US National Board: The Open Theism and Inclusivism Debate

Part 1

Most of the business of the US National Board focused on issues swirling around one person: Dr. John Sanders, a professor at Huntington College. His, and other people's, writings on Open Theism and Inclusivism have sparked major controversy in the evangelical community. As one of the most-cited proponents of these positions, Dr. Sanders has drawn plenty of attention to Huntington College and to the United Brethren church. From the church's perspective, this has not been desirable attention, because his views on these issues do not reflect the teachings of our denomination.

Open Theism, in particular, diverges greatly from traditional United Brethren teaching. For this reason, many UB people have been up in arms not only that Dr. Sanders has been teaching theology to future United Brethren ministers, but that his high visibility in this broader debate has been coloring Huntington College and the United Brethren church as Open Theism institutions.

While it would be very difficult finding UBs who embrace Open Theism, Inclusivism is a somewhat different animal. There are UBs who are outraged by the concept, quick to label it as heresy; and there are many UBs who accept at least certain aspects of Inclusivism. It's very polarizing. So while there's general agreement that Open Theism doesn't belong in United Brethren circles, Inclusivism finds more sympathy.

Open Theism and Inclusivism

These doctrines are very complicated, and a layperson like myself can make a fool of himself trying to explain them. But I'll try anyway.

Open Theism. The part which gets people most upset concerns foreknowledge--does God know the future? Open Theism says God knows everything there is to know--all of the past and all of the present. But since the future hasn't happened yet, he doesn't know it. Obviously, this has many ramifications (like prophecy), and the Open Theists have explanations which they base in Scripture. But it's just not palatable to the typical United Brethren.

Inclusivism. This deals with the destiny of the unevangelized. What happens to people who never hear about Christ? Can they be saved? Can God draw people to himself all by Himself, without them ever hearing the specific Good News of Jesus Christ? We can agree that people can be saved only based on what Christ did on the cross. But can a person reach out to God (as Old Testament people did) and be saved, based on what Christ did, without information about Jesus Christ? Some say yes, some no, and there are shades of in-between.

That's a very simple explanation from an unabashedly theologically-untrained layman. If you want to learn more about these views as explained by Dr. Sanders, go here for info on Open Theism and here for info on some information about common misconceptions about these views.

Michindoh Conference sounded the alarm long before anyone else, and a special review committee, appointed by HC President Blair Dowden, was appointed in early 2001 as a result. But everything came to a boil last fall when the Huntington College Board of Trustees, in a very close vote, promoted Dr. Sanders to the next academic level, full professor. Rather than rehash the background here, I suggest you read the letters which Bishop Paul Hirschy and HC President Blair Dowden mailed last November to all UB ministers. Those will get you up to speed.

The pot has continued boiling for several months now, simmering only recently as people waited for the US National Board to meet. Bishop Paul Hirschy wanted the Church to express itself on these issues, so that the Board of Trustees would clearly understand where the Church stood. He chose the denominational Commission on Ministry as the group to prepare statements on Open Theism and Inclusivism. They studied the issues and submitted a report to the US National Board.

In March, with the US National Board meeting creeping up quickly, it looked like the Commission on Ministry might not be able to reach agreement. The Executive Leadership Team, not wanting a divided report to come to the US National Board, decided to launch an alternate initiative. An ad hoc committee was appointed to come up with a practical resolution--not a theological statement, but specific things that the College could to do to at least partially alleviate the concerns on the Church side. So that group prepared its own report.

Then, as it turned out, the Commission on Ministry did reach unanimous agreement on theological statements. So we had the best of both worlds.

Then April 24 arrived.

Part 2