“You don't have to be responsible for the world you're in!"

Since Reppert has decided to broach the hackneyed issue of how Calvinism and evangelism interrelate, and since Reppert has often declared his sympathies for open theism, I’ll take the opportunity to explore the issue of how evangelism and neotheism interrelate.

Let’s begin by asking why Christians should feel at all responsible for the fate of the lost. The question of responsibility is, of course, often thought to be a problem for Calvinism. Since I and others have dealt with that objection on many occasions, I won’t repeat myself here. Instead, I’ll redirect the question.

To put the question in a larger perspective, let’s ask how an atheist would address the question of our social responsibilities. On a Sunday walk with John von Neumann, Richard Feyman once got into a conversation with him about our social responsibilities. He was startled to hear Neumann exclaim that “you don't have to be responsible for the
world you're in!”

Neumann’s remark draws attention to the implicitly reciprocal dynamic of responsibility. I’m responsible for others if, directly or indirectly, I’m responsible to others. Neumann didn’t feel responsible for the world at large because he didn’t feel responsible to the world at large.

That’s in part because, as an atheist, he had nothing to do with the world in which he found himself. He didn’t choose to be born here. Or to be born at all.

Of course, a Christian can say the same thing. But there’s a world of difference. As an atheist, Neumann had no sense of gratitude to the world, for the world didn’t intend that he exist. If he did well for himself, he didn’t have the world to thank for that. The world was indifferent to his existence. It didn’t mean him good or ill. It didn’t care. He was simply a fleeting link in a chain of physical contingencies. So the world was in no position to obligate him. It did him to conscious favors. It was a thing–like the air your breathe.

By contrast, an orthodox Christian has a sense of social obligations because God had obligated him. And God is in a position to obligate him because God is his Creator and Redeemer.

Each individual Christian exists because God made him. Chose to make that unique individual. Had him specifically in mind. If he is blessed, that’s because God intended to bless him. To bless him in particular. It’s directed at him, for his personal benefit.

But, in that respect, open theism isn’t much different from atheism. In open theism, God doesn’t foreknow the counterfactuals of freedom.

If you exist, that’s the byproduct of God’s creative fiat. But God didn’t know that he was making you. In open theism, God is said (arbitrarily, I might add) to know all possibilities. But that’s like a gambler who knows all possible combinations in a deck of cards. What he doesn’t know is which card will be the next card. He can only guess.

In open theism, God doesn’t know, when he chooses to create one possible world rather than another, which world contains you. And he doesn’t know your fate. He can’t know what will happen to you–for better or worse.

So, logically speaking, I’d expect an open theist to have the same thankless, loveless attitude as John von Neumann. Don’t get involved! That’s none of my business!

The God of open theism is a cosmic sperm donor. He doesn’t know where his donated sperm will end up. It may stay frozen. It may be used in cloning to create organ farms. It may wind up in the womb of some women the donor never knew. The God of neotheism is a donor, not a father.

If you were the fortuitous offspring of a sperm donor, would you feel any sense of filial duty or gratitude to your biological father? I can’t imagine why.

Because open theism logically undercuts any sense of social obligation in general, it undercuts any motive to evangelize in particular.