Guest post by Christopher Fisher

From a blog post by TC Moore:

Open Theism has a serious PR problem. In fact, it has several. For starters, the name is terrible. It simply doesn’t clearly communicate the view’s central tenet: the partially indeterminate nature of the future. Which is understandable, since the central tenet is obscure and unsexy.

TC Moore is correct: Open Theism has a branding problem, but not for the reason he thinks.

Open is a great label. The current computer trends are Open Source, Open Worlds, and Open Standards. Open means free. Open doors lead to freedom. Open living rooms and open kitchens populate the United States.

Open should be capitalized as a brand. If the brand is failing, it is not due to the “Open” term. It is due to the PR campaign. The focus of most Open Theists is our own freedom. What our focus should be is God’s freedom.

God is open. God is free. God is powerful. God is love. God can do what He wishes. No one can change the image of God into the closed idols that He despises. God describes himself as living and dynamic. God is the God of relationships and defines Himself by them (“the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob”).

Open Theism should focus on God. God is not chained. God is not closed. God is not confined. God is not static. God is not an idol.

That should be the debate. That should be the branding. God is open and free.