God Becoming Incarnate With Cooperation
By Jaden Francis Marker
Introduction
One of the oldest and most essential Marian doctrines of the Catholic Church, (shared by the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and some Protestant traditions), is that the Blessed Virgin Mary is the Mother of God. This doctrine is anchored in the Koine Greek term Theotokos, which translates literally to “God-bearer.” While the underlying theological concept traces back to the earliest centuries of Christian history, the Council of Ephesus in 431 CE formally decreed it as official Church teaching.[1] The council was convened to resolve widespread confusion generated by Nestorius, the Archbishop of Constantinople.[2] Nestorius argued that Mary gave birth only to the human nature of Jesus (Christotokos), rather than the Divine Logos: The eternal, uncreated divine nature.[3] His primary opponents, Cyril of Alexandria and Eusebius of Dorylaeum, championed the orthodox position, charging Nestorius with dangerously dividing and detaching the two natures unified in the single person of Jesus Christ.[4]
Fast forward to 1964 CE, when the Catholic Church reaffirmed this ancient title during the Second Vatican Council within its dogmatic constitution, Lumen Gentium. Led by Pope Paul VI, the council fathers initially debated creating a separate, highly ecumenical Marian document to accommodate Protestant sensitivities. Ultimately, however, with the Pope’s blessing, they chose to integrate Mary’s status directly into the heart of the Church’s primary ecclesial document. By doing so, Vatican II explicitly aligned itself with the findings of the Council of Ephesus, reinforcing that Mary is truly the Mother of God.[5]
What, then, does it mean for Mary to be the Theotokos? Crucially, it does not mean that Mary created God, nor does it imply that the divine nature originated from her.[6] Rather, because Jesus possesses two natures in one divine person, Mary is the mother of the person of Jesus Christ, who is fully divine and fully human.[7] Historically, this term was defended using the categories of classical theism. Yet, paradoxically, a rigorous examination of the Theotokos doctrine fundamentally undermines several core tenets of classical theism itself.
Where classical theism portrays God as entirely self-sufficient, independent, and impassible, the Theotokos reveals a God who willingly enters a state of maternal dependence. If God became human, God endured growth, vulnerability, and physical pain; contradicting the classical idea that God cannot suffer or change (impassibility and immutability). Furthermore, while classical theism dictates that God is entirely outside of time, entering human history through a womb means the divine experienced the linear weight of temporality.
Can such an ancient Marian doctrine harmonize with an Open-and-Relational understanding of God? As an Open-and-Relational Roman Catholic, I argue that it not only fits, but that it thrives. This essay will explore the profound implications of the Theotokos that classical theism traditionally explains away. I contend that the Blessed Virgin Mary as the Theotokos proves that God is a deeply relational Being who chooses to rely on others, suffer, change, and exist in relationship with time. Furthermore, I will demonstrate that it is philosophically inconsistent to truly affirm the divine motherhood of Mary while maintaining the strictures of classical theism. Finally, I will illustrate why an Open-and-Relational Catholic framework provides a far more coherent and beautiful home for this ancient dogma.
Part One: God Is A Deeply Relational Being
One of the primary critiques leveled against classical theism by Open-and-Relational theologians is its failure to account for a genuinely relational God. This flaw is highly evident in the classical doctrine of actus purus (pure actuality), a term used to describe the absolute perfection of God. It posits that because God is the “unmoved mover,” there is no potentiality within the divine essence; God is an entirely realized act.[8] However, as theologian Gregory Boyd notes in his critique of pure actuality, this concept struggles against the reality of the Incarnation.[9] A child growing in wisdom and stature within a womb is the very definition of potentiality.[10] Furthermore, Boyd points out that God’s sovereign acts, such as the free choice to create the universe, inherently imply a transition from potentiality to actuality.[11] Finally, treating potentiality as an imperfection is deeply counter-intuitive to human experience, where potential represents the beautiful capacity for growth, love, and creativity.[12]
A parallel issue arises with the classical concept of unconditional causality, which asserts that God is the primary cause who unfailingly produces every effect by His own nature or force.[13] Under this framework, nothing occurs independently, reducing all creaturely actions to secondary causes of a singular divine will.[14] Open and relational thinkers routinely expose the severe flaws of this view. Unconditional causality completely erases genuine human free will. If our choices are predetermined by an all-determining divine cause, our moral obedience to God’s commands becomes an illusion. Consequently, this view strips moral agents of responsibility; if God unconditionally causes all things, then God becomes the ultimate author of evil and human sin.[15]
Ultimately, classical theism reduces the relationship between God and creation to a stark asymmetry. Even Thomas Aquinas famously argued that while humanity possesses a real relation (relatio realis) to God, God only possesses a relation of reason (relatio rationis) to creation.[16] In this view, we are vitally dependent on God, but creation remains metaphysically irrelevant to the divine reality, adding absolutely nothing to God’s experience.[17] Classical theism implies that God would remain entirely indifferent and unchanged had the universe never been made. Yet, Christian Scriptures paint a radically different picture, testifying to a deeply mutual, symmetrical relationship where human choices move, grieve, and delight the divine heart.[18] Classical theism looks at this vibrant, reciprocal love and effectively declares that creation is ultimately unneeded and unwanted by the Divine. The Theotokos, however, offers a radical course correction.
