Substance
Tonight at St Peter’s Tim (following NTW, I think) said that it is a constant temptation for us to think of our God in terms of various philosophical traditions, traditions which are in no way shaped by Jesus or the cross. While he was speaking, I was thinking “It is difficult for me to read even just the Old Testament – let alone the New – and understand how language like ‘without parts or passions’ is appropriate for talking about our God”. Tim presented the doctrine of the Trinity as the product of the early Christians trying to bring together Jewish monotheism and this man Jesus who did what only Yahweh can do. I was thinking “Yes, this makes sense! The Doctrine of the Trinity wasn’t dropped from heaven like flyers from a propaganda plane, it’s part of our God’s working in real history”. Before communion, we said the Nicene Creed together, and I said it with rather more gusto than previously.
Quoting Tim’s handout:
Moltmann says in The Crucified God: people are right to disbelieve in the impassive God, because only a suffering God can love. But God is not impassive: he loves, he suffers. On the Cross, the Son dies, and the Father suffers the death of his Son. Father and Son are therefore in loving solidarity with suffering of the world: the Holy Spirit flows out from this experience to the world.
34 responses to “Substance”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Sigh, “God is not merely human” is what the confession teaches, as reference to Acts indicates. The confession is right. God is “most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek him” is what the confession teaches about God, as well. This is also right and is another part of what we know about God. I appreciate your delight in God, why do you want to diss the confession?
My comment is honest, and not ammo in a general war against the confessions. I can’t actually see how one can read through the Bible and then include “without parts or passions” in a summary of God’s character.
Your religous musing reaches new levels!
“only a suffering God can love” – this sounds like the clay pot telling the potter the colour of his own eyes even though all the clay pot feels is the touch of the potter’s fingers. I say the clay pot is being presumptuous. God is love because he says he is, not because of any suffering.
“the doctrine of the Trinity as the product of early Christians trying to bring together Jewish monotheism and this man Jesus who did what only Yahweh could do” Did early Christians invent the trinity? Thanks early Christians! you are good inventors!
I really think it does help to understand the philosophical background of that kind of language. But even assuming the language is faithful in that context, the question remains whether that context can be said to ‘sum up’ or even ‘accurately reflect’ the scriptural teaching.
And I suspect *that* is where the debate and problem lies.
Do people think that this is a fair statement? –
“We can’t start with the philosophy and enquire whether the scripture teaches it. Because then, we will see in the scripture what we already ‘know’ in the philosphy. Rather, we should start with the existing hebrew context and paradigms (as best we can) and ask whether the philosophy teaches those.”
John: W.r.t the suffering God: perhaps it is worth pondering the difference between Allah and Yahweh. Any foo can construct a stomping or distant god from their own imagination, Christianity’s big thing is that God reveals himself most perfectly in the suffering servant, the lamb that was slain etc. You’re going to disagree with that!?
The word ‘trinity’ isn’t in the New Testament. Some bunch of early Christians made up that word (I think it’s a good word). They wanted to stay faithful to what the O.T. says about God, while worshiping Jesus as God. That doesn’t seem overly controversial to me.
matt, seems to me that your point about God revealed most perfectly as the suffering servant is complely correct. But I can’t believe the writers of the conf. were so dumb as to not see that. So, I think they meant something else by ‘no passions’, by which they meant to guard against some error or other within the philosophical tradition they were working with.
Hans gets 43 points for saying ‘diss’. That’s a new record, by the way.
Also, I don’t understand the question, you guys are all saying the same thing.
My point has been missed and possibly dissed. (I did like the use of diss)
I agree with point 6 that God reveals himself in suffering. I took umbrage at the statement “Only a suffering God could love” which is radically different than saying God revealed himself in the suffering of JC.
Of course the word “trinity” is made up, but the doctrine itself is not the product of early Christian thought, the description of the truth is. The concept itself is an inherent truth in scripture that the church fathers have brought out and called “the doctrine of the trinity”. If this is what was being said, then I agree.
