Related to the doctrine of the immutability of God —that God, his character, his promises, his covenant are unchangeable— it is God’s eternal purposes. Both Christianity and Judaism affirm God’s character as unchangeable. However, when we look for God’s purposes, we find different understandings of them. In this respect, I will briefly present in this blog post the positions of well-known modern theologians —who belong to four different traditions— on how they approach God’s eternal purposes.
First Approach: Evangelical Open Theism
God at War: The Bible and Spiritual Conflict, written by Gregory Boyd, defends the position known as open theism. For Boyd, God’s purposes should be understood under a warfare worldview. In other words, that everything that happens in this life (good or bad) is the result of the conflict between the good and the evil (cf. p. 13).
Boyd emphasizes the strength of the evil powers to destroy and cause harm. He affirms that the classical point of view —where Christians think that everything is under God’s control— is relative. The person who suffers might not see that God is in control in that situation, despite people around them may or may not be able to see it. Boyd gives us the example of a child who has been attacked by the Nazis. While the child is suffering in pain, the evil people are laughing, and the church is singing hymns and trusting God that everything will fit together at the end. For Boyd, the traditional understanding of God’s providence must be changed and be understood according to the cosmic warfare framework (cf. p.58). Analyzing the child’s case, Boyd states that the oppression could be the result of human evil intentions, but never an ordained event of God. This line of reasoning makes Boyd conclude that “we unambiguously affirm that angels and humans have significant power to thwart God’s will” (cf. pp. 141-42).
For this theologian, God’s purposes can be changed, challenged, or frustrated by evil force, or even by human beings. This would be one conclusion of Boyd’s theological framework that he offers in his book: God’s plans and purposes might be altered so that the future seems to be open to a series of possibilities. It is clear that Boyd opposes the classical doctrine of God’s providence as understood by the classic reformed tradition, especially Calvin. Not surprisingly, Boyd claims that prayer changes the way things are (cf. p. 204) —a belief that has the implication that our prayers can even change God’s will. In short, for Boyd God’s purposes may be changed —at least in some way— by human beings or frustrated by the Powers.
Second Approach: Conservative Protestantism
The second view is the one promoted by traditional theism (or at least, a close version of it), usually defended by conservative protestantism. It is discussed by N.T. Wright’s book, Evil and the Justice of God. For Wright, the Scriptures do not give us much information about the nature of evil and how it started. Instead, it focuses on God’s actions. He thinks we should be careful when discussing the problem of evil by personalizing evil —he understands evil as quasi-personal entities. We should discuss the problem of evil instead by considering God’s restoration of the created order. Although evil opposes God and his eternal plans, it will never be in the same position as God and His power.
From this, we may deduct that for Wright, God’s purposes cannot be changed or modified because evil has been defeated on the cross of Jesus Christ (cf. p. 114). This, however, does not mean that the evil forces —or the Powers— do not oppose God’s work in the world. They do, but Christ has exhausted them. Wright also affirms that God’s work is risky as he restores the blessing in the world (cf. p.47). This suggests that Wright considers God’s eternal purposes as unchangeable and irrevocable. In other words, God is working in order that His eternal purposes may be fulfilled. It does not make any sense that God works in something that in the end it would be nullified or canceled. Although for Wright God’s purposes cannot be changed or modified, we are called to live out a life of prayer “to bring God’s wise healing order into the world now, in implementation of the victory of the cross and anticipation of the final redemption” (p.119).
Third Approach: Progressive Christianity
The third view is the usually promoted by progressive Christianity. It is discussed by Walter Wink in his book, The Powers That Be: Theology for a New Millennium. Wink offers us a creative way of interpreting the role of the Powers in the world by identifying them with ex-angels who lose their calling. For Wink, the Powers may be the source of evil, but they are still needed in the world since they are useful. Though not said explicitly, if they are useful for the world, they might also be used for the fulfillment of God’s purposes too. Since the Powers are also a source of great oppression, they need to be confronted and the church’s role is to unmask the idolatry of those Powers and institutions that have become demonic (cf. p. 29), so that when those Powers are confronted, their structure may be changed or transformed (cf. p. 31).
According to Wink’s reasoning, God has the purpose purpose of redeeming the Powers. By doing God so, the church will be able to promote a non-violent account of the God’s redemptive work in the world. Thus, the church does not only have a responsibility to change people but also to change the fallen institutions and bring them on the right path again (cf. p. 35). For Wink, overcoming the evil with violence is a myth and forms part of the fallen structure’s system. The church, then, should pray for the Powers and acknowledge them in order that they may be transformed from within. Thus, we can stop blaming the evil caused by those fallen structures.In short, from what we may deduct from Wink’s position, God needs a human agency to redeem the Powers to make them useful again.
Fourth Approach: Modern Judaism
The fourth and last view is appreciated in the book Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Jewish Drama of Divine Omnipotence by Jewish scholar Jon D. Levenson. He addresses the problem of evil using as a framework the Jewish understanding of such topic, that is, under a theology of omnipotence that deals with the reasons why God let good people suffer or why God’s sovereignty and providence do not overcome the problem of evil in the world. For Levenson, we should see the Scripture in relational terms and the relationship of God with his people rather than in philosophical terms. “God’s rule will become complete only when the human heart, upon which it partly depends, will be enabled to embrace his commands with wholeness and integrity,” he writes.
In Levenson’s view human beings depend partly on God’s providence. This kind of co-operation between God and the human agency creates some uncertainty regarding God’s purposes and his plans for humanity.
Some Concluding Remarks
Every theologian presented here offers some good insights in their work to take into consideration, something that makes us reflect further about God’s purposes. In my perspective it is important to remember that God is free to the way he relates to His creation. God is the one who needed to reveal himself to humanity first, including his eternal purposes. It is my understanding that God’s plan to reveal himself and his eternal purposes is not something we need to discover but to receive. It’s not something we need to co-operate with God, but join Him in what He’s doing to restore the creation. The Powers are real and personal entities, and work hard to thwart God’s purposes. But they will not succeed.