Divine Suffering in Contemporary Theology

Warren McWilliams

doi:10.1017/S0036930600047116

Divine Suffering in Contemporary Theology

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 February 2009

Warren McWilliams

Show author details

Warren McWilliams: Affiliation:
Dept. of ReligionOklahoma Baptist University, Shawnee OK 74801

Article contents

Extract
References

Get access

Rights & Permissions

Extract

Can God suffer? Can God feel real pain, anguish, or disappointment regarding the human situation? The answer of most classical Christian theists has been negative. Early in Christian history theologians began to develop the notion of divine impassibility, i.e. that God cannot suffer. This position was crystallised in the third century debates over patripassianism, a view proposed by Praxeas and Noetus that God the Father suffered and died in the crucifixion of Christ. Mainstream Christianity rejected this view because of its failure to maintain a clear distinction among the members of the trinity. In later Christological controversies, theopaschitism was also condemned for arguing that God suffered. In the twentieth century, however, numerous philosophers of religion, Biblical scholars, and theologians have criticised the doctrine of divine impassibility. Now it is not surprising to find a theologian arguing this way: ‘The concept of divine suffering is not only the core of our faith but the uniqueness of Christianity.’

One reason for the frequent debate over the impassibility of God is the kind of language used in the Bible to describe God. Many passages affirm the radical difference between divine and human natures (e.g. Isaiah 40.18, 25; Hosea 11.9). Other passages freely use anthropomorphic language to describe God, i.e. human form is attributed to God. God walks, talks, smells, hears, writes, and has a back side that Moses can see. Especially important for the impassibility discussion are the passages that use anthropopathic language for God, i.e. they attribute human moods, feelings, or emotions to God.

Type: Research Article
Information: Scottish Journal of Theology , Volume 33 , Issue 1 , February 1980 , pp. 35 - 53

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0036930600047116 [Opens in a new window]
Copyright: Copyright © Scottish Journal of Theology Ltd 1980

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

^{page 35 note 1} For a brief recent discussion, see Schilling, S. Paul, God and Human Anguish (Nashville: Abingdon, 1977), pp. 235–260.Google Scholar

^{page 35 note 2} Lee, Jung Young, God Suffers for Us: A Systematic Inquiry into a Concept of Divine Possibility (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1974), p. 1.CrossRef Google Scholar

^{page 36 note 1} For brief discussions of the history of interpretation of God's ‘repentance’, see Kuyper, Lester J., ‘The Repentance of God’, The Reformed Review, Vol. 18 (May 1965), pp. 3–16Google Scholar, and Kuyper, Lester J., ‘The Suffering and Repentance of God’, Scottish Journal of Theology, vol. 22 (Sept. 1969), pp. 257–277.CrossRef Google Scholar

^{page 36 note 2} Mozley, J. K., The Impassibility of God: A Survey of Christian Thought (London: Cambridge University Press, 1926), pp. 1–6.Google Scholar

^{page 36 note 3} Tillich, Paul, Systematic Theology, vol. III (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1963), p. 404.Google Scholar

^{page 36 note 4} Catholics, Among Roman, Küng, Hans, On Being a Christian, trans. Quinn, Edward (New York: Pocket Books, 1978), pp. 428–436Google Scholar. Other Protestant theologians who might be studied include Dorothee Soelle, William Hamilton, Thomas Altizer, Rubem Alves, and most of the process theologians.

^{page 37 note 1} Moltmann, Jürgen, Hope and Planning, trans. Clarkson, Margaret (New York: Harper & Row, 1971), p. 43.Google Scholar

^{page 37 note 2} Moltmann, Jürgen, The Crucified God: The Cross of Christ as the Foundation and Criticism of Christian Theology, trans. Wilson, R. A. and Bowden, John (New York: Harper & Row, 1974), pp. 145–153.Google Scholar

^{page 37 note 3} ibid., p. 192.

^{page 37 note 4} ibid., pp. 208–9.

^{page 38 note 1} ibid., pp. 251–2.

^{page 38 note 2} ibid., p. 246.

^{page 38 note 3} ibid., p. 243.