With these core tenets of classical theism established, it becomes clear why the dogma of Mary as the Theotokos (God-bearer) presents a profound philosophical challenge to the tradition. To call Mary the Mother of God means she is truly His mother, yet classical theism dictates that God is entirely immutable, impassible, and uncaused. While the Council of Ephesus and Lumen Gentium clarify that Mary did not generate Christ’s eternal divine nature, they firmly assert that she gave birth to the Divine Person of the Word according to His humanity. Consequently, at a specific point in time, the changeless God chose to enter the realm of potentiality and causation by becoming incarnate. He was “moved” from Heaven to Earth and entered into a real, contingent relationship, that of a dependent child to a mother. Because classical theism traditionally maintains that God has no “real relations” (relatio realis) with creation, this introduces a stark paradox.
Advocates of classical theism often attempt to resolve this tension by invoking the communicatio idiomatum (the communication of attributes), arguing that change and temporal relationships apply strictly to Christ’s human nature, not His immutable divine essence.[19] However, pushing this distinction too far risks inadvertently reviving Nestorianism by neatly sectioning off the two natures. If the divine Word is not the actual subject experiencing these human realities, the hypostatic union fractures. Because Christ is a single, undivided divine person who is simultaneously fully human and fully divine, what is predicated of His human nature must be predicated of His person. Consequently, Mary is not merely the mother of human nature, but truly the Mother of God (Theotokos).
By affirming Mary as the Theotokos, Christian theology recognizes that God enters into a genuinely reciprocal relationship with a human creature. Critically, this represents a completely novel state for the divine reality. Prior to the Incarnation, the triune God had never experienced the world through the vulnerability of a child reliant upon a mother. The Incarnation means that God did not merely look down upon human development; rather, the divine person lived the actual, historical reality of growing, learning, and maturing.[20] Within a classical framework where God is pure, unchanging actuality (actus purus), such a novel relational development is impossible. However, it is entirely consistent with a God who dynamically enters time and genuinely changes in relationship with creation.
Open-and-Relational Theology provides a far more coherent framework for understanding Mary as the Mother of God than classical theism. Under a classical view, Mary’s yes (fiat) at the Annunciation is effectively predetermined, a one-sided, almost robotic compliance dictated by an immutable decree. In contrast, Open-and-Relational Theology reclaims the true depth of her assent. By framing God’s relationship with creation as genuinely reciprocal, Mary’s response becomes a free, consensual act of partnership. Her “yes” was not just a scripted reaction, but a vital contribution that brought something genuinely new into the divine experience.
In classical theism, the Incarnation is often viewed as a “rupture” into creation—a moment where God broke established metaphysical rules to become vulnerable and enter into relationships with humanity. However, if we view both creation and Christ as God’s primary revelations, a different picture emerges. Through them, we see a God who has always been inherently self-giving, self-sacrificing, and deeply intertwined with the cosmos. Rather than a violation of His nature, God becoming incarnate in Mary’s womb perfectly aligns with the themes of vulnerability and relationality championed by Open and Relational Theology.
Part Two: God Depends On Others
Classical theism conceptualizes God as entirely independent and self-sufficient, requiring no external assistance to sustain creation or perform miracles.[21] In this framework, divine action is characterized by unilateral intervention, where God temporarily suspends the laws of nature to execute His will. However, this model faces significant theological challenges. As theologian Thomas Jay Oord argues in The Uncontrolling Love of God, unilateral divine intervention introduces a severe problem of evil: if God can act entirely on His own to alter reality, His failure to prevent genuine suffering implies a choice to allow it.[22] Furthermore, Oord contends that such intervention constitutes metaphysical coercion, as God ultimately overrides the freedom and agency of His creation to force a specific outcome.[23]
Classical theism also relies heavily on the concept of divine aseity: The doctrine that God exists purely from Himself, wholly independent of anything external.[24] Under this framework, God lacks nothing and desires nothing.[25] Yet, this rigid self-sufficiency struggles to align with both philosophical logic and the reality of creation. For instance, if abstract realities like numbers and mathematical truths exist necessarily and uncreated, they pose a direct challenge to a God who is supposed to be the sole source of all reality.[26] Furthermore, the decision to create the universe sits uncomfortably alongside absolute aseity. To suggest that an entirely self-sufficient Being would bring a cosmos into existence almost inherently implies a divine desire for relation, expression, or an audience to witness that glory.[27]
Classical theism asserts that God possesses absolute sovereignty, exercising meticulous control over the cosmos by ordaining and decreeing all things.[28] Within this framework, no event can occur without explicit divine approval or permission.[29] However, theologian Thomas Jay Oord critiques this model of meticulous providence, highlighting several severe philosophical and theological vulnerabilities.[30] First, if every event is divinely decreed, human free will is rendered an illusion, undermining authentic creaturely agency.[31] Second, a meticulous sovereign who holds the power to unilaterally prevent suffering, yet chooses not to, appears to stand idly by in the face of genuine horror.[32] Ultimately, if God decrees or permits all occurrences, including systemic evils and atrocities, this framework logically compromises the divine character, reducing God to a morally malevolent actor.