Are you saying God reveals himself in suffering, but doesn’t suffer?
No, I am saying that God does not have to suffer to love. In the quote, the author says “Only a suffering God could love” which is crap.
Re: point 11: I agree. To say that “only a suffering God could love” takes away from His omnipotence and reduces Him to…I dunno, something not all-powerful, eternal, etc.
But our God *does* love and suffer (and whistle, incidentally).
John, why would you object to God having to suffer in order to love? Is it because we say that God is love ‘within Himself’, but that suffering isn’t part of God’s eternal condition in the ‘economical Trinity’ (presumably because God doesn’t hurt Himself)? Or something?
But might the gain of agreeing that God does suffer in the love He shows us be some sort of deeper appreciation for that love? After all, isn’t it only possible because of the hurt God takes in His Son? So, despite the hurt that God must recieve, He loves us anyway?
I really do like that idea, and find it compelling from the biblical narrative. And I suspect that this kind of point might be behind the Moltmann quote. I think Multmann might be reacting against the old idea of impassivity, which (as I understand it) says that God’s hurt on our behalf is really only appearance, but not real.
I am definitely taking crazy pills. I agree that God suffered. I agree with everything in 14. What I don’t agree with is the assertion that “Only a suffering God could love” You don’t tell God that he must suffer in order to love. That is presumption. God tells you what love is and what it means and how he will show it. The fact that he does show love through the suffering of his Son doesn’t change the presumption in the quote.
i am also taking crazy pills
I too am taking crazy pills. The word “only” is restrictive. How can we possibly restrict an all-powerful God?…and what John said.
Matt, you have previously expressed discomfort with the “without passions” line in the WCF. I thought that suggestions of the meaning of that word at the time the confession was written as well as the way the word is used in the KJV of the Bible explained what the WCF actually meant. Have you checked the origin of the phrase? The apostles were assuring their audience that they, the apostles, were not divine, far from divine, they were subject to the same passions as their audience, merely men. Same use of the same word in James where Elijah’s mere humanity and fallibility are stressed. Hence the WCF uses the apostolic characterisation of no divinity to deduce the opposite to indicate Divinity. Is that offensive/inaccurate/distorting?
Aaron, hard to see what particular time-bound philosophical target the WCF writers had, did they have to have one? Could they just have drawn a conclusion from scripture? Are they wrong? Is God “merely human”
God is love, says God. Why do we have to suggest that he had to suffer to love? Is the writer of your quote merely saying that to love is to be capable of suffering? “Only a suffering God loves” is a statement that I find hard to credit with any meaning that resonates with God’s revelation to us. An impassive God is a concept entirely foreign to the entire Bible and as such is not a concept that occurs in christianity. As soon as we create an impassive god we have abandoned YHWH.
Yep, the ‘only’ is too much.
Actually, talking to Dad – ‘only’ is too much, but to love someone most deeply and helpfully it is good to have suffered similarly to them.
Isn’t ‘He had to suffer to love’ putting the horse before the cart? Surely his suffering is an indication that He already loved? Hence His love is not dependent on His suffering, but vice versa?
I dunno.
Amen Dan, exactly, wonderfully true.
MAtt, MAtt’s DAd, empathy is important for humans to love other humans, not at all necessary for our infinite God! He knows us and all things too well to have to “walk a mile in our shoes”. Actually find that concept a little disrespectful, were one to apply it to Divine Love
Seems this exchange is going nowhere fast, perhaps we’ll have to leave it for the time being.
matt, re: ‘passions’:
this article might have some things you find worthwile: http://www.ses.edu/journal/issue1_1/1.1Culver.pdf
and also the oed has some good definitions and quotations:
http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/00172488?query_type=word&queryword=passions&edition=2e&first=1&max_to_show=10&single=1&sort_type=alpha
I’m not a subscriber to OED online (by which I don’t mean I don’t *believe* in it) so perhaps you could post their definitions. I aim to read that article after work today. Cheers very much Rich.
