Does God Relate by Choice or by Nature?
A “Four Views” book has just been published exploring God’s im/passibility (IVP Academic). I wrote one of the four essays. Instead of “passible” or “impassible,” most people today use the words “relational” or “nonrelational” to talk about whether creatures influence God. Relational theologians like me wholeheartedly affirm the idea God engages in giving and receiving. Others makes a difference […]
Why You Actually Believe God Must Love Us (even though you may say otherwise)
Many Christians think God voluntarily chooses to love and relate with us, even though God could choose not to do so. I disagree. In this essay, I ask three diagnostic questions I think show that most Christians actually believe God must love and relate with us, even though they may say otherwise. In a series of previous […]
Why We Should Believe God is Essentially Relational
It seems that most Christians believe God is relational. I agree. Theologians call this “divine passibility.” But some Christians think God chooses to be relational, while others think God is relational by nature. Does it matter whether we believe God is relational by choice or by nature? Five Reasons to Affirm God is Essentially Relational […]
Strong Passibility, Trinity, and Theocosmocentrism
An increasing number of Christians believe God is relational. To be “relational” is, in the classical language, to be “passible.” It means that God is affected by others. I’ve written an essay for a new book on im/passibility, and I defend what the editors call “strong passibility.” In my language, I call this God’s essential […]
The Theo-Logic of Love (and why Aquinas and Anselm are wrong)
In contrast to Aquinas and Anselm, I think God’s love involves more than outgoing benevolence. God’s love also involves incoming empathy, receiving, and sometimes suffering.