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. However, good PR is designed to fix that. Instead the name "Open theism" invokes the idea that it is a type of theism (which already sounds way too general) that is "open" to other theisms. "Open theism" sounds like the perfect name for a type of religious pluralism that considers every possible theism valid—making it very "open." Secondly, with the exception of Greg Boyd and perhaps a few others, the theology scholars who have written in favor of Open theism are not charismatic personalities. Most are pure academics. Already this creates a disconnect between the intended audience—Christian laypersons—and the author. This is only exacerbated when the academic author communicates as if he (and they are almost entirely men too) is writing to his academic colleagues. Finally, the most prominent Open theist authors are by and large not very culturally or technologically savvy. Therefore, you don't see the proliferation of well-designed, strategically-marketed materials promoting their view. By contrast, Neo-Calvinism resources are extremely well-designed and strategically-marketed. Therefore, it isn't very difficult to understand why that view is gaining more and more ground in the US each day.

Ironically, this failure of Open theism to be a cunning manager of social capital in a consumer culture actually testifies strongly to its authenticity. I know this because I am a designer and a creative. I am constantly thinking about product branding, marketing, and public relations. And as an Open theist, I am painfully aware of how poorly our view is publicly portrayed. Nevertheless, this means the view has not been commandeered by those who are culturally-savvy and interested only it is value as a consumable product. The lack of enticing, attractive marketing means Open theism is still primarily a grass-roots movement that hasn't sold out to corporate interests.

The best analogy I can think of to illustrate this point is hip hop. In my adolescence, I loved knowing about a particular hip hop artist or group that few others had ever heard of. For example, I remember being incredibly impressed by a fiery white emcee out of Detroit who was featured on an "underground" battle-style mixtape. This emcee of course was Eminem and went on to immense international fame. Likewise, I remember the buzz that surrounded an up-and-coming emcee named Canibus vividly. He was an insanely talented lyricist and battle-rapper, but still relatively unknown, until he chose LL Cool J as the target on whom to build his fame. LL Cool J demolished him due in large part to his vast media influence and stellar reputation, not his superior battling prowess. The new kid on the block didn't stand a chance.

One could say Open theism is still "underground." It's like the Wu-Tang Clan in the mid-90s, before they released Wu-Tang Forever. Open theism is an underground sensation that hasn't been adopted and perverted by the mainstream—yet.

You know who has fantastic PR? Republicans. Especially the ultra-Right-wing Republicans. The more wacko, Right-wing they are, the better their PR strategies seem to be. Stephen Colbert recently did an interview with a political strategist named Frank Luntz. Luntz is noted for turning such undesirable phrases as "drilling for oil" into "energy exploration." Also, "climate change" instead of "global warming." His motto is, "It's not what you say, it's what they hear."

If Open theism was as cynical as Neo-Calvinism, which replaced Calvinism with the "Doctrines of Grace," perhaps Open theism could be known as the "Doctrines of Freedom" or the "Doctrines of Love."

Avoiding "Controversy"

Roger Olson, a noted Arminian history scholar who teaches at Baylor University, pointed out another challenge Open theism has faced and continues to face which is also tied to its PR. Olson points out that Open theism has been banned and labeled "heretical" by many seminaries, theological groups, and denominations NOT because it has been demonstrated to actually contain heretical tenets (which it clearly doesn't)—but because its opponents have succeeded in merely getting the view to be considered "controversial." Calvinists, who are Open theisms most vehement opponents have utterly failed to demonstrate in their myriad books that Open theism is a Christian heresy, because all its proponents affirm the historic creeds of the Church and the vast majority are US American, evangelical Protestant Christians. For example, Greg Boyd and John Piper, who are excellent representatives of both sides, are pastors in the very same Baptist denomination.

Now that Neo-Calvinists and other traditional Classical Theists have succeeded in winning the PR war by convincing millions of US American Christians that the view is "controversial," there is no longer an urgency to prove that the view is heretical. Instead, people assume it is, and the view's opponents can misrepresent the view with reckless abandon knowing an extremely small percentage of their flocks will investigate the view themselves.

Branding Open Theology

All these thoughts and quesions have weighed heavy on my mind lately, not just because of Olson's excellent article, but also because of the relatively new potential for there to be an Open Theology Convention. This prospect rapidly propells Open theology into an entirely new realm of PR and corporate identity. How will this movement evolve? Will it continue to maintain its grass-roots ethos? Or will it become too big too fast? Will it continue to fail at effectively marketing itself to the millions of potential adherents it has in Western evangelical churches? Or will it quickly adapt to become a tech and marketing-savvy presence in an already highly commercial Christian consumer culture?

These are important questions to me, but for which I have no real answers at this time. I am hopeful for this movement. It has ingrained in its very DNA, an egalitarian and essentially conservative organizational structure. There are no inordinately dominate figures, and there are no weighty stakes involved. So far.