The God Who Risks: A Theology of Providence

by John Sanders

If God is all-knowing and all-powerful, can he in any way be vulnerable to his creation?Can God be in control of anything at all if he is not constantly in control of everything?John Sanders says yes to both of these questions. In The God Who Risks defends his answer with a careful and challenging argument.He first builds his case on an in-depth reading of the Old and New Testaments. Then Sanders probes philosophical, historical and systematic theology for further support. And he completes his defense with considerations drawn from practical theology.The God Who Risks is a profound and often inspiring presentation of "relational theism"--an understanding of providence in which "a personal God enters into genuine give-and-take relations with his creatures." With this book Sanders not only contributes to serious theological discussion but also enlightens pastors and laypersons who struggle with questions about suffering, evil and human free will.

Genres: Theology, Philosophy, Religion, Christian, Christianity

356 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1998

Reviews

[Joel Wentz · Rating 5 out of 5]

I was deeply moved by Sanders' account of the way God genuinely desires relationship with his people, and the lengths He goes through to achieve that goal throughout the biblical narrative. This isn't to say that I uncritically subscribe to all the theological implications of Sanders' views here, BUT this book has certainly revitalized my understanding of God as a relational being. This reads more like a philosophy textbook than a theology book at times, but I highly recommend it to anyone who struggles with questions about evil, suffering, redemption, atonement through the cross, God's foreknowledge and predestination, and even prayer. Sanders' voice is an important one in this broad conversation.

[Steve Watson · Rating 4 out of 5]

In The God Who Risks, John Sanders outlines biblical grounds for a relational view of God. He then anchors his perspective in Christian theological history, before exploring philosophical and applied theological implications of open and relational theology, over against more determinist theology.

There is so much in Sanders’ work that is helpful. In his discussion of the Bible, he takes seriously diving flexibility and repentance and the possibility of a genuine divine emotional life. In his work with the New Testament, his discussions of fulfillment of prophecy are especially strong. “Many conservatives focus on scriptural predictions and their fulfillment for apologetic purposes … because the predictions are thought to be precisely fulfilled. This is a rather curious claim given the fact that the disciples as well as others did not see Jesus fitting into their understandings of messianic predictions.” Instead, Sanders argues that God’s faithfulness is more important than God’s predictive powers. Sanders also argues other ways in which prophecy can be fulfilled without God knowing the future: through God knowing how God will choose to act, through conditional fulfillment (only if people respond in certain ways), and through God’s wisdom (like “a consummate social scientist”) based on “God’s exhaustive knowledge of the past and the present.” Sanders highlighting Mary’s consent at the annunciation, God’s improvisatory presence in the early church, and the phrase “significant others” to describe humans’ relationship to God are all also interesting and delightful.

In Sanders’ chapter on the Christian tradition, he is less polemic and critical than in The Openness of God. He still is working against the foil of the Augustinian and Calvinist tradition but has more interest in placing the roots of open and relational theology in the Eastern Orthodox tradition, particularly the work of the pre-Augustinian Cappadocian fathers, and in the Wesleyan freewill tradition. I’m particularly intrigued by the connections to Orthodoxy, as the work of Brad Jersak and others have drawn me to elements of this tradition’s Christology (divine union/divinization) and eschatology (unending and universal extension of God’s love and mercy).

There are three further thoughts I had in tension while reading The God Who Risks that merit further exploration. Sanders the relationality of God. “Relationality is an essential aspect of God. The tripersonal God is the perfection of love and communion -- the very antithesis of aloofness, isolation and domination.” And yet in discussing the freedom of God and the nature of the divine project, Sanders writes very unrelationally of God, as if God’s need for freedom is more central than God’s love and as if human free will is a necessity of the rules God has established for creation, rather than an implication of what it means to be made in God’s image. I can understand and am drawn to Tom Oord’s work in centering kenotic love the divine image and in open and relational theology. While in some ways this is simply following Sanders’ own logic more faithfully, it’s a rebuke of his statement, “The divine nature does not dictate the sort of world God must make.”

