I initially borrowed this book from a friend (May), but since bought a copy. Brother JRS also highly recommended it and has read all of Boyd's books (Letters from a Skeptic, God at War, ...). Boyd, along with Clark Pinnock and others is arguing for an "Open" theology in which God doesn't know all aspects of the future, since he allows us humans (and angels) to have truly free wills and some say-so in what happens.
He criticizes the classical view (that God foreknows and controls every detail of unfolding history) as being unduly infatuated with Plato's conception of "unchanging, timeless reality" (130). He discusses many scripture passages in which God is said to:
1) change his mind based on input from people he loves
2) truly not know how people will respond to him
He emphasizes that if we simply let the Bible speak here (instead of applying out Platonic preconceptions), it is clear that God has ceded to humans a measure of his sovereignty in the form of some "say-so" in what happens. Humans truly have the freedom to thwart God's plans and even to break his heart.
He is careful to note that the future is partly settled and partly open, since God has clearly said he will eventually triumph over Satan and his minions and work his plan for the redemption of his creation.
One interesting sub-theme is Boyd's observation that we tend to equate "sovereignty" with "control." Boyd suggests that this misunderstanding arises from the "natural inclination of fallen humans to exalt power and control" (148) and that a better understanding of God's sovereignty is his love. Because of his love, he empowers us with a true choice to respond to his love or not, giving us the real possibility to grieve him, and most illustrative, sent his only Son to die for us. This, Boyd says, is true sovereignty, strength and power. Boyd criticizes Calvinism (149) for glorifying that God can and does exercise absolute control over his creation, including condemning millions to eternal suffering. Boyd's view is that this kind of God would not deserve glorification and that glorying in power and control is pagan in nature.
Like most attempts to theologize, there are difficult scripture passages that seem to contradict Boyd's theory. He deals with these and offers explanations and reinterpretations that fit better with his theory. He also admits that his theory challenges the long-standing classical view of God but cautions that we shouldn't reject it just for that reason (after all, the Reformation challenged the reigning theories too).
Another story that sticks with me involves a young woman Boyd counseled after giving a sermon on how God directs our paths (103-6). This young woman had lived what sounded like a perfect Christian life and felt God had definitely guided her to marry her husband. However, 2 years after their marriage, he began to cheat on her and the marriage ended in divorce. These events left her emotionally destroyed and spiritually bankrupt. She "could not fathom how the Lord could respond to her lifelong prayers by setting her up with a man he knew would do this to her" (105). Boyd agreed with her that if God knew exactly what her husband would do, then God bears responsibility for setting her up. However, Boyd offered her an alternative understanding: God regreted directing her to marry the man. At that time, he was a good man with a Godly character, but he changed and suprised both God and her. Over time, and through a series of choices, he opened himself up to the enemy's influence. When God and others tried to restore him, he resisted the prompting of the spirit and consequently his heart grew darker.
A key to understanding Boyd's view is the scary realization that others have the power to affect us as well as God, and that their actions or decisions may harm us. Terrible things can and do happen in the world, and it isn't helpful to suppose that God is the author of each of them.
In his section of the book discussing practical differences resulting from believing in the open view, Boyd raises some interesting points. He first stresses that the open view makes sense, allowing our rational minds to understand God's involvement in his creation. This is in contrast to the classical view, which involves several mysteries and even apparent contradictions in Boyd's view (e.g. the theodicy problem).
Another interesting point he makes is the effect of the open view on a person's "mental picture of God" (92). Boyd says there is often a difference in what we say and think we believe and what we actually believe. He gives for example the knee-jerk response of most Christians that they believe God is Love. Yet many may not have been well-loved and may not feel loved by God and thus may not be in the process of actually being transformed by God's love. The picture of God they really hold may come instead from an unloving earthly father or other negative life experiences instead of from the Bible.
...to be continued