2 of 4

But Nicole's disagreements with Openness Theism were high-minded and principled, and did not offer the slightest hint of animus. So moved was Clark Pinnock that he stood at the close of Nicole's presentation to say that he felt closer to Nicole now than he ever had. As the crowd milled about during their break, Nicole and Pinnock embraced.

Later Wednesday morning, Pinnock had his turn at the microphone. He talked about how much the challenge to his membership hurt. "But thanks be to God," he said, "what began as an experience of tension filled with anxiety has turned around and became something very different, an experience of grace mixed with truth." Regarding the process by which the membership challenge was handled, Pinnock said, "The exchange of ideas and the way in which I was handled by the committee was exemplary and a model of truth seeking and fairness."

"They had a chance to nail me when they spotted a careless expression," he added, "but they did not. They wanted to hear me out and not rush to judgment. … Nothing remotely like a witch hunt occurred."

The rapprochement between former adversaries was largely due to the careful process of investigation and dialogue conducted by the ETS executive committee. Following an extended discussion on October 3 with Nicole, Southern Seminary professor Bruce Ware, and the executive committee, Pinnock offered to revise an alarmingly ambiguous footnote in his book Most Moved Mover. The note appeared to deny that God fulfilled several biblical prophecies. Over the next few weeks, he produced a new footnote affirming instead that God often fulfilled his prophecies in surprising and unexpected ways. The new footnote satisfied both the executive committee and Nicole, and the executive committee voted nine to zero to recommend against expelling Pinnock from membership.

Probabilistic prophecy
The investigation had not turned out so favorably for John Sanders. Like Clark Pinnock, Sanders clarified and retracted certain things he had written in The God Who Risks. But the October 3 discussion centered on his belief that biblical prophecies were not certain (since God does not actually know the future), but were instead probabilistic. The nine-member executive committee unanimously agreed that Sanders's understanding of prophecy meant that his affirmation of biblical inerrancy implied something quite different from what the framers of the ETS doctrinal basis meant and from what the vast majority of the ETS membership believes. Nevertheless, only seven members of the committee recommended that the charges against Sanders be sustained by the membership. Two members produced a minority report that demurred for several reasons, including the fact that ETS had never formally defined what it actually meant by inerrancy.

Debate preceding the vote was passionate, but not pyrotechnic. An orderly procession of scholars lined up at floor microphones, alternating pro and con speakers. The issues discussed included whether Open Theism was compatible with inerrancy, whether the meaning of inerrancy was clear enough for the purposes of the disciplinary action, and whether the ETS would remain an organization in which people felt free to speak freely.

Historian Richard Pierard of Gordon College, a former ETS president, worried aloud about what expelling these theologians would do to the ETS's credibility as a learned society. "This sort of action engenders the suspicion among our colleagues that we are a narrow-minded bunch of squabblers who are not serious about our scholarly obligations."

next page... |  2 of 4

share this page

November (Web-only) 2003, Vol. 47