Sanders also continues what I viewed as a weakness of The Openness of God, centering philosophical and theological faithfulness to the reading of biblical text while decentering human experience. Pentecostal spirituality only receives the very briefest of mentions. And while Sanders critiques certain aspects of the determinist tradition as intellectually inconsistent, he emphasizes less how much they insult the integrity of our own experience. An example would be his discussion of the compatibilist understanding of human freedom, which argues humans have free will, but only to the extent that our desires are free. There is a loophole here that our desires may be bound by God’s determinist will, such that we appear to be exercising free will while remaining very much unfree agents. This isn’t just intellectually indefensible, but is an insult to our human experience of genuine freedom. In discussions of agency and providence, only libertarian freedom, within the limits we face through our genetics, our past, and other factors, honors our experience of reality.

Lastly, The God Who Risks makes me wonder if beauty could be a helpful criteria of theological truth. The Christian theological tradition has so prized logical sensibility and biblical grounding that it has perhaps deemphasized other important criteria for truth, such as experiential coherence and evocation of worship and wonder. As it does from an experiential perspective, from an aesthetic lens, an open and relational theology has immense advantages. The Augustinian/Calvinist determinist theology is at times ridiculous, as when we imagine that “prior to creation God foresaw such things as Caesar crossing the Rubicon” or, for that matter, my path of crossing a particular street on any given day. In other aspects, such as double predestination, it is downright ugly. In contrast, elements of open and relational theology are beautiful. In discussing God’s dynamic omniscience - God’s complete knowledge of the past and present and God’s omnicompetent and wise engagement with an unknowable future - Sanders beautifully discusses God’s love. “Personhood, relationality and community - not power, independence and control - become the center for understanding the nature of God…. Love must be limitless, precarious and vulnerable…. Love takes risks and is willing to wait and try again if need be…. The third criterion is that love is vulnerable, since lovers grant the beloved control over themselves.” Critics might argue that a God who loves so vulnerably is reduced in majesty through this weakness. Yet to my eyes, such a God is more beautiful and compelling than the invulnerable, irrelational alternatives.

[Daniel Stepke · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is a masterful overview of both the Biblical and philosophical bases for freewill theism, risky providence, and its contrary views. While the book is sometimes repetitive, it thoroughly argues that the watershed difference between advocates of a risky model of God's nature and providence and advocates of a non-risky providence model of God's nature and providence is whether God can be conditioned by creatures in any way shape or form. Sanders takes this challenge on as well as maintaining the desiderata imposed on us by Scripture, tradition, reason, and ethics. Not all of the arguments can be summed up in this kind of review, but a few I found particularly persuasive are as follows--is not Jesus the full revelation of the Godhead? If so, how is the Godhead unaffected by others, unable to be grieved, determines all things, etc.? Another of Sanders' most powerful arguments is simply putting forth the biblical data for God grieving, responding to creatures, and changing His mind. Ought not our view of God come primarily from Scripture, as Christians? And unless our metaphysics is so certain as to so massively reinterpret Scripture, why would we take such a strange reading of key biblical passages, saying that when God says He grieves, He means exactly the opposite? Philosophically, he notes that the impulse to a more classical theist view of God comes from ideas about how it is more perfect to not change, or how God must be undisturbed to be perfect. Neither of these seem as intuitive as proponents of the view seem to push. To be fair, some believe in this idea of God because they believe it is what Scripture teaches. But then we must return to the biblical data. And once we do, if we admit that God intentionally wrote Scripture with misleading information about Him, we have more questions. If we can understand the nature of God's statements then, why couldn't the people literally inspired by God? This is not scientific knowledge or practical wisdoms or progressive revelation, fit only to be revealed later--this is the unchanging essence of God. And if we cannot understand the nature of God because these statements are always inadequate to the reality--on the basis of what knowledge do we have a relationship with God? It is hard to imagine a relationship where we do not really know the person who we are in relationship with, but only what they lisp to us, which turns out to be exactly what they are not. My only major complaint with this book (and I am not even sure it is a complaint) is that he does not deal with the more in-depth metaphysical pushes that drive many to a no-risk view of God. I suppose I need to take up the massive volumes of the Thomists.