why aren’t you into the oed online?
cos it costs money
here are some of the things from oed — not sure whether this is breaking some sort of copyright.
sorry i didn’t realise that oed online wasnt free (uni must subscribe). shame because it is *the* muffins.
anyway here are the ones that are more likely to be applicable:
II. The fact of being acted upon, the being passive. [Late L. passio, used to render Gr. .]
5. a. The fact or condition of being acted upon or affected by external agency; subjection to external force: = AFFECTION n. 1; an effect or impression produced by action from without. Now rare or Obs.
c1374 CHAUCER Boeth. v. met. iv. 130 (Camb. MS.) The passion, at is to seyn e suffraunce or the wit in the qwyke body goth byforn exitinge and moeuynge the strengthis of the thoght. 1413 Pilgr. Sowle (Caxton 1483) V. xiv. 108 Al that is done withouten might, it lacketh the dignyte and the name of dede, but it is cleped passion. 1530 PALSGR. 111 Verbes meanes..betoken neyther action nor passion. 1610 J. GUILLIM Heraldry III. iii. (1660) 109 The..brightnesse of these [Sun and Moon] is..subject to the passion of darkning or eclipsing. 1668 WILKINS Real Char. III. i. 303 That kind of word..adjoyned to a Verb, to signifie the quality and affection of the Action or Passion, is stiled an Adverb. 1725 WATTS Logic I. iv. §7 The word passion signifies the receiving any action, in a large philosophical sense. 1846 TRENCH Mirac. xxxiii. (1862) 470 That work shall be the work of passion rather than of action.
b. A way in which a thing is or may be affected by external agency; a passive quality, property, or attribute; = AFFECTION 11, 12. Obs.
1570 BILLINGSLEY Euclid I. xxxiv. 44 In this Theoreme, are demonstrated three passions or properties of parallelogrammes. 1610 B. JONSON Alch. II. v, What’s the proper passion of mettalls? 1657 W. MORICE Coena quasi Diat. iii. 139 Frigidity is the proper passion of water, which is sometime accidentally hot. 1690 LEYBOURN Curs. Math. 330 Of certain Passions and Properties of the Five Regular Bodies. 1707 FLOYER Physic. Pulse-Watch 209 The different Manners..produc’d by a particular hot or cold Diet, or Air, Exercise, and Passions peculiar to each Nation.
III. An affection of the mind. [L. passio = Gr. .]
6. a. Any kind of feeling by which the mind is powerfully affected or moved; a vehement, commanding, or overpowering emotion; in psychology and art, any mode in which the mind is affected or acted upon (whether vehemently or not), as ambition, avarice, desire, hope, fear, love, hatred, joy, grief, anger, revenge. Sometimes personified.
c1374 CHAUCER Troylus IV. 676 (704) As she at al is mene while brende Of oer passion an at ey wende. 1526 Pilgr. Perf. (W. de W. 1531) 118 He wyll stere vp in his soule ye passyons of ire & impacyency. 1528 TINDALE Obed. Chr. Man Wks. (Parker Soc.) I. 246 A poor woman with child, which longed, and, being overcome of her passion, ate flesh on a Friday. 1591 SHAKES. 1 Hen. VI, V. ii. 18 Of all base passions, Feare is most accurst. 1611 BIBLE Acts xiv. 15 We also are men of like passions with you. 1647 COWLEY Mistr., Passions i, From Hate, Fear, Hope, Anger, and Envy free, And all the Passions else that be. 1710 NORRIS Chr. Prud. vii. 323 By the Passions I think we are to understand certain Motions of the Mind depending upon and accompanied with an Agitation of the Spirits. 1732 POPE Ep. Bathurst 154 The ruling Passion conquers Reason still. 1791 MRS. RADCLIFFE Rom. Forest i, A man whose passions often overcame his reason. 1797 Encycl. Brit. (ed. 3) XIV. 2/1 The common division of the passions into desire and aversion, hope and fear, joy and grief, love and hatred, has been mentioned by every author who has treated of them. Ibid. 14/2 Passions, in painting, are the external expressions of the different dispositions and affections of the mind; but particularly their different effects upon the several features of the face. 1843 PRESCOTT Mexico VI. viii. (1864) 401 It were as easy to curb the hurricane in its fury, as the passions of an infuriated horde of savages. 1872 RUSKIN Eagle’s Nest §169 Their reverence for the passion, and their guardianship of the purity, of Love.
b. Without article or pl.: Commanding, vehement, or overpowering feeling or emotion.
