Aristotle argues that God cannot suffer, for a suffering God would be a God subject to change. To Aristotle, the perfection of God is located in God's changelessness. The logic proceeds that if God were to decrease in perfection, obviously God would cease to be perfect, and therefore, cease to be God. Moreover, if God were to increase in perfection, such increase would indicate that God had not previously been complete in perfection, thus negating God's supposed divinity. So then, to Aristotle, any "passion" (change) on God's behalf is effectively self-negating. Although I appreciate the power of Aristotle’s argument concerning the necessary immutability of God, at the end of the day I am unconvinced. It seems fairly arbitrary to define perfection as ‘changelessness.’ While I do understand Aristotle’s rationale, his argument seems blind to the counter that in preserving God’s unqualified “changelessness,” one has also effectively stripped God of any ability to act, thus reducing God to a benign deity lost in perpetual and eternal self-contemplation.Historically, the Church has adopted the categories provided by Aristotle, affirming that God is "impassable." For centuries, Christian theology has located the suffering of Christ within the human nature of Christ while concomitantly affirming the impassability of Christ's divine nature. An obvious result of this has been a bifurcation between the divine and human natures of Christ, leading to a potentially restricted and somewhat disconnected conception of the relationship of the divine to human nature and experience. Despite the central place which the doctrine of the impassability of God has enjoyed in historical Christian thought, recent theological exploration has reconsidered the categories provided by Aristotle, rejecting them in favor of the biblical witness and theological necessity of engaging the whole person--not singular human nature--of Christ in the suffering endured on the cross. Seminal in recent scholarship has been The Crucified God in which Moltmann describes not only the suffering endured by the Son on the cross, but also the suffering which the Father experienced in relation to the death and rejection of the Son at the hands of sinful humanity.
Now, to get right down to the question, I believe the answer is “Yes,” God does suffer. I think this is necessitated by the Christian proclamation that “God is love.” For example, a great definition of love (at least in my mind) is that of complete self-giving, a definition which is poignantly displayed in Christ’s ultimate self-giving of himself to humanity and to the Father’s will in the cross. However, this “self-giving” is total, in that one gives oneself to others while concomitantly taking into one’s own person the totality of the other.
Therefore, if Christ truly represents the total self-giving (love) of God in being made “sin” for us, this means that in giving himself to us, Christ has concurrently encountered, in his very person, the full depths of human sinfulness. As Paul Jensen wonderfully point out, in this self-giving, Christ “…[absorbs] into his own being the consequences of human sin.”* This encounter with human sinfulness cannot simply be located in the “human” side of Christ. Rather, as the consequence of sin is death (separation from God), it is clear that Christ, in the fullness of his person, is subject to the full judgment of sin and dies, feeling the unbearable weight of separation from the Father.
However, despite Aristotle’s fear that a “passioned” deity would be self-contradictory and negating, the suffering of Christ is actually the means by which the fullness of God’s love is revealed to humanity. Although Christ is indeed subject to the full wrath and power of the consequences of sinfulness, he is not defeated. Moreover, even though Christ has “absorbed into his own being the consequence of human sin,” this very act of self-giving love is the means by which sin and death are overcome, their powers exhausted in his very person.
In this answer, I have perhaps strayed a bit too far into Atonement theology. However, I believe this is necessary for, as Luther powerfully pointed out, God is not to be known in abstraction. Rather, the cross is the paradigm through which we are to approach the knowledge of God, for it is through the suffering and death of Christ that the true “face” of God is revealed. Therefore, this “theology of the cross” compels us to rethink the question not on the basis of whether a “suffering God” is possible, but rather because this is precisely the way in which God has revealed the divine nature, purpose and love. For a world of people separated from the only source of life and suffering at the hands of evil people, systems of oppression and the capriciousness of the physical world, the question of whether or not God can suffer is most prescient. After all, within this question lies the only hope of human salvation.
*Paul Jensen, “Forgiveness and Atonement,” Scottish Journal of Theology 46 (1993): 141-159 at 154.
9 comments:
Maybe suffer is too active, for the Father, for while Christ suffered, could we not instead say that the Father grieves?
Yes, one could describe the suffering for the Father in terms of "grieving," and this is track that Moltmann takes.
Would you see a difference between "suffer" and "grieving" and if so, what would the difference be?
