John Sanders

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

John E. Sanders is an American evangelical Christian theologian. Sanders is best known for his promotion of open theism, but he has also written in defense of inclusivism. While Sanders is neither the first nor the definitive open theist, he has been the focus of more popular interest than any other thanks to the antagonism of some members of the Evangelical Theological Society and of the trustees at Huntington University toward his views. It is precisely because Sanders is a good human interest story that his is fast becoming the name to know in the field of free-will theism.

Contents

[edit] Biography

Sanders was born to Methodist parents in Central Illinois in 1956.[1] He earned a bachelor's degree from Trinity College in 1979, a master’s degree from Wartburg Theological Seminary in 1987, and a Th.D. degree from the University of South Africa in 1996.[2] He has served on faculty at Oak Hills Christian College in Minnesota, the University of Notre Dame, and Huntington University in Indiana. He currently lives with his wife Jody and their five children (Lexi, Mandie, Rajesh, Caleb and Alaethea)[3] in Conway, AR, where he serves as visiting professor of religion at Hendrix College.[4]

In The God Who Risks, Sanders tells the story of how he came to be an open theist. The watershed moment was when he, a photographer for the local newspaper, stopped at the scene of a car accident to take some pictures. A semi had hit a motorcyclist, whose body was crushed beneath its tires. As it turned out, the motorcyclist was Sanders’ brother Dick. Sanders went home, sat down at his bedside, and prayed, “God, why did you kill my brother?”[5] His anger at God became the impetus for over twenty years of searching for answers. Over time, he became convinced that his anger was not directed toward God, but toward “a particular model of God”—a God who is the “ultimate cosmic explanation for each and every thing.”[6] Open theists like Clark Pinnock, William Hasker, and Terrence Fretheim provided Sanders with an alternative model that seemed to absolve God of responsibility.[7]

Sanders also tells a story in connection with his belief in inclusivism. He had been asked several times in college about the destiny of the unevangelized: how could a just God condemn the ignorant masses to hell?[8] Thus began his study. While writing a book that compares and contrasts three different evangelical understandings of what becomes of the unevangelized, another experience drove home the importance of the question. He writes, “…one of the three children my wife and I adopted from India asked me about the salvation of her birth parents. Was there any hope for their salvation? she wondered; she did not think they had ever heard about Jesus.”[9] Despite his status as something of an expert on the subject, he found himself rather at a loss for words. How does one explain complex theological alternatives to a ten-year-old?[10] Important inclusivists whose thinking has influenced Sanders include Justin Martyr, John Wesley, C.S. Lewis, Clark Pinnock, and Wolfhart Pannenberg.[11]

John Sanders and Clark Pinnock are both members of the Evangelical Theological Society (or ETS), the doctrinal basis of which is inerrancy and the Trinity. Both scholars affirm inerrancy, but have been accused of “promoting proposals ‘incompatible with [it].’”[12] At their 2001 meeting, members of the society voted 253 to 66 in favor of a resolution affirming God’s complete foreknowledge, but this resolution did not exclude open theists from membership.[13] Subsequent challenges to open theists’ membership resulted in overwhelming support for Clark Pinnock but came up only 25 votes short of the 2/3 majority necessary to expel Sanders. At issue was Sanders’ belief in “probabilistic prophecy”, which claims that some biblical prophecies are not certain (since God does not know with certainty what free beings will choose) but rather probabilistic. This means that his understanding of inerrancy is different than most evangelicals’; the only reason he survived the ETS vote is that the society has not defined what it means by “inerrancy”. For the time being, the issue is resolved.[14]

Sanders did not fare so well at Huntington University, where he was employed as professor of religion and philosophy. He was examined by a “denominational commission”[15] over the course of several meetings, some more cordial than others.[16] In November of 2003 he was approached by the president of the university, who informed him that “the trustees [did] not want the professor’s contract to be renewed after the spring semester.” The problem does not seem to be Sanders’ beliefs (since other open theists remain in the school’s employ) but rather his notoriety in promoting them.[17] Despite advocacy on his behalf by a student group called “Page 6” (referring to a statement on page 6 of the university catalog protecting academic freedom), Sanders was placed on a one-year full-salary sabbatical, at the end of which his contract was terminated.[18]

[edit] Sources and method

As mentioned above, Sanders self-identifies as an evangelical and affirms the doctrine of inerrancy. The Bible thus becomes his single most important source for theology. He writes,