1590 SPENSER F.Q. I. v. 1 Such restlesse passion did all night torment The flaming corage of that Faery knight. 1604 SHAKES. Oth. IV. i. 277 Is this the Nature Whom Passion could not shake? 1678 SOUTH Serm. (1697) II. x. 434 Passion is the Drunkenness of the Mind. 1724 DE FOE Mem. Cavalier (1840) 3 He told me, with a great deal of passion, that he loved me above all the rest. 1770 WESLEY Lett., to J. Benson 5 Oct., Passion and prejudice govern the world. 1901 H. BLACK Culture & Restraint iv. 106 Philosophy is a feeble antagonist before passion.
c. A fit or mood marked by stress of feeling or abandonment to emotion; a transport of excited feeling; an outburst of feeling.
1590 SPENSER F.Q. I. i. 49 In this great passion of unwonted lust, Or wonted feare of doing ought amis, He starteth up. 1599 CHAPMAN Hum. Day’s Mirth Plays 1873 I. 92 Come, come, leave your passions, they cannot moove mee. 1628 HOBBES Thucyd. (1822) 119 They sent these men thither in passion. 1725 POPE Odyss. IV. 150 From the brave youth the streaming passion broke. 1854 MILMAN Lat. Chr. VII. ii. (1864) IV. 98 Henry fell on his knees and in a passion of grief entreated her merciful interference. 1856 W. COLLINS After Dark (1862) 214 She burst into an hysterical passion of weeping.
d. A poem, literary composition, or passage marked by deep or strong emotion; a passionate speech or outburst. Obs. or arch.
1582 T. WATSON Centurie of Loue i. heading, The Authour in this Passion taketh..occasion to open his estate in loue. 1590 SHAKES. Mids. N. V. i. 321 Heere she comes, and her passion ends the play. 1599 MASSINGER, etc. Old Law I. i. Wks. (Rtldg.) 416/1 These very passions I speak to my father. [Gifford note These pathetic speeches.] 1614 T. TOMKIS Albumazar II. i. in Hazl. Dodsley XI. 327 Not a one shakes his tail, but I sigh out a passion. 1871 BROWNING Balaustion 193 Now it was some whole passion of a play.
7. a. spec. An outburst of anger or bad temper.
1530 PALSGR. 320/1 Passyonate, inclyned sone to be in a passyon. 1590 SPENSER F.Q. II. iv. 11 It’s eath..to..calme the tempest of his passion wood. 1688 MIEGE Fr. Dict. s.v. Bring, To bring a Man in a passion [transporté de colère] to himself. 1731 Gentl. Mag. I. 391/1 This put Bluster into such a Passion, that he quitted the Surgery in a Pet. 1773 JOHNSON in Boswell 28 Aug., Warburton kept his temper all along, while Lowth was in a passion. 1819 Metropolis II. 212 She chose, woman-like,..to fly in a passion and to abuse the sheriff’s officer. 1842 BROWNING Pied Piper x, And folks who put me in a passion May find me pipe after another fashion.
b. Without a: Impassioned anger, angry feeling.
1524 WOLSEY Let. to Knight in Strype Eccl. Mem. (1721) I. I. iv. 57 Whatsoever they might speak in passion or otherwise. 1605 CHAPMAN All Fooles IV. i. 125, I pray you good Gostanzo, Take truce with passion. 1628 HOBBES Thucyd. (1822) 37 [To] undergo the danger with them and that without passion against you. 1729 BUTLER Serm. Resentm. Wks. 1874 II. 98 Passion; to which some men are liable, in the same way as others are to the epilepsy. 1798 SOUTHEY Cross Roads xviii, Passion made his dark face turn white. 1882 J. PARKER Apost. Life I. 143 We can stifle the hot word of passion.