I feel that suffering involves a physical change while grieving is an emotional state. the Father grieves for His children in a capricious system, chosen of their own free will, and their suffering and His grief will be aleved at the end of time when all will be set right. I think that understanding the Father's sympathy for humanity in terms of grief does not force maleability on His character. Therefore, one need not take His Omnipotence to task.
l-n-a-b:
Do you think a "physical change" on the Father's part in relation to suffering would equate to a "change" in character? In other words, do you see that it is possible for one to be affected by events and circumstances which are extraneous to oneself without such circumstances altering one's character?
Yes, reaction does not necessitate a fundamental character change.
This post has intrigued me since I read it, so I will now throw out a few ideas that I'm perpetually contemplating. These thoughts have come from reading David Bentley Hart's "Beauty of the Infinite" - which is a must read. If I could only recommend one book to you in my life (besides the Bible) it would be that...
The refutation of impassability concerns me in terms of an embracing of a trend that leads to process theology. The argument goes, if God is changed by creation, then the second person of the Trinity is something that he could not have been without creation. God has "become". Surely you are familiar with the argument from here. Creation becomes necessary and a part of God's being, or at least of God's becoming. Evil then is a necessary part of God becoming, and in fact God's nature cannot be said to be truly good since it needs evil to be defined.
Hart addresses the bifurcation of natures by examining Rahner's axiom "the economic Trinity is the immanent Trinity" and emphasizing the analogical distance between the immanent and economic.
The cross of Christ does not determine God's love, it manifests it.
Hart directly addresses the question of love, "God does not have to change or suffer in order to love us or show us mercy... as love he can overcome all suffering." "...love is not originally a reaction, but is the ontological possibility of every ontic action, the one transcendent act, the primordial generosity that is convertible with being itself, the blissful and desiring apatheia that requires no pathos to evoke it, no evil to make it good"
Now, the really intriguing part of Hart's argument:
"no pathos is possible for God because a pathos is, by definition, a finite instance of change visited upon a passive subject, actualizing some potential, whereas God's love is pure positivity and pure activity."
Now as far as the love of God being manifested in the cross, I think we are on the same page. Even with the consequences of sin being absorbed and exhausted in the person of Christ, I think I'm with you (and I like this as a part of a good atonement theory - I tip my hat). However, is it necessary that the overcoming of sin in the person of Christ is a 'change' so to speak? If the love of God is the manifest in Christ from before time, if this Trinitarian movement is indeed a part of God's being, if love is the ontological possibility of every ontic action, then is the cross necessarily a change or is it the manifestation of a perpetually loving God (as opposed to perpetual contemplation). If God in his nature is engaged in this movement, this love throughout eternity, then this action is not change but is instead just God.
I understand your rejection of Aristotle's categories and definitions. I think Hart offers an interesting take on impassibility. I also think I only partially understand it, therefore your post is helping me sort out my thoughts.
One final thought. In Walls class on intro to Philosophy, he lectured in part on impassibility and cited someone (I wish I could remember who) arguing for impassibility and as a piece of rhetoric stating that Nietzsche, if armed with that knowledge, would be overjoyed in hell, shaking his fist at God in perpetual rejection, causing God sorrow as it were, by constantly denying him.
Sorry this took so long.
This post has intrigued me since I read it, so I will now throw out a few ideas that I'm perpetually contemplating. These thoughts have come from reading David Bentley Hart's "Beauty of the Infinite" - which is a must read. If I could only recommend one book to you in my life (besides the Bible) it would be that...
I have heard a lot of "buzz" about this book from others, mostly through listening in on conversations in which I have no interest in actually participating. I was of the opinion that it was simply "propoganda," another book hopelessly lost to the "buzz-word" crowd at Asbury. However, I now have a legitimate voice suggesting that I read it. I must, therefore, take such a course under serious advisement...
The refutation of impassability concerns me in terms of an embracing of a trend that leads to process theology. The argument goes, if God is changed by creation, then the second person of the Trinity is something that he could not have been without creation. God has "become". Surely you are familiar with the argument from here. Creation becomes necessary and a part of God's being, or at least of God's becoming. Evil then is a necessary part of God becoming, and in fact God's nature cannot be said to be truly good since it needs evil to be defined.
Hart addresses the bifurcation of natures by examining Rahner's axiom "the economic Trinity is the immanent Trinity" and emphasizing the analogical distance between the immanent and economic.
The cross of Christ does not determine God's love, it manifests it.