It is correct that some proponents of the risk view begin with libertarian freedom as a control belief, using it to reshape the doctrine of God. However, that was not the method used here. I began with an examination of Scripture to see what it says about God and the nature of God’s relationship with us.[19]

For Sanders, scripture cannot contradict itself and so apparent contradictions must be resolved by harmonization. Whereas some scholars effect harmony by subordinating “unclear” texts to “clear” ones (so that, for example, “anthropomorphic” statements about divine repentance are interpreted in the light of texts that teach immutability and meticulous providence), Sanders claims that “we can affirm both sets of biblical texts rather than imposing one on the other… There is no conflict between the texts if we hold that God’s nature does not change but that God can change in some respects.”[20]

The use of scripture as a primary source does present at least one difficulty: that of interpretation. Sanders acknowledges that “we all use human reasoning when reading the Bible”[21] and that we are all sinful creatures; as such, we cannot “arrive at an absolutely certain method for interpreting the text.”[22] Sanders suggests that if we apply “sound reason” to the text[23] and take it at face value[24] we will be off to a great start, but that ultimately it is through “dialogue” that we should seek to overcome this obstacle. “In our search for truth,” he says, “we definitely need each other.”[25] Sanders’ mastery of the “dialogical virtues”[26] is evident in his work.

A final note on sources: Sanders critiques church tradition at many points. At the same time, however, he takes the tradition very seriously. He affirms “the ecumenical creeds, the main teachings of the Reformation, the authority of Scripture and the importance of prayer and community.”[27] He is also concerned to demonstrate the continuity of his views with at least some Christian theologians of the past.[28] To evangelicals who would criticize him for breaking with the body of tradition he offers a reminder that “the Lutherans, Reformed, and Catholics killed the Anabaptists for espousing beliefs that most evangelicals today take for granted.”[29]

[edit] Sanders on open theism

In The Openness of God, John Sanders argues that in the biblical-classical synthesis, “the Greek metaphysical system ‘boxed up’ the God described in the Bible.”[30] Classical theologians, following the philosophers, “deduced their understanding of deity from the concept of ‘perfection.’”[31] This would not be problematic, except that they tended to equate perfection with such things as immutability, impassibility, timelessness, infinitude, simplicity, and meticulous providence. There were a few dissenters to each of these descriptors, but in the end these things have come to be known as the “traditional” or “classical” view of God. While Sanders affirms God’s omniscience, omnipotence, and infinitude, he critiques the doctrines of immutability, impassibility, and timelessness. These things, he says, are not perfection. An all-powerful and sovereign God can choose to create beings whose choices he neither controls nor can predict. An all-powerful God can change and learn. An all-powerful God can choose to be related and to respond to his creation. To claim that God can do none of these things is to limit God.[32]

Above it was mentioned that open theists affirm divine omniscience. To this a disclaimer must be added: they interpret omniscience differently than most evangelicals. Omniscience for Sanders means that God knows everything that it is possible for him to know. God cannot know that two plus two is five, because that is not true. Neither can God know what choices we will make, because we haven’t made them yet. There is nothing to be known.[33]

This is not to say that God does not know the future at all. The future is partly open and partly determined. God knows the things that are naturally determined (i.e. that there will be an earthquake or a hurricane). The causes of these events are already in place, and so God can predict them with 100% accuracy. Further, God knows the things he has decided to bring about in his overarching plan for humanity. For example, God knows that his kingdom will eventually come to the earth. The route he will take in accomplishing this end, however, is open. God is flexible and creative in his dealings with us. His plan is not a detailed blueprint, but rather a broad intention.[34] In one place Sanders compares God’s work to jazz: it is like “a melody with a good deal of improvisation.”[35]

Sanders is careful to say that God’s knowledge of the future is limited only because he has chosen to create creatures whose decisions are unpredictable—creatures with “libertarian freedom”.[36] God chooses to create such creatures, Sanders says, because only libertarian creatures can enter into a real, reciprocal relationship with their creator. God values not freedom for its own sake, but freedom for the sake of relationship.[37]

