ABSTRACT
This chapter addresses the intersection of open theism and the pastoral problem of evil. It argues that, in spite of what Greg Boyd claims, open theism's implications actually make the pastoral problem of evil more difficult. Boyd explained that he indeed rejected the concept of substitutionary atonement. He opposed understanding the divine economy in a way that implied every bit of Christ's sacrifice had to be accounted for in some particular sin or other. The loving character shown in the picture of the atonement is inconsistent with a God who would act harmfully to the author in other circumstances. The chapter focuses on God's moral trustworthiness and not the trustworthiness of His sovereign ability. Boyd locates open theism's advantage, in responding to the pastoral problem of evil, in the relationship between love and freedom as characterized by the open view.
