Marginal Christianity

Impassibility has had a rough time for about thirty years. But it's making a comeback. Legitimate critiques of the “suffering God” have been made. Fresh articulations of impassibility have been proffered that creatively address some of the concerns that gave rise to the “suffering God.” Yet for my money, any doctrine of God that foregrounds impassibility, even one that does not necessarily lead to the notion of the aloof God who does not genuinely care about his creatures' suffering, leaves an impression about God that does not well serve the Christian faith. I have never thought my way through to a viable alternative, however. Open Theism does not do it for me. It seems but an alter-ego to the Calvinistic rationalism it rejects. It's still plays in the same ball field when, in my judgment, a change of venue is required. Moltmann, as much as I like much of what he does, seems weakest just at this point. Building off a critique of the church fathers' alleged capitul...

Yet, we still have to discover what God "changing his mind" might mean?   Again, it is Frethiem who offers wise insight here so I will quote him at some length.  "What status do (Moses') arguments have for God?   They are certainly not matters that God had not considered before.   But to have them articulated in a forceful way by God's own chosen leader gives them a new status.   Moses, by his entry into the discussion, brings three new factors to bear on the situation:   his decision or will, his energy (!), and his insight.   These factors make the situation different from what it had been moments earlier.   God is open to what Moses has to say and takes Moses' contribution with utmost seriousness, honoring it as an important contribution for the shaping of the future.   If Moses wills and thinks and does these things, they take on a significance that they did not carry when   treated in divine isolation.   It is not a matt...

Many in recent years have debated the ancient axiom that God, if he is truly God, must be impassible. That is, serene, calm, unperturbed by anything outside himself – including the suffering of his creatures and creation. After all, that’s what it means to be God, at least in the West. Perfection requires changelessness for change implies imperfection or lack of fulfillment. And God has no imperfections or lacks. Therefore he cannot change or be moved by anything. God is therefore impassible, or changeless. If he is, he is not God. This view of God as changeless has, perhaps more than any other belief except maybe a deterministic view of election (and the two are related), gutted Christian faith of its vitality. A God who not only does not respond to his creatures need and distress, indeed, who cannot so respond, is not a God who can be loved. Or love. Prayer becomes simply another therapeutic technique for the one who prays. It does nothing to or for God. It is no accid...