Taking God's Sovereignty Too Far?

Today in our Sunday school class, the teacher spoke on the subject "What every Christian should know about SIN".  Naturally, the subject of evil, it's origin, and effect on creation was high on his list of discussion topics.

The teacher, coming from a strongly Calvinistic viewpoint, emphasized the soverignty of God while maintaining that God allowed sin, but did not originate sin.  From this perspective, there really is no reason sin must exist, except to create a problem for which there is only one solution: Jesus Christ.

This is obviously (at least to me) a pretty weak argument, and I suspect most who hold to it would recognize this.  That's why the age-old fall back of "mystery" is so often peddled as the stop-gap between our common sense and the weaknesses of a particular theological position.

During the Q&A portion of the class, someone brought up the solution to this problem I think is most viable: That evil is the result of God's choice to give us the ability to sin; Evil exists in the world because a world without freedom is a world without love. We were created by God to love him, and true love cannot be forced.

The response from the teacher was something about being cautious that we don't undermine God's sovereignty, and the mystery of the balance between God's control over everything (including our choices) and the fact that God holds us responsible for our choices.

Why is it so horrible to suggest that God might choose to limit himself, specifically that he might limit his power over our own choices?

It's not like there isn't any biblical precident:  The doctrince of divine kenosis (self-limiting) in the person of Jesus is well known and accepted.  Why is it so scandalous to suggest that God would choose to limit himself in other ways?  Isn't that the story of Adam and Eve; That God gives them the REAL choice to obey or not?  Haven't we distorted this story into something else in order to defend the soverignty of God?

And I won't even mention open theology. (oh, wait... I just did)

Am I missing something, or is it plainly obvious that God's choice to limit himself does not diminish his sovereignty in any way?

What's the big deal?

Boyd's "Letters From a Skeptic"

This is my first post in two months. The reasons for this blogging silence are several. For one, it's summer and I have lots of other things to do . But I've also been taking a pretty deep dive into the NPP (by reading this book with a couple friends and also frequently sampling these three books.) I'm sure I'll blog on that later. Anyway, my apologies to all three of my loyal readers!

Another drain on my time has been my fledgling book business (the details of which shall remain a closely guarded secret). One side benefit of this enterprise has been the acquisition of some very interesting books at almost no cost. When I see something that piques my interest, or lines up with an already established interest, I get it. So today I acquired a book that I'm excited to read: Letters From a Skeptic - A Son Wrestles with His Father's Questions about Christianity by Gregory A. Boyd.

Although I've never read any of Boyd's books, I've heard plenty about him, and I've been meaning to grab one and page through it. Boyd intrigues me from two different perspectives:

On the one side, he has an approach to the Bible and to faith that really resonates with me. He believes in evolution, which shows me that he doesn't ignore the historical and literary contexts of the Hebrew Bible. His views on politics, (although I've not read The Myth of a Christian Nation and don't have much interest in politics) I agree with. His refusal to endorse Republican candidates from the pulpit and insistence that non-violence and love should be our national model (since that's what Jesus teaches) both ring true with me. Most interestingly, he is one of the leading proponents of open theism, a view of God's knowledge that suggests the partial openness of the future, where God's foreknowledge consists only of a realm of possibilities, since man, whom he created and endowed with the ability to choose, has not yet made these choices.

With that resume, one might expect him to be a pretty liberal Christian. But...

On the other side of the coin, he is a Baptist. [Gasp!] A member of the same Baptist affiliation (the BGC) as the uber-Calvinist John Piper, these two are sure to clash, (and have). Sure, as events at my church plainly show, the label "Baptist" doesn't mean much these days. But being a member of the BGC does mean something (as the scuffle between Boyd and Piper shows), it means Boyd isn't a liberal Christian. Boyd has also been an outspoken critic of liberal historical Jesus scholars, especially those of the Jesus Seminar.

In any case, the book is interesting to me for more reasons than it's authorship. First, although I'm true to my generation in that I shun labels, I think I would be hard-pressed to argue that I am not a skeptic. Second, the book is about a conversation between Boyd and his father where they discuss real, hard, honest questions about Christianity. My own relationship with my Dad has been similar, although more off-and-on and addressing different questions.

The most interesting thing about this book is that it addresses several (if not all) of what I've come to call THE BIG FIVE. In this recent post, I listed my top five "understandings I'm seeking;" issues with the Bible and faith that I don't understand and that often affect my faith. I was excited when I opened Boyd's book and immediately saw that at least three of the five were addressed directly, while the other two were likely discussed as peripheral issues in other chapters.

As I read the book (or at least the most relevant sections) I'll post on each of the BIG FIVE and how Boyd's thoughts in his book relate to each.