I definitely see your concern here, and appreciate it. Moreover, I am most in agreement with you that process theology should be avoided. In my opinion, process theology is actually nothing more than Calvinism fully realized. After all, a God who determines everything and a God who determines nothing are not that different and will be manifested in one careless eternal/chronological misplacement of the "foreordaining" decrees of God. /end gratuitous Calvinist slam.../
Hart directly addresses the question of love, "God does not have to change or suffer in order to love us or show us mercy... as love he can overcome all suffering." "...love is not originally a reaction, but is the ontological possibility of every ontic action, the one transcendent act, the primordial generosity that is convertible with being itself, the blissful and desiring apatheia that requires no pathos to evoke it, no evil to make it good"
Wow! I really like the way that is put--"the ontological possibility of every ontic action, the one transcendent act." However, there may be a hole here in Hart's arugment. After all, although God's love may be the one "transcendent" act, it must needs be manifested within the contingencies of space/time in order to be truly meaningful to human beings. While this does not mean that God's love has to be "reactive," it does still retain the prescient potential for slipping into process-speak. This seems logical, for if God's love is the "possibility of every ontic action" and yet is not "reactive," how would one escape the conclusion that this ontically-full-of-possibility love creates the very context into which it is manifest? Nonetheless, I still love the way that that phrase is structured. I think there is definitely something true in it.
Now, the really intriguing part of Hart's argument:
"no pathos is possible for God because a pathos is, by definition, a finite instance of change visited upon a passive subject, actualizing some potential, whereas God's love is pure positivity and pure activity."
Now as far as the love of God being manifested in the cross, I think we are on the same page. Even with the consequences of sin being absorbed and exhausted in the person of Christ, I think I'm with you (and I like this as a part of a good atonement theory - I tip my hat). However, is it necessary that the overcoming of sin in the person of Christ is a 'change' so to speak? If the love of God is the manifest in Christ from before time, if this Trinitarian movement is indeed a part of God's being, if love is the ontological possibility of every ontic action, then is the cross necessarily a change or is it the manifestation of a perpetually loving God (as opposed to perpetual contemplation). If God in his nature is engaged in this movement, this love throughout eternity, then this action is not change but is instead just God.
I think you definitely have something here. However, in response to Hart, I would question the need to "protect" God from pathos. I think that there is definitely a pathos exhibited in the cross, and that this pathos is intended to produce a reaction in the human heart. While the cross is very much a display of "just God," it is also an incredible crisis (to say the least!) in Christ's life. Christ's death takes the Incarnation and makes it seem like child's play. After all, we have just got our heads around the notion that the infinite God could be Incarnate in the person of Christ. But wait! On the cross, we see the infinite God/human not only suffering, but passing into non-existence! In the crisis of the cross, the force of non-existence is partaken of by "God of very God" in the person of Christ; in other words, death becomes "known" to God in more than a transcendent, objective sense. Quite contrarily, the God/man is fully entering into death, enduring the same crisis of non-existence that marks the terminal end of embodied existence. In my thinking, non-existence is completely antithetical to the nature of God, a logical impossibility. Yet in Christ, this very "non-sense" has actually occurred.
To me, God must change in order that humanity be reconciled. After all, humanity's salvation is much more than just the reality of being loved by God. For example, I love my wife. However, if we are estranged from one another, my love for her will not magically create/realize the circumstances which will bring about our reconciliation. Rather, I must make a move--a change--toward her of forgiveness. While forgiveness is certainly a facet of love, it is also nonsensical in the context of harmonious relationship--I have no reason to forgive my wife when we are properly related to one anotehr. And yet even more scandalously, the virtue of my forgiveness of my wife will also not realize our reconciliation. Rather, she must make a move, a response, to my love and forgiveness in order that our reconciliation can occur.
By way of analogy, then, I think this is similar to the dynamic that occurs between God and humanity. As such, I see that it does require a change on the part of God.
I understand your rejection of Aristotle's categories and definitions. I think Hart offers an interesting take on impassibility. I also think I only partially understand it, therefore your post is helping me sort out my thoughts.
Yes, I agree. Although I do not know all the facets of his arguments, I do appreciate that Hart at least takes the questions out of the realm of metaphysical categories and roots it in the ontological implications of God's love within the world that God has created. While I may still disagree with his conclusions, I think this is at least a good starting point from which to move on.
One final thought. In Walls class on intro to Philosophy, he lectured in part on impassibility and cited someone (I wish I could remember who) arguing for impassibility and as a piece of rhetoric stating that Nietzsche, if armed with that knowledge, would be overjoyed in hell, shaking his fist at God in perpetual rejection, causing God sorrow as it were, by constantly denying him.