The implications of all this are surprising. First, it means that God takes risks. The divine project is to develop people who love and trust God and each other.[38] In choosing to rely upon humans for the fulfillment of this goal, God “takes the risk of being either delighted or disappointed in what transpires.”[39] Second, it means that God sometimes fails or is wrong.[40] Such “mistakes” do “not imply that God is helpless in the face of the future, since the real question is whether God has the wisdom, love, power, and faithfulness to continue working with his project until he brings it to the fulfillment he intends.” This question, of course, Sanders answers with a resounding “yes.”[41] Further, it means that God actually values our prayers. Prayer is genuine dialogue in which we, God’s collaborators, are invited to partake in the divine decision-making process by giving God input on how we think the divine project should proceed.[42] A fourth implication is that God is not the creator of evil as in Reformed theology.[43] And finally, if God does not control every detail in human history, we should not take “chance” happenings as "signs" of God’s will for us.[44]

[edit] Key texts

According to Sanders, there are four kinds of scriptural texts that support the "open" view of divine providence.

  1. "The Bible portrays God as authentically responding to his people’s petitions" (e.g. 2 Kings 20; Mark 2:5, 6:5-6; James 4:2).
  2. "The Bible portrays God as being affected by creatures and as sometimes being surprised by what they do" (e.g. Genesis 6:6; Ezekiel 12:1-3; Jeremiah 3:7).
  3. "The Bible portrays God as testing people in order to discover what they will do" (e.g. Genesis 22:12; Exodus 15:25, 33:5).
  4. "The Bible portrays God as changing his mind—altering his plans—as he relates to his creatures" (e.g. Exodus 32; 1 Samuel 2:30, Jonah 4:2, Judges 10).[45]

[edit] Sanders on inclusivism

Sanders acknowledges that there are a number of ways that Christians have understood the destiny of the unevangelized, and that “no position… is free from serious difficulties.”[46] The position he leans toward, however, is called “inclusivism”. He offers the following definition of the term: “The unevangelized may be saved if they respond in faith to God based on the revelation they have.”[47]

Inclusivism seeks to affirm a “wider hope” than the typical restrictivist[48] position espoused by most evangelical Christians. But unlike pluralism, it does not sacrifice the distinctiveness of Jesus Christ as the one Savior of humanity, and unlike universalism, it does not eliminate the necessity of human responsiveness to the divine call. According to inclusivism, it is only through Christ’s atonement that any human who has ever lived can be saved.[49] The effects of Christ’s atonement, however, are not limited to those who bear the external “badges” of being “Christians”.[50] In one parable, those who bear the marks of being God’s people are actually rejected, and their places at the eschatological love-feast are taken by strangers (Matthew 21:31-46).[51] Further, some of the “sheep” at the last judgment are surprised to learn that they served the Lord (Matthew 25:31-46).[52] These passages indicate that the Father of Jesus works even among those who do not know his name.

According to Sanders, God reaches out to all people “via general revelation, conscience and human culture.” People are saved if they “respond in trusting faith to the revelation they have.”[53] To claim that salvation comes only to those who know Christ’s name or who understand certain doctrines is akin to Gnosticism, in which salvation comes only to those who possess special knowledge.[54] In fact, he notes, if salvation comes only to those who know the name of Jesus then the patriarchs of the Old Testament are doomed to hell![55] Rather, he says, citing C.S. Lewis, “every prayer which is sincerely made even to a false god…is accepted by the true God,” and “Christ saves many who do not think they know him.”[56] In the end it is only those who decline God’s grace that will be damned.

None of this, Sanders says, removes the impetus for Christian missions. We want to save people from the second death, but we also want to save them from the first death: a life of sin and suffering.[57] There are gifts and a richness of life that come from being a Christian that are not available to others, and we desire to share these. Moreover, some people have not responded in faith to their degree of revelation, and these need to hear of Christ’s love so that they can become “believers” and escape damnation.[58]

