Jurgen Moltmann and the God Who Suffers
One of the things that I have come to appreciate about Moltmann, and there are many, is his rejection of the doctrine of God’s impassibility. I can understand the need to believe in an impassible God. It is comforting to think that God doesn’t experience real emotional reactions to the events of this world. It is also comforting to think of God as one who is incapable of suffering; or at the very least, as one who relegates suffering to the Son while the Father and Holy Spirit remain incapable of pain. This makes God predictable and safe. After all, a God who is impassible is not truly attached to His creation. His damning of souls to hell can be safely excused as a detached and rational act rather than one of intense passion or (even worse) anger. This is a God who is easy to worship because His lack of passion excuses and even justifies our own lack of passion.
Moltmann rejects the view God as put forth in the great confession:
“There is but one only living and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions. . . .”
The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) Chapter II Article I
What many have contended to be anthropomorphic, the rest of us just take at face value. That is, God is a God who is fiercely passionate about our holiness, our well being and our relationship. He is not aloof to our sin. He is rightly passionate about it. Divine Impassibility is a fancy word for what used to be called Deism. Evangelicals can’t be Deists, so we prefer to use terms that obfusacte and shroud what we really believe. What you really have is the same thing; a God who sits on His throne, unaffected by the sin, sorrow and suffering of His Creation.
Now please don’t misinterpret what I am saying! I do not believe that open theism is the answer. What we need here is probably a little dose of Hegelian Dialectic (forgive me Kierkegaard… for I have sinned). What I mean is that God is neither the disinterested and detached God of (some) reformed circles, nor the helpless God of Open Theism.
Like Moltmann, I am comforted by the idea that God is the divine brother to the distressed. His heart breaks at injustice and he mourns at the sight of our suffering . However, there is also a very frightening conclusion that can be drawn from the idea of a passionate God. If it weren’t for the advocate (I John 2.1) we would have to face the same passion that threatened to consume the Israelites after that incident with the golden calf ( Exodus 30.9). If you recall the story, It took Moses, interceding on behalf of Israel, to change God’s course. I am grateful that we have an advocate who is greater than Moses to plead our case before the Father!
So God’s passibility has a twofold meaning for me. I take comfort in the idea that God sympathizes with our suffering; and I am also humbled by the thought of God advocating for me on my behalf.
Thoughts?
Did I mention that the church I’m attending is in the reformed tradition?
you’re right though. Calvin’s Institutes and the Westminster Confession have become our pope. There are some good points here that are contrary to what I’ve been taught in my short experience with Christianity. I want to comment but don’t feel qualified yet. Give me a few days and I’ll get back to you on this one!
Aaron Randy showed me your blog and I think it’s cool. I do believe in God which probably surprises people but I think this kind of makes sense. Can you explain why God would be the other way why do the reformed ppl think that?
Ryan, take your time. I have a deep respect for the reformed tradition despite my rejection of certain doctrines. I may poke fun at them from time to time but it is just in jest. I look forward to your thoughts.
Serena, there are certain passages in the bible which appear to support the reformed perspective. It isn’t as if they simply created the doctrine out of thin air. As a whole, they have a different methodology in interpreting scripture than I do. The problem of interpretation is common to all of us because these books were written in a different time to a different people. We are left to do the best we can with what we have. Tradition certainly comes into play here, but tradition is not always right. My personal opinion is that it is derived from an incorrect philosophical understanding of perfection. I’ll have to get back to you with the scriptures that are used to support passibility. They are slipping my mind at the moment. The important thing to remember is that this is not an issue which should divide the church. It is a fireside room in the great hall of orthodoxy (to use a CS Lewis analogy).
I am being drawn more and more by the Spirit to the suffering of God. After all, Jesus said, “Whoever has seen me has seen the Father” and “I do nothing except what I see the Father doing” (not saying). If Christ is crucified, what then, does that tell us of God?
I think Moltmann re-opens up the door (for something we have forgotten) for John Caputo’s “The Weakness of God” which I am reading now. I have posted some thoughts on my website, among them “John Caputo on The Weakness of God” and “You Have Seen the Father.”
If it takes us setting aside the sovereignty and impassivity of God to get us to see that God suffers, is crucified and cries out both for and to the outcast, then I am all for it.
Welcome Jeff…
I haven’t read Caputo’s “The Weakness of God” but I am familiar with his overall body of work (with regards to existential and post modern thought). I’ll have to read it. My initial thought is that it is not necessary to deconstruct in order to come to these conclusions, but I’m making some assumptions about the book before reading it.
I’ll have to visit your website. I took a quick glance at it and it looked dangerously appealing… as if once I start reading your posts I won’t be able to stop for a while. However, my yard is calling me to take care of it and we have a rare sunny day here. I’ll visit it again soon!
Good deal. While I have an interest in Derrida (de-constructionism) from a philosophy of language standpoint, and Caputo of course has written several books on Derrida and his philosophy, the parts of of the book I have read so far focus on what Paul says about the weakness of God and what can be learned from Genesis 1 about the power of God. I haven’t read anything yet that overdwells on deconstruction, but then, as I said, I haven’t yet the whole book yet.