The theological significance of the Incarnation underscores a participatory framework of divine action, rather than a model of unilateral intervention. This is most clearly demonstrated in the Annunciation, wherein the realization of the Theotokos (Mother of God) is contingent upon human cooperation and consent.[33] Rather than overriding human free will through an act of sheer divine determinism, God conditioned the Incarnation upon Mary’s voluntary assent. This necessity of human agency is well-supported in scholastic theology. Thomas Aquinas posits that Mary’s consent was not merely personal, but representative of humanity as a whole, writing in the Summa Theologiae: “In the Annunciation, the Virgin’s consent was besought in lieu of that of the entire human nature.”[34] However, this reliance on creaturely permission introduces an internal tension within classical theism. If God is understood as the Actus Purus (Pure Act), entirely impassible and independent of creation, attributing a decisive, conditional role to human free will complicates the traditional scholastic view of divine sovereignty and causality. Nevertheless, Mary’s fiat serves as a primary theological counter-argument to theories of unilateral divine intervention, establishing instead a model of synergistic engagement between the Creator and creation.
Furthermore, the doctrine of the Theotokos challenges the classical conception of divine aseity and absolute independence. By entrusting the salvation of creation to the cooperation of Mary, placing the divine design within a human womb, God eschews unilateral actualization in favor of a sacramental paradigm. Consequently, the divine economy relies fundamentally upon creaturely participation for the realization of its salvific design. Ultimately, classical theism collapses when confronted with this profound reality. The static, distant deity of scholastic thought stands in stark contrast to the relational God who awaited the humble Virgin’s voluntary fiat.
Additionally, the doctrine of Mary as the Theotokos (Mother of God) serves as a profound theological illustration of divine limitation. By choosing to be born of a human mother, God voluntarily accepts the ontological constraints inherent to human existence through the Incarnation. These limitations would include not being able to get whatever one wants, not being able to control everything, and relying on others. Because Jesus Christ is understood as the ultimate self-revelation of God, His lived experience implies that limitation is a genuine aspect of the divine nature.[35] This perspective aligns closely with Thomas Jay Oord’s model of Essential Kenosis, which posits that God’s self-giving love inherently entails a restriction of divine power and a vulnerability to creation.[36] It entails that God is truly not absolutely sovereign as classical theism argues.
Open-and-Relational Theology provides a robust framework for conceptualizing the Marian title Theotokos (Mother of God) by emphasizing the synergistic dynamism between the divine and creation. Rather than viewing the Incarnation as a unilateral divine imposition, this perspective highlights a relational partnership wherein God respects human agency. This is vividly illustrated in the Annunciation, where God, mediated through the Archangel Gabriel, extends an invitation to Mary, prompting her voluntary participation in the co-creation of cosmic salvation. Crucially, this synergistic emphasis is not unique to Open-and-Relational paradigms. It finds a profound parallel in traditional Roman Catholic theology. Catholic Mariology similarly positions Mary’s fiat (“let it be done”) as a free, essential cooperation with divine grace, demonstrating that historical orthodoxy and relational theology both affirm that human response actively shapes salvific history.[37][38]
Open-and-Relational Theology is increasingly coherent with the premise that divine providence solicits human cooperation in the realization of eschatological and historical ends. Proponents of this paradigm, notably Thomas Jay Oord, articulate divine power primarily through the modality of uncontrolling love, defined as the capacity to persuade rather than coerce human volition. This relational dynamic is paradigmatically instantiated in the Annunciation, wherein the divine solicitation of the Blessed Virgin Mary exemplifies a persuasive overture that achieves actualization through human fiat. Consequently, this framework complements the prevailing theological anthropology of co-creation, reflecting a biblical and relational ontology wherein the Creator invites humanity into synergistic participation with the divine harmonization of the cosmos.