^{page 38 note 4} Moltmann, Jürgen, The Passion for Life: A Messianic Lifestyle, trans. Meeks, M. Douglas (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1978), p. 25.Google Scholar

^{page 38 note 5} Moltmann, , The Crucified God, p. 227.Google Scholar

^{page 38 note 6} ibid., pp. 253–4. On Hegel's influence on Moltmann, cf. Meeks, M. Douglas, Origins of the Theology of Hope (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974), pp. 34–40.Google Scholar

^{page 39 note 1} Moltmann, Jürgen, Theology of Hope: On the Ground and Implications of a Christian Eschatology, trans. Leitch, James W. (London: SCM Press, 1967), p. 21.Google Scholar

^{page 39 note 2} For example, Moltmann, Jürgen, Religion, Revolution, and the Future, trans Meeks, M. Douglas (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1969), pp. 83–107.Google Scholar

^{page 39 note 3} Moltmann, , The Passion for Life, p. 26.Google Scholar

^{page 39 note 4} Cone, Cecil Wayne, The Identity Crisis in Black Theology (Nashville: The African Methodist Episcopal Church, 1975), p. 102.Google Scholar

^{page 39 note 5} Cone has begun two recent books with brief autobiographical statements, indicating the beginnings of his theological pilgrimage in the Macedonian A.M.E. Church in Bearden, Arkansas. Cf. Cone, James H., The God of the Oppressed (New York: Seabury Press, 1975), pp. 1–15Google Scholar, and The Spirituals and the Blues (New York: Seabury Press, 1972), pp. 1–7.Google Scholar

^{page 40 note 1} Cone, , The God of the Oppressed, pp. 179–181.Google Scholar

^{page 40 note 2} ibid., pp. 183–8.

^{page 40 note 3} ibid., pp. 54–5.

^{page 40 note 4} ibid., p. 165.

^{page 40 note 5} Cone, , A Black Theology of Liberation (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott, 1970), pp. 181–191.Google Scholar

^{page 40 note 6} ibid., p. 21.

^{page 41 note 1} cf. Jones, William R., Is God a White Racist ? A Preamble to Black Theology (Garden City, New York: Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1973), pp. 98–120.Google Scholar

^{page 41 note 2} Cone, , A Black Theology of Liberation, pp. 108–109.Google Scholar

^{page 41 note 3} ibid., pp. 59–60, 131–2. Cone does not intend ‘black’ and ‘white’ to be understood in racist terms. They are ontological symbols for the oppressed and the oppressors, no matter what the skin color, cf. pp. 28–9; 32 footnote 5.

^{page 41 note 4} ibid., pp. 100, 193.

^{page 41 note 5} ibid., p. 149.

^{page 41 note 6} ibid., pp. 27, 47.

^{page 41 note 7} Cone, , The God of the Oppressed, pp. 166–170, 192Google Scholar. cf. A Black Theology of Liberation, p. 44.

^{page 41 note 8} Cone, , A Black Theology of Liberation, pp. 44, 241–2.Google Scholar

^{page 42 note 1} Cone, , The Spirituals and the Blues, pp. 86–97.Google Scholar

^{page 42 note 2} Cone, , A Black Theology of Liberation, p. 121.Google Scholar

^{page 42 note 3} Cone, , The God of the Oppressed, pp. 187, 267–8.Google Scholar

^{page 42 note 4} Cone, , A Black Theology of Liberation, pp. 92–96, 102–6.Google Scholar

^{page 42 note 5} A similar emphasis is made in Roberts, J. Deotis, A Black Political Theology (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1974), pp. 95–116.Google Scholar

^{page 42 note 6} Cone, , The God of the Oppressed, p. 139.Google Scholar

^{page 42 note 7} ibid., p. 174.

^{page 43 note 1} ibid., p. 235–6.

^{page 43 note 2} ibid., pp. 177.

^{page 43 note 3} ibid., p. 191. cf. Jones, , Is God a White Racist ?, p. 116Google Scholar, and the criticism of Jones in Hodgson, Peter C., New Birth of Freedom (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976), pp. 296–300.Google Scholar

^{page 43 note 4} ibid., p. 194.

^{page 43 note 5} Michalson, Carl, Japanese Contributions to Christian Theology (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960), p. 73.Google Scholar

^{page 44 note 1} Meyer, Richard, ‘Toward a Japanese Theology: Kitamori's Theology of the Pain of God’, Concordia Theological Monthly, vol. 33 (May 1962), p. 262.Google Scholar

^{page 44 note 2} Michalson, , Japanese Contributions to Christian Theology, p. 93.Google Scholar

^{page 44 note 3} Kitamori, Kazoh, Theology of the Pain of God, trans. Bratcher, M. E. (Richmond: John Knox Press, 1965), p. 19, cf. p. 90.Google Scholar

^{page 44 note 4} ibid., pp. 151–67.