Ah, the eternal black mail! While I see the point of this approach, I think it misses an important dynamic of love; love, at its heart, it is a complete self-giving of one to another. In loving humanity, God takes an incredible risk that this love will be eternally unrequited. Perhaps--and maybe this is too far...--a part of God's love is that God has to "deal" with the consequences of such a bold movement? Perhaps suffering is, in fact, integral to the very act and nature of love?
Sorry this took so long.
No way! I am glad for your response. I am tempted to read Hart's book now!
Thanks for the reply,
Keep in mind that I am not able to fully represent Hart on this. Again, I will recommend his book, it has shaped my understanding of theology more than any thing else I have read. Also, for a quick read and a great take on the problem of evil read his other book, "The Doors of the Sea". It's his take on the Tsunamis and it is very relevant to the hurricane stuff as well (oh yeah, as an added bonus he offers a scathing critique of Calvinism as part of the discussion, you'll love it). He is brilliant. I'm not sure what the buzz is about him at Asbury, but I assure you that unless it is professors talking about the book, it is very likely that the people discussing Hart have a limited understanding of him. I am reading The Beauty of the Infinite for the second time. It is hard work.
Back to the discussion.
In regards to process theology being the logical outcome of Calvinism, I agree one hundred percent and I don't know why this hasn't troubled more Calvinists. Perhaps because I haven't read enough of their writing?
In regards to Hart's arguments, I do not do it justice - especially in citing sentences here and there. As with most significant work the whole section must be taken in. Alas, as I read your response I am aware of a point I have not stressed enough.
Hart argues that what happened in the Incarnation was the manifestation of Christ as the second person of the Trinity from eternity. This is how I understand it at least, and admittedly I am struggling to understand it. Meaning that Christ's sacrifice and obedience to the will of the Father is a part of who he is and part of the Trinitarian "dance" or "movement" that is perpetually happening. It seems then, that you could have the creation - with real free wills, co-creating the future (so to speak), who need God's salvation and the redemption of the cross, and then you have Christ actually negating the power of sin. I don't think Hart (as I read him) is as much concerned with protecting God from pathos, as much as he is denying any creative or substanitive attribute to sin and death. Was it Augustine that argued that sin and evil were perversions of good, that evil can do nothing creative on its own? I know Lewis uses that argument. Anyway, sin does not have the power to fundamentally change or impact God as Being and Goodness, as Love and Light, as sin and evil are just the shadow sides, the negation, the absence of that which is good and holy. Thus, although Christ absorbed (so to speak) all of sin, all that sin had to offer, and even the most powerful outcome of sin - death - he was, in the end not changed, he was resurrected. God cannot be negated. It was creation and humanity that was forever changed, not God. Now, I know that Hart's argument about the Pre-creation Trinity (if one can speak intelligibly of a timeless God in such a manner) is an important aspect. I am still trying to grasp what it means.
Your point about non-existence is well put, and to be honest I am still thinking about it. I guess, as of now, I would wonder how time plays into the argument of how an eternal being is manifest. Sin, death, "non-sense" and non-being did not become a part of Christ, they were cancelled out in Christ as a shadow is when it approaches the light. I wish I understood Hart's writing better as I am curious what he would say on this.
I disagree that forgiveness and reconcilliation necessitates a change on God's part. If God as love is constantly and continually reaching out, if love is naturally outpouring, then forgivness as the move toward reconcilliation is just a natural manifestation of God as love. With you and your wife, as with any human relation, the estragment must on some level be two-fold, thus there is change. With God and us it is one-fold. The prophet Hosea comes to mind. The pithy saying applies, if you find yourself far from God, guess who moved. Furthermore, God is not static in the unmoved mover sense, but always pursuing. The picture that I get of the Trinity is dynamic.
Incidentally, this argument bumps into the other discussion, which I need to call you about, namely that death is a necessary and originally intended part of God's creation. While change may be, I don't believe that death is. But that's another discussion.
In your reply to the "eternal blackmail" - good name for it - I agree that God took a "risk" in loving us. This is something Calvinists cannot get over. But, I do not believe that God is any degree "lesser" or his love, when unreturned, any less proven. By this I mean that God does not make himself vulnerable. It is humanity that misses out when the rejection occurs. God is already a fully self-actualized being. Creation is fully unnecessary - an overabundance, a gratuitous loving outpouring.
All right, I hope I made some sense.
Enjoying the discussion.
I forgot to ask, is Paul Jenson related to Robert Jenson? Hart takes on Jenson on these very issues in the book. Walls told of a meeting he was at where both of them were there (Hart and Jenson who are friends) and they debated these Trinitarian points. Walls said it was neat to see.
Post a Comment