The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is not the God of the philosophers

Doug Chaplin of Metacatholic has been kind enough to carry on the conversation about divine passibility / impassibility initiated in an earlier post. It would add to the fun if an open theist or two joined the discussion, or Jeremy Pierce of Parableman, who would keep us all philosophically honest. In the mean time, let me stake out my position in relation to Doug’s. He says:

Jesus is not made to suffer, but he chooses to suffer. The problem with Moltmann’s theology in this regard is the privilege it gives to the Markan word of dereliction over and above these other testimonies, yet even Mark too shows Jesus freely embracing the way of the cross.

This, it seems to me, is of the essence of why we affirm impassibility. It [has] nothing to do with “feelings” of suffering, [it’s] about the powerlessness of suffering. No-one can do anything to God that God does not choose to let be done.

I have no issues with the above statements. More so than Jesus as portrayed in the gospels, the God of the Hebrew Bible, insofar as he grieves because of a specific turn of events, or suffers because his people suffer, brings these things upon himself. They are presented as consequences of choices God has made.

But I disagree when Doug says:

Impassibility . . . deals with the mutable metaphors [of passibility] at the level of language and condescension.

This approach, though a traditional one, distorts the biblical witness, and to no necessary end. What is unchangeable and enduring about God in the Bible? God’s faithfulness to his creation, to promises made and covenants established. God’s lovingkindness endures forever, whereas God’s anger is temporary. The former is immutable, the latter is mutable by definition. The former provides a context for, and interprets the latter.

But as soon as one claims that speaking of divine anger is but an accommodation to the needs of human communication, it won’t be long before one will also claim that speaking of divine lovingkindness falls into the same category. Then one is left with a God behind God, some sort of unmoved mover, or a God who is the unfathomable cipher of divine decrees the motivations of which are also inscrutable.

It is true that when we speak of God’s lovingkindness, God’s anger, God’s joy, and God’s regret, we are speaking metaphorically. But one must be careful not to widen the scope of one metaphor at the expense of another. The same applies to speaking about God’s immutability and impassibility. These, too, are metaphors, as are all descriptions of God of the via negativa.

The best approach: not to discard any of the language, positive or negative, at the level of doxology, and to qualify the scope of application of the diverse descriptions, at the level of theology, such that it becomes possible to systematically affirm all the language in a cohesive way.

I shouldn’t take it for granted that it is common knowledge: the title of this post is Pascalian.

Comments

[J. K. Gayle]

I wonder if Jesus, when he was the age of Lingamish's child referenced in comments at your initial post on your being a theopaschite, would find these posts and comments and conversations, laden with metaphors and philosophical underpinnings as they are, painful? If so, then "the shadow proves the sunshine," which is how Switchfoot sings it after Plato says it. Really, though, if we hurt (him), hasn't he hurt (for us)? Jesus didn't always use such big words but they did always come from passion.

[Doug Chaplin]

Interesting, John, and I may blog again. However, isn't there an error in the final sentence of your antepenultimate paragraph? Either you need a "not" or should refer instead to the via positiva, I think.
The problem with the position you stake out is that it doesn't safeguard against the idea that God appears (in the narratives) to move from the predominant attitude of loving-kindness to anger (and back after his strop comes to an end). Impassibility safeguards the idea that his loving-kindness is constant, because it is his free and unconstrained choice, and not a reaction conditioned by anything we might be or do. And yes, it's all metaphor. Turtles all the way down.
PS I don't think we're that far apart.

[JohnFH]

I don't think we're far apart either. Furthermore, I would join you in taking on Moltmann on this subject matter, though I have immense respect for Moltmann.

Insofar as the purpose of impassibility language is to safeguard the notion that God's anger is to be subsumed under God's loving-kindness, it is to be accepted in that sense.

Insofar as impassibility language renders non-impassive anthropopathic language referred to God suspect, it has overstepped its purpose. Descriptions of God via negation are meant to be metaphor free, I know, but I don't think it works that way.

Impassibility language, if not corrected by concurrent use of non-impassive anthropopathic language, can easily lead one in the direction of thinking that God is, as in some forms of mysticism, as impassive as a Buddha in a state of nirvana.