^{page 44 note 5} ibid., p. 20.

^{page 44 note 6} ibid., p. 21.

^{page 44 note 7} ibid., pp. 22–5, cf. pp. 35–9.

^{page 44 note 8} ibid., pp. 117–27.

^{page 45 note 1} ibid., p. 118.

^{page 45 note 2} ibid., p. 120. Kitamori apparently favors a substitutionary theory of the atonement, cf. Michalson, , Japanese Contributions to Christian Theology, pp. 94–95.Google Scholar

^{page 45 note 3} ibid., p. 121.

^{page 45 note 4} ibid., p. 135. cf. p. 148.

^{page 45 note 5} ibid., p. 138.

^{page 45 note 6} ibid., p. 26.

^{page 45 note 7} ibid., pp. 136–7.

^{page 45 note 8} Michalson, , Japanese Contributions to Christian Theology, p. 76Google Scholar. The concept of divine empathy is developed in Jung Lee, God Suffers for Us. Lee's treatise is one of the fullest on divine passibility, but Kitamori was chosen to represent Asian theology in this essay because of his influence on more recent writers.

^{page 46 note 1} Kitamori, , Theology of the Pain of God, p. 21.Google Scholar

^{page 46 note 2} ibid., p. 34.

^{page 46 note 3} ibid., pp. 47–9.

^{page 46 note 4} ibid., p. 91.

^{page 46 note 5} ibid., p. 115.

^{page 46 note 6} ibid., p. 62

^{page 46 note 7} ibid., pp. 61–2.

^{page 46 note 8} ibid., p. 64.

^{page 46 note 9} ibid., p. 147.

^{page 46 note 10} ibid., p. 71.

^{page 47 note 1} ibid., p. 74.

^{page 47 note 2} ibid., p. 115.

^{page 47 note 3} Dawe, Donald G., The Form of a Servant: A Historical Analysis of the Kenotic Motif (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1963), pp. 86–155Google Scholar, analyses the late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century developments.

^{page 48 note 1} Richard, Lucien, ‘Kenotic Christology in a New Perspective’, Église et Théologie, vol. 7 (1976), pp. 5–39Google Scholar, surveys recent kenotic proposals. He does not, however, discuss Geddes MacGregor.

^{page 48 note 2} MacGregor, Geddes, He Who Lets Us Be: A Theology of Love (New York: Seabury Press, 1975), p. 4.Google Scholar

^{page 48 note 3} ibid., p. 15.

^{page 48 note 4} ibid., p. 107.

^{page 49 note 1} ibid., pp. 49–53.

^{page 49 note 2} ibid., p. 167.

^{page 49 note 3} ibid., p. 15.

^{page 49 note 4} ibid., p. 128.

^{page 49 note 5} ibid., p. 71.

^{page 50 note 1} ibid., p. 103.

^{page 50 note 2} ibid., p. 125.

^{page 50 note 3} ibid., pp. 120, 127.

^{page 50 note 4} ibid., pp. 141–3.

^{page 50 note 5} ibid., p. 153.

^{page 50 note 6} ibid., p. 156.

^{page 50 note 7} ibid., p. 157. cf. pp. 16–17.

^{page 50 note 8} ibid., p. 183.

^{page 51 note 1} Mozley, , The Impassibility of God, pp. 177–183.Google Scholar

^{page 52 note 1} cf. von Hügel, Baron Friedrich, Essays & Addresses on the Philosophy of Religion, Second Series (London: J. M. Dent & Sons, 1926), pp. 205–210.Google Scholar

^{page 52 note 2} Heschel, Abraham J., The Prophets, vol. II (New York: Harper & Row, 1975 reprint), p. 56.Google Scholar

^{page 53 note 1} Williams, Daniel Day, What Present-Day Theologians Are Thinking, Revised Edition (New York: Harper & Row, 1959), p. 138.Google Scholar

Article contents

Divine Suffering in Contemporary Theology

Extract

Access options

References

Save article to Kindle

Save article to Dropbox

Save article to Google Drive

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests