Worshiping the Responsive God

The doctrine of God's impassibility suggests that God is above being affected by anything outside God's self -- especially pain and suffering. One might ask how this fits with the whole idea of prayer, but that's for another discussion.

In my recent posts on chapter 10 of Philip Clayton's book Adventures in the Spirit (Fortress, 2008), I explored his claim that panentheism is best expressed in trinitarian form. Being a Trinitarian myself, but also understanding that much of the philosophical basis of classical trinitarian thought is rooted in Greek philosophy, it is interesting to consider another basis upon which to comprehend this important, and often disputed doctrine. Rooted as we are in monotheism, how can we claim that God is at once three and also one? It is a claim that both our Jewish and Muslim cousins reject as unreasonable. Arius believed that it was unbiblical, and in someways he has reason to suggest that this is true -- for there are few explicit trinitarian statements in Scripture. But that's not the point of this posting. Near the end of chapter 10 Clayton makes a statement that I think is worth considering carefully.

He writes that while our thoughts and actions don't "constitute the divine," process thought and panentheism offer an important insight for Christian theology. Thus:

Nothing we do influences or changes the essential nature of God, and God could have existed with no less perfection without us. At the same time, however, it's true that our actions do affect the responsive nature of God: that "part" of God that emerges out of God's response to the universe and humanity. This process insight -- that a responsive God is greater, is more fully God, than a dispassionate God-above-history -- beautifully summarizes a deep underlying motivation of panentheism. God is the all-embracing presence. We live and move and have our being within that presence. God continually responds to our thoughts and actions and God's response of grace yields an overall whole that is richer than either would have been on its own. This is the miracle of creation and of history: that God would deign for it to matter to God that we, in all our frailty, would have existed, and, even more miraculously, for the result of our existing and interacting with God to be truly good. Herein lies the eschatalogical hope and the eschatalogical promise of Christianity: that, in the end, God will be able to say, "Behold, it was good, yea it was very God." (pp. 173-174).


I have resisted process thought for a very long time, in part because I felt that the God that it proclaimed was deficient. To suggest that God is not all-powerful, seemed to leave us with a God less than worthy of our praise and honor. I understood that process seemed to offer a better theodicy -- defense of God in the face of evil -- but I wanted more. At the same time I began to read Jurgen Moltmann and I realized that an unresponsive, aloof, unaffected God was also unworthy of our praise. It's not that God is one who can be bargained with, manipulated, or cajoled to do what we want. Rather it is a God who cares, who is affected, is compassionate. If I understand Philip Clayton correctly, in God's essence God does not change. That is, in terms of God's goodness, God's identity, God's purpose, God is unchanging. God isn't capricious, changing from one moment to another. While Robert Wright maybe correct about evolving understandings of God, in God's essence there is no evolving. On the other hand, God is affected and thus grows as a result of God's interactions with creation. I appreciate his statement that God would be fully God without us. That is part of the premise of the Trinity, God is not alone, because God is Trinity (whether or not the traditional nomenclature of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are used).

The point here is, when I come into worship God. It is good to know that God is responsive and not dispassionate. That God desires to be present with us, and not stand aloof. Thus, in Jesus we see God particularly present in human life, reminding us that we matter to God. If panentheism is best able to express this important principle, then I am very open. Indeed, Clayton's next chapter on "Open Panentheism," is written in dialogue with the more evangelical "Open Theists," who also while not embracing panentheism, affirm a responsive God.

Thus, we come to worship the God who has chosen to experience life with us, to embrace us in the divine.

Comments

John said…
You said: "I realized that an unresponsive, aloof, unaffected God was also unworthy of our praise."

I couldn't agree more. This conception of God as perfect, complete and unchanging held no value for me. What does he need me for, and I would be fooling myself to imagine such a God being concerned for me. In fact such a God appeared more and more like a mathematical construct, defined mostly by his perfection, and thus with no more reality and no more inherent value than a mathematical equation for a perfect sphere.

It was only when I began to conceive of God as engaged ith humanity, and as one who cared enough to pay attention to humans, and to respond to the human condition, that my faith returned.

Moreover, here is a God worthy of worship, that is, here is a God who responds to worship, thus rendering the act of worship meaningful.

John
Cody Stauffer said…
All of this is what also draws me to process thought. It's quite beautiful, it's full of paradox in it's explanation and mystery, all things I did not care for at one time.

Popular Posts