Impassibility, Mr Baddeley points out, is a doctrine in the dog-house in the modern world firstly because of the Holocaust; secondly because of the optimism about humanity which, with the odd interruption, has been building since the Enlightenment; and thirdly because the way we think about emotions has changed profoundly since the words ‘impassible’ and ‘passions’ were first used.
The conclusion of Mr Baddeley’s essay ties up his argument in favour of God’s impassibility superbly as a conclusion should:
Impassibility is the ugly duckling in theology today, attacked as a philosophically driven rejection of the Bible’s emotional language to describe God. In an era where ‘to feel is human’ is almost our slogan, any hint of weakening emotions in God is met with staunch resistance. But God’s impassibility is not the extinguishing of genuine emotion from God, merely the disciplining of how Christians read Scripture, and then think and speak about God on this topic. It drags our interest back from God’s inner world, which he has never invited us to interrogate, and focuses squarely on how God is in his relationship with us. It does this with the assurance that how God relates to us is grounded in his own nature and essence. The divine emotions that Scripture testifies to and that we experience are real, even though they are not changes in God’s mental state forced on him by our actions. Even more, impassibility upholds two of the most important biblical truths: that God acts in love and grace when he creates, commands, and saves; and that the cross is not merely the revelation of things that were true anyway, but fundamentally changed matters by redeeming us.
This sort of high quality, accessible and soundly Evangelical theological reflection is honouring to Christ and of huge practical cash value in front-line parochial ministry.
Impassibility is an interesting doctrine which was developed to defend against the heresy of Patripassianism. But it is a very finely balanced argument which requires quite a lot of mental gymnastics to balance it against the danger of saying the Son didn't suffer either.
ReplyDeleteProbably the main reason it is unpopular is that most people find it almost impossible to understand the difference between a God who doesn't suffer, and one who doesn't care.
Maybe this is a case for seeking a new way of explaining the biblical picture of God, rather than falling back on old terminology? "New" doesn't always equal "bad".
The essay well argues how the incarnate Son of God's suffering of death really is a 'game-changer'. 'To be saved from sins we did not need a suffering God. We needed the glorious Son of God to become man and as a consequence be made the perfect Saviour through his suffering and death for us'.
ReplyDeleteThe September Briefing with the whole essay is in it is available from the Good Book Company - 0333 123 0880.