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

ONE OF THE MOST DETAILED PRESENTATIONS OF "OPEN THEOLOGY"

John E. Sanders is an American theologian who is professor of religious studies at Hendrix College. He has also written/contributed to books such as 'No Other Name: An Investigation into the Destiny of the Unevangelized,' 'The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God,' 'What About Those Who Have Never Heard?: Three Views on the Destiny of the Unevangelized', etc.

After discussing several stories in the gospels, he observes, "The faith of the community seems to have a role in shaping what God actually decides to do." (Pg. 97) He asserts that denying exhaustive divine sovereignty and asserting indeterministic freedom for humans means that "God remains a risk taker", and that "the outcome of the world was not guaranteed prior to God's decision to create this world." (Pg. 206)

He suggests that while he believes that the Incarnation was always planned, human sin threw up a barrier, and "God's planned incarnation had to be adapted in order to overcome it." (Pg. 103) Later, he adds that the promises of God should be understood as "part of the divine project rather than some eternal blueprint, a project in which God has not scripted the way everything in human history will go. God has a goal, but the routes remain open." (Pg. 127)

He argues that "given God's track record, we have reason to trust him, confident in his wisdom." (Pg. 183) He rejects the charge that this position results in a finite God, as "a distinction must be drawn between a self-restricting (or self-limiting) God and a finite God." (Pg. 227) He admits that unless one affirms universalism or double predestination, "it must be concluded that God's project ends in failure for some." (Pg. 230)

Open theology is a highly controversial topic in evangelical circles; but regardless of which side of the debate one is on, this book is an important statement which deserves careful study.

[Steve Irby · Rating 5 out of 5]

I just finished "The God who Risks, A Theology of Providence," by John Sanders.

It has been said by some anonymous person that I act like I always love what I read. What Sam Ponjican doesn't understand is I pick books well. Most of them don't stink.

Speaking of which, this book on providence by Dr Sanders is a masterpiece.

Here is the main thing I will bluntly throw out there, many think open theism is single layered: God doesn't know the future. Dr Sanders lays out a model of God (A God who Risks) who so loves us that He risks many things so we can really, freely love Him back and have a real relationship with Him. His having a real relationship with us took precedence over His getting His every desire. You and I matter that much to Him.

If your mental image of God is immutable, impassive, and atemporal, please read this. Ok, then read it to prove him wrong, but still read it. I'll spot you my copy as long as you don't host a Pelagius-esque book burning with it.

No, this isn't overly academic of a read.

[Paul Dubuc · Rating 5 out of 5]

A study of this book could profoundly change your view of God and God's relationship to humankind and to you in particular. John Sanders has done an in depth biblical, historical, theological and philosophical study of God's nature and relationship to His creation; effectively summarizing the work of others and responding to critics of the first edition of this book. He applies this point of view to many of the problems people face in their relation to God and in the process sheds light on, and hope for, some common misconceptions particularly among other Christians.

The picture of God that emerges from this study is of One who risks being affected by His own creation: humans made in His image with free will and personal agency. In His omnipotence he has decided to create a world according to rules that makes intimate, reciprocal relationship possible between God and people.

It turns out that God is nearer to us than we often think and is motivated by an intense, often incomprehensible love for us. I highly recommend this book, especially for those who have searching questions about God.

[Mike · Rating 4 out of 5]

From some notes I made back in 2001:
Sanders doesn’t have the last word on open theology, and his arguments aren’t always the most logical or well-expressed, but he does have a heart to express the relationship angle that God expresses with us. He might emphasize the risk-taking aspect too much, but he does show the huge importance of love and relationship in God's dealings with the world as a whole, and in His dealings with him, and with me, the reader.

[Meja Paul · Rating 5 out of 5]

If God is all-knowing and all-powerful, can he in any way be vulnerable to his creation? Can God be in control of anything at all if he is not constantly in control of everything?

