![\"\"](\"https:\/\/thomasjayoord.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/08\/5253-200x300.jpg\")
<\/a><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\nSome Think God is Not Relational<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
It surprises many to hear that some Christian, Jewish, and Muslim theologians from yesteryear denied God relates, in the sense of being affected by others. Thomas Aquinas and Anselm denied that God is relational, as I explained in a previous blog.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Some believers today deny that God is relational. In their view, God affects others, but others have no affect on God. <\/p>\n\n\n\n For a host of reasons — biblical, theological, philosophical, practical, ethical — I think God is relational. I have explained this in various writings, including a short blog, “What Does ‘God is Relational’ Mean?”<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n In this new 4 Views book, I argue for what editors call “strong passibility.” I typically use the phrase “essentially related” instead strong passibility, but both labels reflect the view that God, by nature, relates to others.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The “weak passibility” view says God chooses to relate. God may choose to relate to some others or relate at some times. But God may choose not relate to some others or relate at other times. <\/p>\n\n\n\n God is not relational by nature but by arbitrary choice. A philosopher might say the weak passibility view assumes God contingently not necessarily relates to others. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Biblical writers don\u2019t explicitly endorse one version of relationality. The Bible doesn’t tell us in a direct way whether God is strongly or weakly passible. We must ponder the assets and liabilities of each view as they pertain to other issues. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In a previous blog<\/a>, I explained that people who think God essentially relates — i.e., is relational by nature — have two ways they affirm their view. The first says God essentially relates within Trinity. The second says God essentially relates with creation. A third way combines the two, saying God essentially relates both in Trinity and with creation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Believing God relates by nature has major advantages. I’ve identified elsewhere five advantages to believing God essentially relates to others.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Perhaps you’ve not wondered whether God relates by choice or by nature. I suspect, however, you affirm that God relates by nature — strong divine passibility \/ essential relatedness — without knowing it. <\/p>\n\n\n\n To demonstrate how you probably already believe God is essentially relational, please answer the following three questions honestly. Answer in your head before reading my responses…<\/p>\n\n\n\n Most people answer \u201cyes\u201d to this question. They think it\u2019s possible<\/em> for God to choose to be unrelated, unaffected, and uninfluenced. In their view, God could<\/em> choose to leave us and forsake us. God could<\/em> choose to stop loving us. \u201cGod sovereignly chooses to relate with and love others,\u201d they might say. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This is the weak passibility view. It\u2019s probably the stated (but not actual) view of most believers I know. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Let\u2019s move to the second question\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n Most people answer \u201cno.\u201d They think God will always relate with us, always be present to us, and always love us. In their view, we can trust God in these crucial ways.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Those who think God could<\/em> stop loving us, however, have no reason to think God would<\/em> always<\/em> love us. Those who think God could <\/em>leave us and forsake us have no reasons to think God would never <\/em>choose to leave us or forsake us. There is no justification for such views.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Let me put it another way, if God\u2019s nature does not include love for creation, we have no reason to think God will always choose to be with us and never forsake us. <\/p>\n\n\n\n If God\u2019s eternal nature does not include love for creation, there\u2019s no reason to think God will always choose to love us in give-and-receive relationship. <\/p>\n\n\n\n A God who relates and loves by choice could — and perhaps has or currently does — choose not to relate and love. And that leads to the third question\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n Most people answer this question, \u201cthat\u2019s just who God is.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n They say, \u201cIf God left us, forsook us, or stopped loving us, God wouldn\u2019t be acting like God.\u201d Or they offer a variation of these answers. <\/p>\n\n\n\n When answering this third question, most people appeal to their deep belief about who God truly is.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This deeper belief shows that people really do <\/em>think God is essentially relational. Although they may not articulate it well, most think God\u2019s love for us is an essential aspect of what it means to be God. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Saying \u201cthat\u2019s just who God is\u201d is really saying, \u201cIt\u2019s God\u2019s nature to be like that.\u201d God can\u2019t help but love us, because that\u2019s God\u2019s nature. God relates to and loves others by nature not by arbitrary choice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Given these questions and their typical answers, I find most people affirm strong passibility. They may not be able to articulate this affirmation. They may even say <\/em>God chooses to relate and love. <\/p>\n\n\n\n But when pressed, most people I know think it’s God’s nature to relate to and love others.<\/p>\n\n\nMost people affirm strong divine passibility. They may say God can choose to stop relating to and loving us. But when pressed, most people think it's God's nature to relate to and love others. <\/a><\/span>Share on X<\/a><\/span>\n\n\nGod is Essentially Related<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Scripture<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
You Probably Already Believe God is Essentially Relational<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Q1: Do you think God could<\/em> ever leave us, forsake us, or stop loving us?<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Q2: Do you think God would<\/em> ever leave us, forsake us, or stop loving us?<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Q3: Why<\/em> do you think God would never leave us, never forsake us, or never stop loving us?<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Conclusion<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n