Mon 3 May 2010
I just wanted to run a quick question by you. What happens when we use the word ‘immutability’ to describe God? I’ve got a eight ideas, but I’d love to hear what you think.
1. People don’t know what it means. It’s a word that has been used for centuries a way of describing God as ‘unchanging’. If you didn’t know that much it’s a case in point, but if you did, what does ‘unchanging’ mean?
2. People that DO know what it means often have different ideas of what it means. For some people immutable will refer to God’s commitment to his promises and true-ness to his character. Others will take a more philosophical take on it, that it means an unchanging essence or being.
3. It CAN and often DOES mean what the bible says about God. If we were to spend time understanding passages like Num 23:19 and Mal 3:6-7 in their contexts, we would deepen our appreciation of how different God is to us; he’s unchanging and constant in his love toward us and in keeping his promises.
4. It CAN and sometimes DOES locate our discussion of the idea in the history of Christian thought. This is a very important point since we need to make a priority of learning from our forefathers in the faith. We have much to learn. But it has to be conceded that this could only obscurify the meaning of a term. I don’t know the history of ‘immutability’ but it isn’t always clear how words are used by different authors at different periods of recorded history, and how meaning has shifted in time.
5. It’s a partial descriptor of God. While it can describe a truth about God, it will never describe all of what God is like by itself and so it needs further explanation. I guess we can’t ask too much of words, they can only do what they can do.
The result of these four things is the following:
6. It’s seldom necessary. If someone asked you a question about God’s ‘immutability’ you can’t ignore the word. But if they don’t, you could quite easily use other words to say what you mean, and probably more directly. That is, …
7. There are clearer ways of saying the same thing. For example, Karl Barth proposes an alternative - ‘constancy’ (CD 2/1 , 492-3). God isn’t unpredictable or unreliable like we often are, his love and character towards us is faithful and trustworthy and so he’s ‘constant’. This language is pretty easy to understand, and it’s less technical. Finally, …
8. ‘Immutability’ can create the picture of an abstract or impersonal God. This is a big one for me, although I find it difficult to articulate. ’Immutability’ stirs in me a degree of resentment. It seems to deny proper theological method, which begins with humbly and prayerfully receiving Jesus, revealed in the Scriptures by faith and obedience. I keep feeling that it jumps straight to putting God into an ancient philosophical discussion, or at least into a theory to be pondered, poked and prodded. So it might also be that it sounds rude. Like talking about someone without admitting that they’re in the room with you. God is kept at the distance of a proposition and so removed from the history of salvation revealed in the Holy Scriptures. That’s my gut reaction anyway…
So, it does have meaning. But my question is, why use it when there are better ways of saying the same thing?
May 4th, 2010 at 9:42 am
Dave, why don’t we ditch the word Trinity too? That’s a pretty abstract, static, non-relational sounding word to me…. (taking abstract, static, and non-relational to be negative words of course!)
Anyway, my point is that theological terms are important - yes, of course we should use language to express things differently - but, theological language is important.
There’s absolutely nothing improper about the method which immutability is derived from. In fact, I think that point alone should be enough of a reason to wonder why you feel this way. Ie., if the church for the 2000 years had used an improper method, then perhaps there’s something wrong with your method?
You know I love you bro, and I do enjoy good theological banter. But seriously, I do wonder if the problem isn’t with the term, but with the presuppositions you’re placing on the method. The whole Scripture vs. Philosophy thing’s got to go…
May 4th, 2010 at 11:16 pm
Haha. I love you too, Earnge.
OK. I don’t deny that our legacy of theological terms isn’t important. It is, and particularly in relation to philosophical discussion and in reference to the history of Christian thought. I said that above. My point is that there are contexts where better words can be used.
My first 7 points say this: It strikes me that since words like ‘immutability’ require some explanation, wouldn’t it be better - in most contexts of conversation (ie. outside of college and academia) - to use words that people understand more straightforwardly?
If this is then conceded, I wonder if there would be any reason why we couldn’t even include some of these words into more technical theological discussions.
My 8th point, like I said at dinner, was really my attempt to articulate the detachment that I feel surrounds some philosophical enquiry. It’s worth noting that there are people, like me, who feel a shadow cast over them when God is cast in such impersonal ways. The one you’re describing is the one who loved me and gave himself for me. Yes, my theological method will not exclude philosophical discussion and the history of Christian thought - I do deeply love reading my Christian forefathers. But my method is shaped by its being ‘*faith* seeking understanding’.
