The argument of openness theologians is that God has been taken hostage and held captive by classic theism where His transcendence is overemphasised and His personhood as Trinity downplayed. They say this view of God is inconsistent with revelation of God through scripture, namely that God can suffer, grieve and repent.

One would think that opposite of God of classical theism would be finite God of process theology, but openness of God is clear that God does intervene and will certainly bring history to a conclusion in line with His will and purposes-with or without help of mankind.

Openness theology also teaches that any claims about nature of God that are logical contradictions cannot be accepted in theology. It has to be all or nothing as in case where one says that God knows future in absolute detail and with total certainty but still leaves parts of future open and undetermined i.e. in case of people's decisions regarding their personal salvation.

Another tenant of Openness theology is that true freedom means being able to choose between options without any predetermination. This puts them in a position where neither determination nor predestination are an option. Ultimately it means that creature assumes and requires a certain limited independence from God. Whereas other evangelicals and Calvanists in particular prefer to accept a more compatible idea of freedom whereby for them, true freedom is being able to do what God knows and has decided is right.Thus they choose to be totally dependant on God, and independence from God is slavery.

For openness adherents this is very foreign, because it ultimately places one in a position that seems to attribute authorship of both good and evil to God. It is a powerful and persuasive book, but it does have some serious problems that will prevent even sympathetic readers from embracing it as a model for life.

For instance can a self-limiting God who rarely, if ever, intervenes in free choice and actions of man be assured that history of this planet will end in way He desires. For instance every decision we make can have hard hitting and lasting effects in this cause and effect world. A good example would be Peter's act of denying Christ three times. Is there a chance after Jesus told Peter that he would deny his master three times, that Peter would stay true to His master and not deny Christ and God's prediction would thus be wrong?

If God's prediction was wrong, it would mean that God makes mistakes, because God is right about Peter in this case does it mean it was just a good guess or that God really does know future. The same goes for Jesus' prophecy of Judas as His betrayer, bible says in John 6:64,"Jesus knew from beginning..who it was that would betray Him." Whether Peter does or does not deny Christ or Judas does or does not betray Christ advocates of openness of God are faced with a dilemma.

Still real weakness in openness view of God comes when authors distinguish between infinite and personal attributes of God. This creates a tension that they cannot reconcile so they drop ball when it matters most They embrace personal God and lose sight of His infinite nature. Believing that God must be finite or at least limit himself to being as such, thus He does not know future and cannot know future while still be personal. This is very selective and glory of God is lost in this model of God that they are encouraging us to embrace. As a result they tend to take words that mean one thing to us as mankind and finite and apply those same words and actions to God who is infinite. Words such as repent simply cannot be applied to an eternal God in same way as they may be applied to humanity...

This article is continued in The Openness of God (part 2)...

You can also visit us at www.god-life.com

There is no place for separatism or self-righteousness either, we are encouraged in any noble service to culture. An argument could then be made that if we are justified by grace and not works, why should we then not sin all more? The purposes of law is to be a curb for sin, a mirror or plumbline for sin and also as a guide or tutor to lead us to Christ. The last purpose, as a guide is more optimistic than other two, in that it affirms universality of sin, but maintains that culture can be converted in line with God's temporal law. Where those things in culture that have been perverted can be reformed and redeemed to some extent.

While this sounds good, such earthbound hopes tend to undermine belief of eternal life and ultimate destination of mankind in an afterlife. Transformation of culture may be seen as whole reason for existence of church. The social gospel may quickly replace salvation gospel instead of being held in tension, as they should be. Although as Christians we are under grace it might be tempting to rely on law for social reform, exchanging word for sword.

Also, in rejecting certain aspects of culture, we are not rejecting culture in total, as even our act of rejecting culture is a part of culture. As Christians we do reject certain aspects of mainstream culture, but not culture in totality. If we were to reject culture in totality, why would God not have taken us into heaven moment we were saved? The fact is that discipleship occurs not by taking choices and culture away from us, but placing us directly in it to be counter-cultural.

This does not mean that we are opposed to culture but it does mean that we are against any form of cultural idolatry, those aspects of culture that do not point to Christ as Lord of all. When New Testament talks of world it speaks of those aspects of culture that are self-glorifying and self-serving, claiming autonomy apart from God.

Thus real question is not whether we should accept or reject culture in it's totality but what is correct principle for discrimination. We cannot be self-righteous monastics and neither can we be in rebellion from state institutions and divinely appointed offices and leaders. Ultimately we can argue for reform if temporal law seeks to override Godly principles as in a dictatorial government, such as Zimbabwe or Iraq.

When law of God written on our hearts is held in tension with temporal law laid down in land, we find that we do have a paradox, we who are not held under law, actually commit ourselves to do those things which uphold law. As Christ is in us we do naturally what is required of us, not because of a rulebook, but out of a desire to love God and our neighbour.

In our desire to uphold justice and law in our nations, social action by church body is usually resisted as a contamination of Church and State, word with sword. The temporal law laid down by state should be upheld by church as moral force in society. Where state makes decisions that are contrary to God, moral law should still be upheld regardless of state consequences. In this way body of Christ is both under law and above it, though whether under or above law it's Lordship is still God. Where church cannot have direct action, it can through it's members have indirect influence. This influence can be exercised through chosen vocations of it's members. Christ lives in us to express Himself through us to glory of God. In this way separation of sacred and secular is closed while Christ and culture, church and state are held in healthy tension. (continued in Christ and Culture 3)

Check out our site at www.god-life.com