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

Loved it. Those of us that emerged from a vibrant charismatically-tinged paradigm, this is the theology that fits that schema.

[Mike Joyce · Rating 4 out of 5]

I do not agree with this particular model of God's sovereignty, but Sanders does offer thought-provoking critiques of Calvinist theology which are not to be dismissed out of hand.

[Brady Graves]

For PhD seminar

[Brandon Marcott · Rating 5 out of 5]

Incredible. I've leaned to an open view for years, but this book really solidifies it for me.

[Craig French · Rating 1 out of 5]

At first glance, the length of this volume may lead the reader to think he has an exhaustive attempt at establishing Open View/Open Theism (OT) - such an impression would be false. The "virtues" of OT are primarily psychological in nature and not particularly supernatural. God does what He can if he can - and when he does or says something, he doesn't know if it will be effective. He is resourceful, a divine MacGuyver who is as much a victim of circumstance as we are.

Throughout this book, Sanders relies on the "weight" of sentimental thinking regarding love, but never really delves into the notion of what Scripture means when it says "God is love" - a profound truth with a depth Christians constantly fail to plumb - so Sanders is in good company.

Sanders takes the same road as many in recent years saying that the "traditional" view of God is little more than Greek philosophy.

There's a gaping problem, however: in this book, Sanders acknowledges that there are "traditions" within the "traditional view"; not "tradition" - singular. So whose tradition does he mean? The Eastern one? That is a plural tradition as well with the shift from the Cappadocians to a decidedly apophatic approach (and rejection of divine simplicity, embrace of theosis, and explicit embrace of the Monarchia). The Western? Which one? Augustine was not identical to Aquinas, the Jesuits, nor Luther, Calvin, etc. To write off most tradition(s) as if they are little more than Greek philosophy-lite is weak, at best. In fact, many argue that the doctrine of the Trinity is a product of neoplatonism. One wonders why Sanders arbitrarily stops short of critiquing the Trinity.

Sanders bit off far more than he could chew or he is relying on the ignorance of his readers. If the reader is not aware that he is reading a tendentious synopsis of 2,000 years of theology with a mix of post-liberal "evangelicalizing", he is left with the impression the (weak) positive arguments Sanders presents are strong.

For all the lip-service to depicting God more accurately, this work is woefully lacking leaving little consideration to the Trinity. As noted earlier, the Fathers who were instrumental in bolstering Nicene Triadology are the ones accused of falling victim to "Greek" philosophy. Sanders doesn't seem to be conversant with these Fathers. In fact, one gets the impression that Sanders is largely ignorant on the Trinity, which is ironic given OT is supposedly about God. One might argue that in place of a singular monad of abstract theism, he is supplanted with a different monad perpetuating the Western tendency toward Modalism. Such a criticism is further demonstrated by the fact Sanders writes of "God" primarily without reference to Trinity. Far from distinguishing himself from Western (or "Greek") thinking, he's arguably at least as much a product. Further, that he considers God primarily generically, that is, apart from Trinity, lends one to conclude he's proposing little more than an alternative god of the philosophers.

Further, that Sanders sees openness in Christ's temptation indicates at least two potential heresies: 1) that he has a Nestorian bent where the will of Christ's human nature isn't united to the divine will in one Person. Or, 2) he sees a separate will in the Son from the Father, placing him decidedly within the tritheist camp.

Sanders opens with discussion of language - yet no real consideration is given to the fact of the Divine Logos. Communication, for Sanders, seems to be a human convention attempting to transcend the physical constraints of our created experience...this seems Manichean. Finitude is a prison.

Sanders does a lot of Bible quoting, but manages to ignore the more obvious Scriptures his critics would cite.

The God Who Risks is supposedly the magnum opus for Open Theists but it is only convincing to the already convinced.

In the end, the "open" model reads more like a Greek tragedy than God working toward a consummate marriage feast. One can't help but think that heaven, on the "open" model, is one with a cloud of lingering regret - especially for "god".