8. a. Amorous feeling; strong sexual affection; love; also in pl., amorous feelings or desires. Often tender passion.
1588 SHAKES. Tit. A. II. i. 36 My sword..shall..plead my passions for Lauinia’s loue. 1590 SPENSER F.Q. III. v. 30 But, when shee better him beheld, shee grew Full of soft passion and unwonted smart. 1592 SHAKES. Rom. & Jul. II. Prol. 13 Passion lends them Power, time, meanes to meete. 1658 PHILLIPS, Passion,..an affection of the mind,..in Poems and Romances it is more peculiarly taken for the passion of love. 1710 STEELE Tatler No. 128 4 Fairest Unknown..I have conceived a most extraordinary Passion for you. 1752 FIELDING Amelia II. i, I declared myself the most wretched of all martyrs to this tender passion. 1855 MILMAN Lat. Chr. IX. viii. (1864) V. 413 Seized with a poetic passion for Eudoxia, wife of William.
b. transf. An object of love, a beloved person.
1783 LADY SUFFOLK in Lett. C’tess S. (1824) II. 275 Lord Buckingham’s former passions go off very quickly: poor Lady Northampton is dead. 1842 THACKERAY Fitz-Boodle Papers Wks. (Biogr. ed.) IV. 295 Whenever one of my passions comes into a room, my cheeks flush.
9. Sexual desire or impulse.
1641 WILKINS Math. Magick I. i. (1648) 2 Which set a man at liberty from his lusts and passions. 1667 MILTON P.L. I. 454 Sions daughters..Whose wanton passions in the sacred Porch Ezekiel saw. 1798 MALTHUS Popul. III. iii. (1806) II. 132 Delaying the gratification of passion from a sense of duty. 1842 LONGFELLOW Quadroon Girl x, He knew whose passions gave her life, Whose blood ran in her veins.
sorry. perhaps i should have edited it down a bit.
Cheers Rich. In your view which of those meanings are entirely inappropriate to use when talking about God?
[II 5 a] and [II 5 b] are probably the main ones, and were probably the ones that the divines had in mind considering the context of WCF chapter 2 para 1 (God’s infinity, immutability, perfection etc).
But the vibe of most of the above definitions is being ‘overcome’ by or in a state of ‘abandonment’ to emotions or anger or impulses. Maybe its just a result of the subliminal effect of the wcf, but those concepts seem juxtaposed to my conception of God.
Thanks for the rather helpful article Rich. I’m reading it now. One thought occured to me: It’s idols that are described as un-caring, without emotion, wooden, unmoved etc, in comparison to the living God. I say the prooftexts listed for immutability mostly refer to what might be described as covenant faithfulness, i.e. “I will not turn my back on you”. If Dr Culver’s description of simplicity is correct, then simplicity is theological maths, and trying to make words do more work than they’re able. Impassibility feels like people already know what God is like, and then they figure out how Jesus relates to that, rather than looking to Jesus to see what God is like. I like the tone of the article.
1) If God does not suffer, then He doesn’t suffer when we reject Him.
2) Bad things will happen to us if we reject Him
Therefore: 3) If God does not suffer, God does not suffer when bad things happen to us
4) Anyone who loves another will suffer when bad things happen to them
Therefore: 5) If God does not suffer, then God does not love those who reject him
Since we assume that God loves everyone, whether we reject him or not, we have a problem and can only assume that God suffers.
Now, IMO the most contestable premise is (4). However, God is love, and it is through God’s love that we are all able to love. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that God’s love is of the same nature as our own. If God’s love is so entirely different as to be void of empathy, then we should stop calling it love, because the word doesn’t effectively communicate God’s state of being.