23
kind of action that inhibits human growth and responsibility." It "implies the wrong kind of
divine activity in relation to the world, a kind that encourages passivity on the part of human
beings."
76
McFague's rigid use of logic drives a wedge between these two "models."
Most troubling is the panentheism of McFague's model, which results in a blurring of the
Creator-creature distinction, a non-negotiable postulate of orthodox Christianity. But her main
problem for our purposes is her bias towards the God-traits of unqualified love, nurturance, and
care. This favoritism presses her analysis into the caricature she senses but still affirms, because
her rigid use of the LONC makes it impossible for her to reconcile God's rule over humanity
with his care for humanity, his supremacy with our well-being, and his holiness with his love.
She understands these two sets of characteristics to be ultimately contradictory, mutually
exclusive, and undermining of each other.
An Open God
Though there are sympathies between the foregoing models and the open view of God,
the latter offers an understanding of God closer to historic Christianity since it posits definite
personhood to God (contra McFague) and maintains a strong Creator-creature distinction (contra
both McFague and Ogden). Nevertheless, open theism also departs from the historic Christian
view of God. Here, we shall limit ourselves to considering one open theist's treatment of the
relation of God's sovereignty to human actions.
Christians within the historic tradition have wrestled with this topic for centuries. This is
because, as noted above, Scripture teaches both that God foreknows all that happens, and yet
God and humans can genuinely interact and humans are responsible for their actions, all of
which provides a challenge for human reason. Open theism, however, departs from both the