Open-and-Relational Theology aligns robustly with scriptural depictions of God’s kenotic, high-risk love. This dynamic is particularly evident in the Annunciation; when the Creator approaches Mary, the divine initiation carries profound risk. This narrative underscores the early patristic theology of recapitulation; as Irenaeus of Lyons argues, Mary was uniquely positioned to untie the knot of disobedience tied by Eve in the Garden of Genesis.[39] Because Mary possessed genuine, libertarian free will, she could have declined the divine invitation to become the Theotokos (Mother of God) and the New Eve. Consequently, this soteriological dependency on human cooperation supports the framework of high-risk open theism, and by extension, Open-and-Relational Theology, as articulated by Johannes Grössl and Leigh Vicens in their seminal paper, “Closing The Door On Limited-Risk Open Theism.”[40]
Part Three: God Changes & Suffers
Within classical theism, the doctrine of divine impassibility posits that God is inherently incapable of experiencing suffering, emotional fluctuation, or physical pain inflicted by external agents. Crucially, this impassibility does not denote a lack of affection; rather, it is understood as a constant, immutable state of divine love. When scriptural narratives depict God as altering His mind or experiencing distress over human transgression, proponents of impassibility argue that such descriptions represent anthropomorphic or flawed human perceptions rather than literal divine experiences.[41] A paraphrase of what Anselm of Canterbury famously articulated is, “God is beyond doubt impassible, and that God cannot at all be brought down from his exaltation.”[42] Conversely, this doctrine has faced significant critique from Open and Relational theologians, as well as other contemporary Christian thinkers. The most prominent critique is found in Jürgen Moltmann’s seminal work, The Crucified God, in which he contends that God actively participates in and suffers alongside creation.[43] Critics of classical impassibility argue that a relational theology requires a deity who profoundly feels, responds, and suffers in solidarity with humanity.[44]
Within classical theology, God is understood to be impassible and immutable, incapable of experiencing physical or mental suffering due to His incorporeal essence, which lacks both a biological framework and psychological vulnerabilities. Consequently, scriptural depictions of divine suffering are traditionally interpreted as anthropomorphisms, that is rhetorical devices rather than literal descriptions of the divine nature. God cannot experience pain in a manner analogous to created beings. However, twentieth-century theologian Jürgen Moltmann challenges this classical framework, arguing that a rigorous, faithful reading of Scripture requires affirming the reality of divine suffering.[45] For Moltmann, to take the biblical narrative seriously is to recognize that God genuinely participates in and experiences the pain of creation.[46]
In classical theism, God is conceptualized as the uncaused first cause who exercises absolute sovereignty over creation. Consequently, classical theological frameworks maintain that God cannot be affected by created entities, implying that no finite being possesses the capacity to alter divine internal states, affections, or eternal decrees. Within this paradigm, human decisions do not change the divine will; scriptural passages that depict God changing His mind are interpreted as anthropomorphic figures of speech, establishing a theological model wherein the future is entirely settled. In contrast, open and relational theology directly challenges this settled view of the future, seeking to reconcile divine sovereignty with the portrayal of God as a deeply relational being. Proponents of this view argue that biblical narratives frequently depict a God whose future is open and whose actions are genuinely responsive to human agency. This position is prominently articulated in The Openness of God by Clark Pinnock, William Hasker, David Basinger, Richard Rice, and John Sanders, who argue that the future is not a fixed reality but an open horizon shaped by the interaction between divine intent and creaturely freedom.[47]
The designation of the Virgin Mary as Theotokos serves as a critical christological foundation for the doctrine of divine passibility. This theological reality is manifested through the incarnation of Jesus Christ, whom the Christian Scriptures depict as undergoing genuine human development and maturation. That is existential changes that inherently require a passible nature. According to the Christological definitions of the Council of Ephesus (431 AD) and subsequent ecumenical creeds, Christ maintained uninterrupted divinity throughout his earthly existence.[48] Consequently, because Christ is ontologically identical with God, his lived human experiences mean that to witness the incarnate Son is to witness the divine essence itself, thereby validating the premise that God can experience change and suffering.
Consequently, the doctrine of Mary as the Theotokos (Mother of God) serves as a profound testament to divine vulnerability and the capacity of God to experience suffering. This reality is fundamentally grounded in the Christological mystery of the Incarnation. As the Nicene Creed affirms, “He became man”, an act by which the Logos assumed the entirety of the human condition. Central to this human experience is the reality of physical and existential suffering. From the humility of His birth in a manger to the acute trials of hunger and thirst during His earthly ministry, Christ’s life was marked by authentic human limitation.[49] This trajectory of suffering culminates in the crucifixion, where Christ cries out, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”, an ultimate expression of both physical agony and spiritual dereliction.[50] Ultimately, the Incarnation redefines the classical notion of divine impassibility, presenting instead a suffering, empathetic deity who intimately participates in human brokenness.