[edit] Notes

  1. ^ Dave Schultz, "His philosophy is based on God's love," The Herald-Press (Huntington, IN), December 27 1998.
  2. ^ Judy Williams, Provost announces faculty additions, promotions. (Hendrix College, July 6 2006).
  3. ^ Schultz, "His philosophy is based on God's love."
  4. ^ Williams, Provost announces faculty additions, promotions.
  5. ^ John Sanders, The God Who Risks: A Theology of Providence (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1998), 1.
  6. ^ Ibid., 1-2.
  7. ^ In his debate with Christopher Hall, however, Sanders admits that “In the past few years it has become clear to me that presentism (the belief that God completely knows the past and present but not the future) itself does not contribute much by way of help in dealing with the question of evil. It seems to me now that early statements of openness overstated its value, for it is correct that, according to openness, God would ‘see’ that something dreadful was going to happen and God has the power to prevent it, so why does God not prevent it?” Christopher A. Hall and John Sanders, Does God Have a Future? A Debate on Divine Providence (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003), 40, parentheses added.
  8. ^ Much of Sanders’ work could be classified as apologetics; he seems to be motivated by a desire to have meaningful answers to tough questions skeptics have asked him. See Gabriel Fackre, Ronald H. Nash, and John Sanders, What About Those Who Have Never Heard? Three Views on the Destiny of the Unevangelized (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1995), 22. and Sanders, The God Who Risks: A Theology of Providence, 10.
  9. ^ Fackre, Nash, and Sanders, What About Those Who Have Never Heard? Three Views on the Destiny of the Unevangelized, 9.
  10. ^ John Sanders, No Other Name: An Investigation into the Destiny of the Unevangelized (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1992), 2.
  11. ^ Fackre, Nash, and Sanders, What About Those Who Have Never Heard? Three Views on the Destiny of the Unevangelized, 20.
  12. ^ Doug Koop, "Closing the Door on Open Theists? Ets to Examine Whether Clark Pinnock and John Sanders Can Remain Members," Christianity Today, Jan/Feb 2003, 24.
  13. ^ Ibid., 24-25.
  14. ^ David Neff, "Open to Healing: Anxieties and Attack Turn to Grace and Truth at Ets Meeting," Christianity Today, Jan/Feb 2004, 21-22.
  15. ^ Huntington is owned by the Church of the United Brethren in Christ.
  16. ^ See Hall and Sanders, Does God Have a Future? A Debate on Divine Providence, 47,64,75.
  17. ^ John Dart, "College to Close out 'Open Theism' Scholar," Christian Century, December 28 2004. See also Stan Guthrie, Open or Closed Case? Controversial Theologian John Sanders on Way out at Huntington. (Christianity Today, December 22 2004).
  18. ^ Board of Trustees Statement Regarding Dr. John Sanders. (Huntington University, January 25 2005). The statement reads in part, “The Board of Trustees is committed to maintaining the College’s earned reputation and historic identity, rather than being identified by theological controversy or becoming known as a center for a theological position inconsistent with our past.”
  19. ^ Sanders, The God Who Risks: A Theology of Providence, 222.
  20. ^ Hall and Sanders, Does God Have a Future? A Debate on Divine Providence, 125-27.
  21. ^ Ibid., 19.
  22. ^ Ibid., 187.
  23. ^ Ibid., 19.
  24. ^ Sanders, The God Who Risks: A Theology of Providence, 38.
  25. ^ Hall and Sanders, Does God Have a Future? A Debate on Divine Providence, 198.
  26. ^ See Ibid., 189-93.
  27. ^ Ibid., 20.
  28. ^ See Fackre, Nash, and Sanders, What About Those Who Have Never Heard? Three Views on the Destiny of the Unevangelized, 22. and Clark Pinnock et al., The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1994), 59-100, esp. 96-98.
  29. ^ Hall and Sanders, Does God Have a Future? A Debate on Divine Providence, 20.
  30. ^ Pinnock et al., The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God, 60.
  31. ^ Ibid., 61.
  32. ^ Sanders, The God Who Risks: A Theology of Providence, 11,225. This argument is intentionally ironic, since Sanders’ critics have accused him—because he says that God does not know the future—of doing the same thing.
  33. ^ Ibid., 132,99.
  34. ^ Hall and Sanders, Does God Have a Future? A Debate on Divine Providence, 12-13. See also Sanders, The God Who Risks: A Theology of Providence, 127.
  35. ^ Sanders, The God Who Risks: A Theology of Providence, 231.
  36. ^ Ibid., 221. In this open theists advocate something similar to the traditional doctrine of divine self-limitation; Sanders notes that when we say self-limitation we usually mean something more like self-restraint. Sanders, The God Who Risks: A Theology of Providence, 227.
  37. ^ Sanders, The God Who Risks: A Theology of Providence, 224.
  38. ^ Ibid., 50,125-28.
  39. ^ Ibid., 53.
  40. ^ If we affirm that God desires to save all people but that some will go to hell, the conclusion that the divine project ends in failure for some is inescapable. Further, Sanders argues poignantly that some predictions made in scripture do not come to pass precisely as they were foretold (e.g. Jonah, 2 Kings 20, and Acts 21:11); these are what critics have termed “probabilistic prophecies.” Ibid., 75,88,132,230.
  41. ^ Ibid., 133.
  42. ^ Ibid., 53,272-73.
  43. ^ Ibid., 55.
  44. ^ Ibid., 255.
  45. ^ Hall and Sanders, Does God Have a Future? A Debate on Divine Providence, 153-56.
  46. ^ Sanders, No Other Name: An Investigation into the Destiny of the Unevangelized, 305.
  47. ^ Fackre, Nash, and Sanders, What About Those Who Have Never Heard? Three Views on the Destiny of the Unevangelized, 20.
  48. ^ According to restrictivism, “God does not provide salvation to those who fail to hear of Jesus and come to faith in him before they die.” Ibid.
  49. ^ Ibid., 23.
  50. ^ Ibid., 48.
  51. ^ Ibid., 31.
  52. ^ Ibid., 34.
  53. ^ Ibid., 36.
  54. ^ Ibid., 37.
  55. ^ Ibid., 38-40.
  56. ^ Ibid., 45.
  57. ^ Sanders, No Other Name: An Investigation into the Destiny of the Unevangelized, 285.
  58. ^ Fackre, Nash, and Sanders, What About Those Who Have Never Heard? Three Views on the Destiny of the Unevangelized, 54.