[Josh Pannell · Rating 4 out of 5]

Though I painfully moved through every page of this book, I gave it four stars because Sanders defends his view so well.

Sanders believes in open theism, the view that man has libertarian freewill and that God has limited foreknowledge of their decisions. This view hinges on a few things:

1. A dynamic view of time. The past, present, and future do not exist ontologically simultaneously. The future is created through man's decisions. God can only know what is logically possible for him to know. Because the future does not yet exist he cannot know it. However, God does have prefect knowledge of everything that does exist (i.e. everything in the past and present.)

2. A view of "the image of God" in man as dominion and freewill. Because all that the reader knows about God in Genesis 1 is that he creates and when he says things they happen, this is what the image of God in man is. Man has libertarian free will and can actually choose anything at any time.

3. God's love as his supreme attribute. God's love for man means that he allows them to make their own decisions apart from His sovereign rule.

4. A corporate view of election. God chose Christ and all who choose Christ are elect. No person is elect prior to their salvation.

5. God's foreknowledge is his knowing of all possibilities of the future. God predicts and guesses, he knows nothing about the future for certain.

These things make God a God who risks in that he makes himself vulnerable to his creation rejecting what he wants. In his view of Romans 9-11 he says that Israel was chosen by God, but rejected him, for him this proves that God's decrees do not always stand and his election is not final. God chose Abraham because, only after his faith was tested, God knew that he was the kind of person who would follow what God needed him to do. God regretted making man after they rejected him so much so he chose to destroy the earth in Genesis 6. God celebrates risk as seen in the parable of the talents.

----

Biblical support for Open Theism by Matt Slick

God changes His mind.
Exodus 32:14; Numbers 14:11; Deuteronomy. 9:13–14, Deuteronomy 9:18-20; 1 Samuel 2:29-30; 2 Kings 20:1–6; 1 Chronicles 21:15; Jeremiah 18:7–11; Jeremiah 26:3; Jeremiah. 26:19; Ezekiel 33:13–15; Ezekiel 20:21–22; Amos 7:1–6; Jonah 1:2; 3:2; 4-10; Joel 2:13–14

God regrets.
Genesis 6:6; 1 Samuel 15:10-11; Ezekiel 22:29–31

God is surprised.
Isaiah 5:3–7; Jeremiah 3:6-7; Jeremiah 3:19–20

God didn't know what people would do.
1 Kings 22:20-22; Jeremiah 7:31; Jeremiah 19:5; Jeremiah 32:35

God tests people to learn what they will do.
Genesis 22:12; Exodus 16:4; Deuteronomy 8:2; Deuteronomy 13:1–3; Judges 2:21-22; 2 Chronicles 32:31.

God shows uncertainty about the future.
Exodus 4:9; Exodus 13:17; Numbers 14:11; Hosea 8:5; Jeremiah 38:17–18,20; Ezekiel. 12:1–3

[Coryke · Rating 4 out of 5]

Sanders is comprehensive in articulating an Open theology over and against other varieties of Protestant theology - especially Calvinism. He covers the biblical and philosophical grounds very thoroughly. Where Sanders excels is in his fleshing out of the implications of the various theological positions at hand. Sanders is logically rigorous. In these regards, I believe the ratings for Sanders' book should be very high. He accomplishes what he sets out to do. Even those who disagree with Sanders' theology would likely concede to his thoroughness.

As far as the theological view that is put forward, many criticize Sanders for moving too far (to the left?) away from "Classical" theology. Some of what Sanders offers may even make some Wesleyan-Arminian adherents uncomfortable, though I'm just speculating here. If I may, two important points of Sanders books boil down to the following: (1) God's relation to the "future" - does it exists yet? - and how this affects God's knowledge of it. Sanders puts forth a theory of dynamic omniscience wherein God knows everything that is knowable (no Christian theologian would disagree), but the future is not knowable because it does not yet exist. I am, in no way, doing justice to the way Sanders articulates his position. (2) Does God interact with us - or, can He be moved / affected by us? In short, for Sanders, the answer is yes. Sanders goes to great lengths to suggest that God may be affected by human beings because this is how God orchestrated his creation. He could have chosen otherwise, but to Sanders, it appears that he did not. God's ability to react to humanity is what allows for genuine relationship of creator and his creation.

