Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T12:35:09.632Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Pain of God1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 February 2009

Extract

The problem of the Pain of God is for me a perennial one, for wherever in the Anglican Communion God calls me to minister (with few exceptions) I have been and shall be called upon to assent to the proposition that God is ‘without body, parts or passions’ (Article I of the XXXIX Articles of Religion). My difficulty is simply that, although I am content to admit that God is incorporeus et impartibilis without any qualifications at all, I cannot admit that He is impassibilis without making so many qualifications that the admission almost dies of them. I suspect furthermore that those who are obliged to give general assent to the Westminster Confession of Faith may have a similar difficulty with Chapter II, Section I, which contains the same proposition. The scriptural warrant for it is said to be found in Acts 14.15, where Paul and Barnabas cry to the people of Lystra, ‘Men, why are you doing this? We also are men, of like nature with you, and bring you good news, that you should turn from these vain things to a living God who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all that is in them.’ In its context, I understand this verse to imply that God, unlike Zeus and Hermes, is neither fickle nor whimsical, but constant and free to achieve His purpose. As the Greek Fathers would say, He is both autokinetos and tautokinetos.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Scottish Journal of Theology Ltd 1967

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 142 note 1 His new book, The Living Cod of Nowhere and Nothing (Epworth Press, 1966)Google Scholar has just come to hand. He defines contrapletal as: ‘A complementary relationship of seeming opposites, like night and day or summer and winter, in a larger unity that includes both’ (p. 22).

page 142 note 2 In his new book, vid. sup., he says (p. 77): ‘Since God was the moulding reality of Jesus’ historic personality, it was predominantly God who went to the Cross.’