[edit] Bibliography

  • Board of Trustees Statement Regarding Dr. John Sanders. Huntington University, January 25, 2005.
  • Dart, John. "College to Close out 'Open Theism' Scholar." Christian Century, December 28 2004, 13.
  • Fackre, Gabriel, Ronald H. Nash, and John Sanders. What About Those Who Have Never Heard? Three Views on the Destiny of the Unevangelized. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1995.
  • Guthrie, Stan. Open or Closed Case? Controversial Theologian John Sanders on Way out at Huntington. Christianity Today, December 22, 2004.
  • Hall, Christopher A., and John Sanders. Does God Have a Future? A Debate on Divine Providence. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003.
  • Koop, Doug. "Closing the Door on Open Theists? Ets to Examine Whether Clark Pinnock and John Sanders Can Remain Members." Christianity Today, Jan/Feb 2003, 24-25.
  • Neff, David. "Open to Healing: Anxieties and Attack Turn to Grace and Truth at Ets Meeting." Christianity Today, Jan/Feb 2004, 21-22.
  • Pinnock, Clark, Richard Rice, John Sanders, William Hasker, and David Basinger. The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1994.
  • Sanders, John. "A Tale of Two Providences." Ashland Theological Journal, 33, 2001, 41-55.
  • Sanders, John. "Be Wary of Ware: A Reply to Bruce Ware." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Jun 2002, 221-231.
  • Sanders, John. No Other Name: An Investigation into the Destiny of the Unevangelized. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1992.
  • Sanders, John. "No Way to Settle the Matter: The Criteria We Use to Develop Different Models of God," in And God saw that it was good: Essays in Honor of Terence E. Fretheim, eds. Frederick J. Gaiser and Mark A. Throntveit. Word & World Supplement Series, v. 5. Saint Paul, MN: Word & World, 2006.
  • Sanders, John. "On Heffalumps and Heresies: Responses to Accusations against Open Theism." Journal of Biblical Studies 2, no. 1, Sp 2002, 1-44.
  • Sanders, John. "On Reducing God to Human Proportions," in Semper Reformandum: Studies in Honour of Clark Pinnock, eds. Anthony Cross and Stanley Porter. Carlisle, UK: Paternoster Press, 2003.
  • Sanders, John. The God Who Risks: A Theology of Providence. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1998.
  • Sanders, John. "Theological Lawbreaker?" Books and Culture, Jan, 2000, 10-11.
  • Sanders, John. "Truth at Risk." Christianity Today, Mar/Apr 2001, 103.
  • Sanders, John. "Why Simple Foreknowledge Offers No More Providential Control than the Openness of God." Faith and Philosophy, 14, no. 1, Jan 1997, 26-40.
  • Schultz, Dave. "His philosophy is based on love." The Herald-Press (Huntington, IN), December 27, 1998.
  • Williams, Judy. Hendrix announces faculty positions, promotions. Hendrix College, July 6, 2006.

[edit] See also

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/o/h/John_Sanders_0766.html"