Jared Willemin

Most people in this world have an idea of who or what God is. Whether they believe in God or not, they have certain conceptions that they use to define God. Traditionally, due in large part to classical theism, people define God mostly by His omnipotence. A lot of people have an image of God being an all-powerful ruler over the entire universe. These ideas come out of a mindset that affirms the greatest being must be the one with all the power. They imagine a being that is so far above the world, that He cannot be affected by what humans do. They want to continually affirm that He is completely unchanged, unmoving, and compassionless. To uphold this belief denies a good portion of Scripture as well as liturgical tradition within the church. For example, Hosea 11 describes God’s compassion and concern growing for the Israelites in a way that assumes God’s changing emotions (Inbody 145).

This power-based concept of God essentially leads to some of the biggest problems in accepting faith. For example, if God is all-powerful, why does he allow evil to exist in the world? Furthermore, if God is all-powerful, then how can humans or any creatures have real freedom (Placher xiii)? It seems impossible to answer these questions by denying that evil and freedom exist. It can be clearly seen and argued that bad things occur in this world, just as every person can understand they have freedom when they act. Classical theism puts an extreme emphasis on God’s omnipotence and seems to make God responsible for the pain and suffering in the world. As a result, God ends up getting the blame for the mistakes found in His creation. It becomes necessary, then, to propose a scheme in which God is not so powerful that He is incapable of relating and in which He also remains God.

The best way to do this is to change the way one perceives God. This does not mean people are forced to abandon the biblical witness of God, but instead to come up with a better way to understand the Bible’s language concerning God. Too often people, especially Christians, jump to conclusions in defining God in terms of power. They overlook one of the main themes of the Bible that is summed up in 1 John 4:8: God is love. Once people understand that love is the key characteristic of God’s nature, it becomes much easier to produce meaningful conceptions of God. Instead of defining God’s love from his power then, one begins to define His power from His love. This way of thinking can scare traditional theists because they are wary of thinking of God in a way that would limit His omnipotence. Classical theists might say, and rightfully so, that defining God in terms of divine love leads to a vulnerable God; this vulnerable God is limited in power and not worthy of belief. However, this begs the question- why should one believe in a God who is so powerful that He cannot have any concern for humanity? Therefore, it becomes evident that a loving, caring God is much more worthy of our praise than an out of touch powerful ruler (Placher xiv).

Another important factor that is overlooked when defining God is his revelation through Jesus Christ. Looking at Jesus’ life seems to be an obvious way one would go about finding ideas of God, but it is something that is rarely reflected in peoples’ conclusions concerning God. Many affirm Christ’s divinity but they do not consider what that entails: to describe Christ is to describe God. According to most peoples’ theologies, then, one might expect that Christ came in the world and ruled as a powerful king. This, however, is quite untrue; Christ did not come to rule but to suffer. He suffered the basic things that we suffer everyday and in the end he was sacrificed for the sins of the world. Thus, studying Christ promotes a philosophy in which God is a suffering God.

This idea of suffering is a very interesting one. Of course, at first, some Christians would deem this kind of language blasphemous in the way that it makes God vulnerable. However, as Placher states, "God suffers because God is vulnerable, and God is vulnerable because God loves- and it is love, not suffering or even vulnerability, that is finally the point" (18). Thus, in this picture God is such an omni benevolent creature that He relates to us in a way that entails His pain with us. "God can help because God acts out of love, and love risks suffering" (18). This relational philosophy does not result in a powerless God but a God whose power is found in the power of love (19). Only this perfectly loving God is strong enough to suffer with the world. God suffers in our hurts and pains everyday, but He also suffered once and for all physically by dying on the cross.

One main issue raised when talking about this suffering, all-loving God is His knowledge of the future. Traditionally Christians believe that God knows the future perfectly. However, how does this way of thinking support or hurt the idea of a relational God? The answer comes in the way we view God’s will. Christians continually talk about God’s will for their lives, but in a classical theism mindset this will entails evil as well as good. If everything that happens is God’s will, since He is all-powerful and all-knowing, then it seems to follow that atrocities are just as much God’s will as the good and loving things. This problem is solved when God is thought of as suffering and relating; according to this way of thinking, "God does not will everything that happens, but God has a will in literally everything that happens" (Inbody 152). In other words, God does not plan each and every event, but in those events God has a will for the most loving and good thing to result. This does not mean that God’s plan will necessarily occur, because He does not have unilateral control. Instead, God works in relation with humans to fulfill his plans for the most loving outcome (152).

The biggest question of this philosophy is whether God can actually do anything about pain and suffering. It is nice to say that God suffers with us and relates to us but it seems meaningless if God cannot do anything about those things. Is God simply reduced to a fellow sufferer who can understand worldly pain, but can only standby "helplessly sympathetic" (Inbody 155)? The answer is God redeems in many ways in addition to sympathy: the good of God’s nature experienced in the world, providing new loving situations by working to transform painful ones, and by strengthening the good that is achieved (156). God’s power then is not in imposing new situations but by redeeming and transforming situations relationally. The answer to suffering is found in an "Answerer" who triumphs in our suffering by absorbing and transforming it (164). The most obvious example of this is, of course, Jesus’ death on the cross.

In a traditional classical theistic view, evil and suffering is overcome and defeated from outside the world. An invulnerable God, who at the end of time defeats the evil forces amongst the world, does this. In a relational view, God overcomes suffering from within the world. This is a view that fits much easier with the biblical portrait of God’s triumph in the birth, ministry, death, and resurrection of His son, Jesus Christ (Inbody 166).

Similarly an understanding of a vulnerable God leads to a much more meaningful idea of worship. Traditionally God is worthy of worship because of his omnipotence. Humans are to praise Him, not really because of anything He has done but because it is called for out of honor for His power. This is very similar to the way an absolute monarch might demand praise from his subjects. These types of ideas can lead to some less than exemplary ideas of God. Contrastingly, under a perception of a vulnerable God, He is worshipped because of His desire and work to bring good out of the suffering of the world (Inbody 154). This concept seems to offer a greater reason to worship God. Also, according to this philosophy, God is actually affected by our worship and praise, instead of being above it all. Human praise, and prayer as well, has an actual beneficial cause on God.

In conclusion, it is also important to note that this relational understanding of God can also deeply enrich one’s spiritual life. When a person has a concept of God that focuses on his or her own relationship with the God of heaven and earth, instead of one that is based on the supremacy and power of God, it becomes much easier to live a spiritual life. It is very hard under the latter philosophy to actually commune or ‘walk’ with God. This is something that is very possible and even necessary from a relational, suffering God perspective. It is important to consider all these things when contemplating a change in the way one views God. Sometimes it becomes too easy to merely fall back on tradition and the way things are usually accepted, when instead one should be looking and searching for answers and understandings that fit a particular person’s beliefs. Thinking about God differently should not be viewed as limiting God; under a relational philosophy God still has perfect power in the sense that He has the maximal power conceivable in a world in which there are other creatures of genuine power (Inbody 156).

Works Cited

Inbody, Tyron L. The Transforming God. Louisville: John Knox, 1997.

Placher, William C. Narratives of a Vulnerable God. Louisville: John Knox, 1994.

.