Furthermore, the dogmatic reality of Mary as Theotokos underscores the theological proposition that the divine economy is dynamically responsive to human agency. While Christology remains central to this discourse, the contrasting narratives of Zechariah and Mary offer critical insights into divine passibility. Zechariah’s encounter with the angel Gabriel, resulting in his temporary muteness due to skepticism regarding Elizabeth’s conception of John the Baptist, suggests a divine responsiveness to human unbelief, altering the immediate mode of communication.[51] Conversely, Mary demonstrates human efficacy in the divine plan through the narrative of the Wedding at Cana.[52] Her intercession effectively prompted Christ’s inaugural miracle of transforming water into wine, serving as empirical evidence of the divine-human dialogue inherent in the Incarnation. This instance of Christ adapting His timeline in response to His mother’s insistence closely parallels His subsequent interaction with the Syrophoenician woman, wherein He alters His immediate course of action to heal her daughter, thereby illustrating a broader biblical motif of divine mutability in response to persistent faith.[53]
Open and Relational Theology offers a robust framework for affirming divine passibility, thereby conceptualizing a genuinely empathetic deity that aligns harmoniously with the Christological implications of Mary as the Theotokos (Mother of God). Within classical theism, the doctrine of divine impassibility often reduces God’s emotional responsiveness to anthropomorphic metaphor. In contrast, an open and relational paradigm posits that God is ontologically affected by, and responsive to, the temporal world.
Open and relational theology provides a more internally coherent framework for the Christological title Theotokos (God-bearer) than classical theism by affirming that the divine nature is genuinely capable of suffering and emotional vulnerability. When the Council of Ephesus (431 CE) affirmed Mary as Theotokos, it dogmatically secured the reality that the person she gave birth to was truly divine, not merely a human vehicle for the Logos. However, traditional classical theology simultaneously insists upon divine impassibility. This creates a profound systemic tension: if the divine nature is inherently incapable of suffering, then the suffering of Christ is often relegated strictly to His human nature, inadvertently risking a functional Nestorian division in the hypostatic union. In contrast, open and relational paradigms resolve this contradiction by positing a God whose core essence is defined by relational responsiveness and uncontrolling love. Within this framework, Mary did not merely give birth to a human nature that shielded an unaffected divinity; rather, she gave birth to an incarnate divine Being who truly experienced the fullness of human vulnerability, limitation, and physical and emotional pain. By replacing the classical concept of an unmoved mover with a deity characterized by voluntary vulnerability (kenosis), open and relational theology reframes the Incarnation not as a metaphysical anomaly, but as the ultimate expression of God’s relational character. This perspective secures a genuinely empathetic deity. God does not merely observe humanity suffering from a state of transcendent detachment; rather, God co-suffers (compassio) with creation, establishing a profound existential solidarity between humanity and the Divine.
Open-and-Relational Theology posits that the divine nature is inherently passible and receptive to creaturely agency, a framework that provides a more coherent metaphysical basis for the traditional mariological title Theotokos (Mother of God). Within this paradigm, divine-human interaction is conceptualized as a genuinely reciprocal, dialogical relationship, contrasting sharply with the asymmetrical, unidirectional causality characteristic of classical theism. Rather than operating as an unaffected primary cause, God both influences and is influenced by creation; thus, human actions possess ultimate ontological significance. Consequently, moral choices directly impact the divine interiority, whereby righteous actions contribute to the harmony and joy within the divine nature, while destructive choices introduce authentic grief and suffering into the life of God.
Part Four: God Is Affected By Time
Within the framework of classical theism, the divine nature is characterized by radical immutability and atemporality, rendering God fundamentally transcendent to the successive temporal modes experienced by creation.[54] This metaphysical commitment generates a hermeneutical tension with biblical pericopes wherein the deity appears to alter its volition or “repent” in real time.[55] Such scriptural representations logically entail a sequential continuum encompassing distinct ante- and post-change states of divine intent. To resolve this apparent contradiction, classical proponents characteristically appeal to the hermeneutical category of anthropomorphism, interpreting such passages as accommodationist depictions rather than ontological descriptions of divine actuality.[56]
The proposition of a divine atemporal existence introduces a profound theological tension regarding the Incarnation of Christ, an event fundamentally characterized by the divine intersection with historical temporality. By entering into the finite historical timeline, the incarnate God appears to directly challenge the tenets of classical theism, which posits an immutable and timeless deity. To resolve this apparent contradiction, classical theists frequently invoke the doctrine of the communicatio idiomatum (the communication of attributes). Through this framework, theologians argue that change, passibility, and temporal relationships are predicated strictly upon Christ’s human nature, thereby preserving the absolute immutability and timelessness of His divine essence.[57]
To relegate these effects strictly to the human nature of Christ introduces an artificial bifurcation of His dual natures, violating the doctrine of the hypostatic union. Christ possesses a co-eternal and inseparable divinity and humanity; there is no temporal point at which He existed apart from either nature after the Incarnation, as both are integrated into the singular persona of Jesus Christ. Furthermore, if we accept the premise that the divine essence is, in some capacity, passible and mutable, it follows that the divine nature is inherently open to relational change and ontologically affected by the exercise of creaturely free will.
Mary’s role as the Theotokos demonstrates that God actively entered human temporality by taking on a historical beginning in the person of Jesus Christ. The Nativity was neither myth nor phantom appearance; rather, it marks the exact moment the Divine Logos stepped into human history. In becoming flesh, the Word of God was conceived by the Holy Spirit and fully developed as a man over nine months during the reign of Caesar Augustus.[58] Through Mary, Christ truly assumed a physical human body, anchoring the Divine in our material reality.
Consequently, the doctrine of Mary as Theotokos (the Mother of God) provides profound implications for the relationship between the divine and temporality, demonstrating that through the Incarnation, God experienced temporal progression via Christ’s human development. As Luke 2:52 notes, Jesus “increased in wisdom and in stature,” implying that the divine nature, in the person of Christ, voluntarily participated in a linear, sequential narrative of human growth. Because Mary is truly the Mother of God, it follows that God authentically experienced the full scope of human contingency and limitation. Through this localized human existence, the divine encountered experiential learning, encompassing physical suffering, nutritional dependency, linguistic acquisition, interpersonal dynamics, and affective psychological states. Accordingly, this challenges traditional conceptions of absolute divine immutability, suggesting instead that the transcendent God genuinely endured change and ontological development within the framework of historical time.
The concept of Mary as Theotokos (the God-bearer) underscores the theological premise that through the Incarnation, the transcendent God entered the temporal realm, establishing a profound vulnerability to human relationality. By assuming human flesh, the divine voluntarily participated in a foundational parent-child dynamic. In His infancy, the incarnate Word was entirely dependent on Mary for basic sustenance, protection, and somatic care. This developmental dependency fostered an intimate maternal-filial bond, characterized not only by the shared mundane experiences, localized memories, and familial grief, such as the loss of Joseph, but also by an acute psychological and emotional reciprocity. This relational influence is dual-aspected in the narrative: it operates both initiatorily and conclusively. It is manifested first in the domestic sphere, where Mary actively prompts the initiation of Christ’s public ministry at Cana, and is ultimately consummated at the Crucifixion, where the temporal maternal witness intersects with the cosmic salvific event.
Open-and-relational theology fully honors the Incarnation of Jesus Christ by proposing a model of God that inherently encompasses emotional responsiveness and change. This aligns closely with the reality of Christ’s human nature. While the divine nature is distinct from humanity, meaning God is neither overwhelmed by despair nor fluctuating in His core essence, humanity still reflects the divine. Consequently, this theological framework provides a robust and cohesive picture of the Incarnation.
Open-and-Relational Theology is consistent with God stepping into time by affirming the temporality of God. Within this framework, time is not an illusion to the Creator. Rather, God experiences genuine, passing moments alongside creation. This perspective views history not as a pre-written script. It is an unfolding reality that God experiences sequentially, much like we do.
Open-and-Relational Theology fully validates Mary’s role as the Mother of God. In this framework, Mary’s fiat is recognized as a genuine, free-will decision that fundamentally altered God’s relationship with the world. By emphasizing a relational Deity, this theology deeply legitimizes her motherhood; it acknowledges that in becoming human, God underwent real change—an incarnational journey that Mary uniquely co-experienced. She did not just carry a child, but truly shared life with the Divine in human form.
Conclusion
Holding onto the title of Theotokos means theology must also accept a God who is deeply relational, changes, suffers, and is affected by time. Classical theism and the doctrine of the Theotokos do not fully mix; instead, Mary’s role as the Mother of God demonstrates that the God of the Bible is distinct from the static God of classical philosophy. Consequently, Open-and-Relational Theology offers a framework more consistent with the profound implications of the Theotokos.
This theological alignment matters deeply for both traditions. For Roman Catholic theology, it can breathe new life into traditional doctrines, moving them beyond rigid philosophical categories into a dynamic, living faith. For Open-and-Relational theology, it provides a vital bridge to the ancient traditions of the Church, grounding modern relational concepts in historic orthodoxy. This same research should be carried out with the other Marian dogmas and titles of the Blessed Virgin Mary, as well as other foundational areas of Roman Catholic theology. Future essays will explore how the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption intersect with these relational themes, alongside upcoming studies examining how open-and-relational frameworks can reframe Roman Catholic ecclesiology and the sacraments among other various topics.
Bibliography
Davis, Leo Donald. 1983. The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787): Their History and Theology. The Liturgical Press.
“Lumen Gentium.” n.d. https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html.
Horn, Trent. 2024. “‘Mary Is NOT the Mother of God’ REBUTTED.” Catholic Answers. August 14, 2024. https://www.catholic.com/audio/cot/mary-is-not-the-mother-of-god-rebutted.
Charles Dubray, “Actus Purus.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 1. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1907.<https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01125b.htm>.
Gregory Boyd, “Do you believe God is pure actuality?”, www.reknew.org, 12/23/2007, https://reknew.org/2007/12/do-you-believe-god-is-pure-actuality/
Stephenjbell, and Stephenjbell. “The Law of Causality and the Uncaused Cause.” Apologetics Press. September 4, 2026. https://apologeticspress.org/the-law-of-causality-and-the-uncaused-cause-1601/.
Bob Drury, “Causality and St. Thomas Aquinas’ Second Way.” Catholic Stand. August 1, 2018 https://catholicstand.com/causality-st-thomas-aquinas-second-way/
Daniel Kent. 2018. “15 Reasons Open Theism Is TRUE (a Reply to Andrew Wilson).” Greg Boyd – ReKnew. July 12, 2018. https://reknew.org/2017/05/15-reasons-open-theism-true-reply-andrew-wilson/.
Answers, Catholic. 2019. “Communicatio Idiomatum.” Catholic Answers. February 21, 2019. https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/communicatio-idiomatum.
Thomas Aquinas. “SUMMA THEOLOGIAE: The Divine Relations (Prima Pars, Q. 28).” n.d. https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1028.htm.
“What the Bible Says About Unilateral Acts of God.” n.d. BibleTools.Org. https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Topical.show/RTD/cgg/ID/14686/Unilateral-Acts-God.htm.
Oord, Thomas Jay. 2015. The Uncontrolling Love Of God: An Open And Relational Account Of Providence. InterVarsity Press.
Stewart, Anna. n.d. “What Is Divine Aseity? | for the Church.” https://ftc.co/resource-library/articles/divine-aseity/
Oppy-Craig. 2018. “God Over All: Divine Aseity and the Challenge of Platonism.” Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews, November 29, 2018. https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/god-over-all-divine-aseity-and-the-challenge-of-platonism/.
Beilby, James. 2004. “DIVINE ASEITY, DIVINE FREEDOM: A CONCEPTUAL PROBLEM FOR EDWARDSIAN-CALVINISM.” JETS. Vol. 47. https://etsjets.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/files_JETS-PDFs_47_47-4_47-4-pp647-658_JETS.pdf.
The Master’s University. 2022. “God’s Absolute Sovereignty – the Master’S University.” August 24, 2022. https://www.masters.edu/thinking_blog/gods-absolute-sovereignty/.
“SUMMA THEOLOGIAE: The Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin (Tertia Pars, Q. 30).” n.d. https://www.newadvent.org/summa/4030.htm.
J.Kurzynski. 2021. “The Creator and the Co-Creators: Exploring the Intimate Connection Between God and the World.” Vatican Observatory. April 7, 2021. https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/the-creator-the-co-creators/.
Drury, Bob. 2017. “God Had a Plan: He Asked Mary’s Permission.” The Catholic Stand, December 17, 2017. https://catholicstand.com/god-plan-asked-marys-permission/.
“CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.22 (St. Irenaeus).” n.d. https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103322.htm.
Grössl, Johannes, and Leigh Vicens. 2014. “Closing The Door On Limited-Risk Open Theism.” Faith and Philosophy 31 (4).
“Logos Virtual Library: Saint Anselm: Cur Deus Homo, I, 8.” n.d. https://logoslibrary.org/anselm/cur/108.html.
Moltmann, Jurgen. 2015. The Crucified God. 40th Anniversary Edition. Fortress Press.
Pinnock, Clark, Richard Rice, John Sanders, William Hasker, and David Basinger. 1994. The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God. InterVarsity Press.
Glenn. 2018. “Divine Timelessness and the Death of Jesus.” Right Reason. December 3, 2018. https://www.rightreason.org/2013/divine-timelessness-and-the-death-of-jesus/.
Piper, John. 1987. “The Repentance of God.” Www.Desirnggod.Org. March 30, 1987. Accessed October 14, 2026. https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/the-repentance-of-god.
[1] Davis, Leo Donald. 1983. The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787): Their History and Theology. The Liturgical Press.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] “Lumen Gentium.” n.d. https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html.
[6] Horn, Trent. 2024. “‘Mary Is NOT the Mother of God’ REBUTTED.” Catholic Answers. August 14, 2024. https://www.catholic.com/audio/cot/mary-is-not-the-mother-of-god-rebutted.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Charles Dubray, “Actus Purus.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 1. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1907.<https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01125b.htm>.
[9] Gregory Boyd, “Do you believe God is pure actuality?”, www.reknew.org, 12/23/2007, https://reknew.org/2007/12/do-you-believe-god-is-pure-actuality/
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Stephenjbell, and Stephenjbell. “The Law of Causality and the Uncaused Cause.” Apologetics Press. September 4, 2026. https://apologeticspress.org/the-law-of-causality-and-the-uncaused-cause-1601/.
[14] Bob Drury, “Causality and St. Thomas Aquinas’ Second Way.” Catholic Stand. August 1, 2018 https://catholicstand.com/causality-st-thomas-aquinas-second-way/
[15] Daniel Kent. 2018. “15 Reasons Open Theism Is TRUE (a Reply to Andrew Wilson).” Greg Boyd – ReKnew. July 12, 2018. https://reknew.org/2017/05/15-reasons-open-theism-true-reply-andrew-wilson/.
[16] Thomas Aquinas. “SUMMA THEOLOGIAE: The Divine Relations (Prima Pars, Q. 28).” n.d. https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1028.htm.
[17] Ibid.
[18] Such Scriptures are Genesis 6:6, Isaiah 63:10, Ephesians 4:30, Psalms 18:19, 147:11: and Zephaniah 3:17
[19] Answers, Catholic. 2019. “Communicatio Idiomatum.” Catholic Answers. February 21, 2019. https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/communicatio-idiomatum.
[20] Luke 2:52
[21] “What the Bible Says About Unilateral Acts of God.” n.d. BibleTools.Org. https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Topical.show/RTD/cgg/ID/14686/Unilateral-Acts-God.htm.
[22] Oord, Thomas Jay. 2015. The Uncontrolling Love Of God: An Open And Relational Account Of Providence. InterVarsity Press.
[23] Ibid.
[24] Stewart, Anna. n.d. “What Is Divine Aseity? | for the Church.” https://ftc.co/resource-library/articles/divine-aseity/
[25] Ibid.
[26] Oppy-Craig. 2018. “God Over All: Divine Aseity and the Challenge of Platonism.” Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews, November 29, 2018. https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/god-over-all-divine-aseity-and-the-challenge-of-platonism/.
[27] Beilby, James. 2004. “DIVINE ASEITY, DIVINE FREEDOM: A CONCEPTUAL PROBLEM FOR EDWARDSIAN-CALVINISM.” JETS. Vol. 47. https://etsjets.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/files_JETS-PDFs_47_47-4_47-4-pp647-658_JETS.pdf.
[28] The Master’s University. 2022. “God’s Absolute Sovereignty – the Master’S University.” August 24, 2022. https://www.masters.edu/thinking_blog/gods-absolute-sovereignty/.
[29] Ibid.
[30] Oord, The Uncontrolling Love Of God: An Open And Relational Account Of Providence.
[31] Ibid.
[32] Ibid.
[33] Luke 1:26-38
[34] “SUMMA THEOLOGIAE: The Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin (Tertia Pars, Q. 30).” n.d. https://www.newadvent.org/summa/4030.htm.
[35] John 14:9
[36] Oord, The Uncontrolling Love Of God: An Open And Relational Account Of Providence.
[37] J.Kurzynski. 2021. “The Creator and the Co-Creators: Exploring the Intimate Connection Between God and the World.” Vatican Observatory. April 7, 2021. https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/the-creator-the-co-creators/.
[38] Drury, Bob. 2017. “God Had a Plan: He Asked Mary’s Permission.” The Catholic Stand, December 17, 2017. https://catholicstand.com/god-plan-asked-marys-permission/.
[39] “CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.22 (St. Irenaeus).” n.d. https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103322.htm.
[40] Grössl, Johannes, and Leigh Vicens. 2014. “Closing The Door On Limited-Risk Open Theism.” Faith and Philosophy 31 (4).
[41] Scriptures such as Deuteronomy 9:8, Exodus 32:14, Jonah 3:10, Psalm 103:8, etc.
[42] “Logos Virtual Library: Saint Anselm: Cur Deus Homo, I, 8.” n.d. https://logoslibrary.org/anselm/cur/108.html.
[43] Moltmann, Jurgen. 2015. The Crucified God. 40th Anniversary Edition. Fortress Press.
[44] Ibid.
[45] Moltmann.The Crucified God. 40th Anniversary Edition.
[46] Ibid.
[47] Pinnock, Clark, Richard Rice, John Sanders, William Hasker, and David Basinger. 1994. The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God. InterVarsity Press.
[48] Davis. The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787): Their History and Theology.
[49] Scriptures such as Matthew 4:11, 21:18, Mark 11:12, and John 19:28
[50] As said in Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34
[51] Luke 1:20-25
[52] John 2:1-11
[53] As stated in Mark 7:24-30
[54] Glenn. 2018. “Divine Timelessness and the Death of Jesus.” Right Reason. December 3, 2018. https://www.rightreason.org/2013/divine-timelessness-and-the-death-of-jesus/.
[55] Genesis 6:6-7, Exodus 32:14, Jonah 3:10
[56] Piper, John. 1987. “The Repentance of God.” Www.Desirnggod.Org. March 30, 1987. Accessed October 14, 2026. https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/the-repentance-of-god.
[57] Answers, Catholic. 2019. “Communicatio Idiomatum.” Catholic Answers. February 21, 2019. https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/communicatio-idiomatum.
[58] Luke 2:1