My own thoughts about theology don't really matter here as they do not affect the book itself. I, personally, get a little frustrated with book reviews that hammer a book ruthlessly because the reviewer does not like the theology. That's the right of the reviewer, I suppose, but I find it less helpful when making an assessment of a book. Just to be clear though, I think my theology would differ from Sanders on many points, though not in the direction of many reviewers. I found that Sanders does not go far enough for me, but, again, this does not take away from what Sanders has accomplished here.

[John Barbour · Rating 5 out of 5]

The God Who Risks


By John Sanders
This is a book about theology; not the dry and dusty kind about God as a concept or idea or theological construct or 1st mover but a personal God that loves and saves. Sanders contrasts what he calls the classical view of God with what he labels Free will theism. Noting that the free will tradition is actually the older one, he acknowledges the dominance of the classical view. But this is more than just the old Arminian – Calvinist / Free will – determinist debate. He shows how within the free will tradition, the openness idea makes more sense philosophically , biblically, and practically.

What’s at stake can be summarized by Sanders’ evaluation of the classical view; what he calls exhaustive divine sovereignty and its implications. (pages 224-225). “Hence, if Susan has a job with excellent benefits, it is because God specifically wanted that to happen and it serves a specific good purpose in Gods’ plan, even if Susan does not know it. If Susan is raped and dismembered, it is because God specifically wanted that to happen and it serves a specific good purpose in Gods’ plan, even if Susan does not know it.” Or later on page 225 he says, “Finally, exhaustive divine sovereignty appears to pit Jesus against the Father. Jesus washed the disciple’s feet and instructed them that Christian leaders were to emulate this style of leadership. In my opinion, the church leadership has not done a good job of fulfilling Jesus’ intention. But is the Father gets exactly what He wants, then what has transpire in the history of the church is precisely what the Father intended. If Jesus desires that Christians love and forgive one another instead of domineering over one another.”

[Abigail · Rating 4 out of 5]

First, the admitted bias: my theology in large part aligns with Sanders. That's not only because I read this book, but he has been influential in the forming of my theological views.

That being said, this is a good book. Very approachable, yet not trite. It strikes me as odd to say this, but Sanders knows his stuff - he writes knowledgeably, with an eye to thorough argumentation. It's also a beautiful book, but I suspect I say that because I find the theology contained in this book to be beautiful.

It can be very repetitive, though, and I found Sander's language to be annoyingly colloquial at times.

[Devin Morris · Rating 5 out of 5]

Read it through several times this year for my MDIV guided research. Sanders has the best articulation for this Open Theist position IMO. Rather than recount everything he does differently than say Boyd, I'll simply note he works through more biblical passages than anyone else while also addressing the more theological and philosophical positions.

[Chris · Rating 2 out of 5]

I didn't particularly like when I first read it. One day I will have to take a more balanced look. In general, his interpretation of the Bible is poor and I don't agree with the whole Open Theism thing at all. It does provide a corrective to overly Calvinistic evangelicalism.

[Brian Townsend · Rating 4 out of 5]

Crazy book! basically is anti-Calvin to the extreme. Not only does it argue for free-will but that the future in many ways is unknowable to God because He is working with us to create it. Check it out Scott!

[Tom · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great book if you're interested in the subject. I read the first edition. This is the revised addition which I understand has some significant improvements. No view out there isn't bailing SOME water. Open theism is just bailing less than others (in my view).

[Janet Laminack]

I didn't finish this book, but I don't think I ever will. It was good just too intense for me. Maybe I'll pick it back up someday.

[Bill Mech]

Marvelous. I love the use of relationality in God as the organizing theme of Sanders' theology. It resonates with the experience of all who claim to have a "relationship" with God.

[Christopher Rose · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good primer for Open Theists, but I prefer the Gregory Boyd's A Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy. It is a bit more holistic and complete.