind ruler. Yet despite a belief in an open future, Boyd points toward a God who remains all-powerful. He argues,

“Open theists, rather, maintain that God can and does predetermine and foreknow whatever he wants to about the future. Indeed, God is so confident in his sovereignty, we hold, he does not need to micromanage everything. He could if he wanted to, but this would demean his sovereignty. So he chooses to leave some of the future open to possibilities, allowing them to be resolved by the decisions of free agents. It takes a greater God to steer a world populated with free agents than it does to steer a world of pre-programmed automatons” (31).

In other words, Boyd maintains that God manages a world of choices within parameters that God has set in his infinite power. As an analogy, if I plan to travel to New York City, I must make choices regarding my travel plans in order to ensure successful transportation. Yet, my decisions only make sense given the assumption that New York City exists.

At its core, God of the Possible contends that Christians must rethink the way they interpret the Bible. Currently, the seemingly contradictory passages about free will and determinism are often interpreted in such a way that one set is read literally and the other figuratively. Boyd believes, however, that an open theism allows for a literal reading of both free will and deterministic passages.

A Mischaracterization of the Classical View

Although Boyd offers compelling arguments, I believe he misunderstands the central reasons for belief in an all-powerful, all-knowing, and ever-present God. While many critics believe that such a God limits free will and arbitrarily chooses those who are saved and those who are condemned, Christians who believe in determinism possess such ideas because they do not feel like humanity is capable of understanding spiritual truths by their own power.

Put differently, deterministic Christians ask, “Who are we to choose salvation? If we have the power to make this decision, are we not more powerful than God?” God must reveal himself to a Christian before a response. Wouldn’t this God know those who choose him and those who do not?

Foreknowledge: Having Your Cake and Eating It Too

Additionally, I think God of the Possible rejects determinism in order to side with free will. Despite the attempt to accept both conflicting ideas, Boyd leans toward free will. I suggest, however, that both free will and determinism can exist with an all-powerful God.

Imagine you must make a choice between two options. Supposing God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and ever-present, God would know the causal chain behind either of the choices you could make. Thus, God not only knows how the future will unfold given the choice you make, he also know the course of events from the choice you didn’t make. Expanding this principle to every choice from every person, and you have a God who knows everything that everyone will ever do while we at the same time maintain free will.

While complicated, I suggest that such an idea better describes the seemingly contradictory statements as seen in the Bible. Are there things God can’t do? Perhaps. Scripture certainly hints at ways in which God limits himself. Nevertheless, self-limitation does not mean that God is not all-powerful, all-knowing, and ever-present. With God of the Possible, Gregory Boyd asks some interesting questions. Yet, I find his arguments inconclusive. God of the Possible is worth a read, but do so with a critical eye.

Originally published at http://wherepenmeetspaper.blogspot.com show less

Hard for me to say just how I feel about this book. The subject is highly, so it seems, controversial and pits heart against mind, what one feels against how one thinks, at least, as a modern Christian. It supports pacifism as the way to confront violence and "fight for justice for the oppressed.

Boyd's main thesis seems to be "power over," the worldly American culture operates, versus "power under," the Jesus way of living in this world, two phrases he frequently uses.

Two things I will say, show more I do not believe nor ever will believe that America is a Christian nation and that this Boyd's argument, while a bit too wordy at some points, convincing if not valid. However, the one thing I do regret is that he did not tangle with certain texts to defend his position; he just seems to assume they do support it.

Also, he seems to go to such an extreme the other way that, for example, gives the impression the Bible does not support Christians being policemen, although he doesn't really cover that issue. I would think that being wholly against violence, the logical step would be to see Christians policemen to be lowering the Gospel standard.

There is much twirling my mind about the book, although, in general, I do agree with it. My only contention is on certain particular points. But if you think America is a Christian nation and you want to be left uncomfortable with reading a book, this is the one. show less