As for the example of ‘Trinity’, it’s a word that requires a little bit of explaining but I can’t think of a better succinct expression of the concept (or rather, our of God). So if there was a better word, I’d be happy to use it.
May 6th, 2010 at 1:23 pm
Hey mate,
Cheers for the thoughtful reply. Often these chats are done best in person, so we should have another yarn over dinner one night soon!
I can see some of the merit in what you’re suggesting in points 1-7: contextualise language to appropriate settings. Ie., it’s a fairly standard educational line to move from the known to the unknown. Which is probably why we teach young children certain simple concepts and build on them as they grow.
The problem with maintaining an understood level of concepts and language, is that we don’t help people build on these concepts. It’s the problem that people are reporting with the newer prayer books: overly simplified and easily bland. Learning greater vocabulary of terms allows for growth in concepts.
Now, you could possibly argue that ‘constancy’ has the same theological import as ‘immutability’. I’d be happy to concede that. But the problem is that often it doesn’t go two ways. People who want to champion the term ‘constancy’ deny that it’s the same as immutability! Now, that’s a problem. Here’s why.
It highlights the fact, that the problem really isn’t with terminology, but the meaning of the concept. So, I would argue that a) if a person denied the interchangability of ‘constancy’ and ‘immutability’ due to a difference of meaning, then that is *precisely* the reason why b) we should NOT change the term. It would actually be a slippery move to change the meaning! In that case, it isn’t a sound method, nor intellectually virtuous!
On your 8th point. Mate, totally hear you. And yes, I should probably be more compassionate in noting and empathising with the emotional aspect of the theological problem. But I too share the method of *faith* seeking understanding. I too want to protect our God from impersonality. I too am grateful for the great Shepherd who laid down his life for me, His lost sheep.
But I wonder where your emotional problem has come from? Why do you ‘feel’ that immutability casts this shadow? What have you read that taught you that? Who taught you that? Is that teaching correct?
For I’ve been taught immutability (along with the millions of saints before me), and feel no shadow. Nothing impersonal. But a dynamic, loving, personal and saving Creator who loved me and stays the same - yesterday, today and forever.
Part of the problem, I suspect, is that you may have drunk a little too much from the Barthian fountain. His faulty historiography is problematically mediated through Schweizer and Heppe, and although he spent much time in the primary sources of the Reformation and post-Reformation, he too operated theologically within a certain time. His historiography and Christological method are far from the orthodox consensus, and I wonder whether you might need to factor some of those things in to your reading of him on ‘immutability’?
Cheers brother,
Mark
May 8th, 2010 at 9:49 pm
Hey mate,
Thanks for engaging like this. I appreciate being pushed on these things. Here’s a quick response . I’m going to keep posting on some of these things, putting out some ideas as a form of therapy via blogging. I’d love to keep getting your thoughts.
Regarding points 1-7.
First, you’re right in saying that there is an issue when the ‘concept’ changes when the ‘terminology’ changes. Any equivocation in terms will serve to confuse a discussion. Since we only really know words as they are used (ie. “as they are toward us” (like that?)), I suspect that it’s tricky to separate terms from their meaning. My point is that words are rarely truly interchangeable. And if one was deemed better than another, I can understand a person’s reluctance to revert to the inferior. Now, this is all too hypothetical, so what would be useful is to speak in more concrete terms about the pros and cons of ‘constancy’ vis-a-vis ‘immutability’. I’ll save that for future posts.
Care needs to be taken in choosing good words appropriate to the occasion. Overly vague and bland words do not belong in the prayer book, but ‘technical’ language isn’t the answer either. We need to find words that say what we mean.
What I want to underline, though, is that I agree with you that a word is no good if the theology that it represents is dodgey. Let’s be clear and say what we mean AND let’s mean theological truth!
On point 8.
Although I did describe my thoughts in a form of therapy, I suspect that there’s some intuition that lies behind my ‘emotional problem’. I think that at this stage it might better expressed as a preference. Perhaps also an intuition that philosophical discussion can quickly lead to propositions that cohere logically but not Scripturally. I think that there’s a real danger of drifting.
I want to underline again, I don’t have a beef with philosophical language and discussion - I studied philosophy at uni and am right on board. It’s just that I want to begin my theology by honouring God by staying as near to the Scriptures as possible. I think that this involves description with primary reference to Scriptures rather than historic Christian philosophical discussion. It’s by these that I was saved, it’s by these that God speaks, it’s by these that the Reformed Tradition continues to reform itself.
I would prefer not to think of myself as Barthian. Though I like him, I’m happy to say that he got things wrong. I’d like to humbly consider the thoughts of our forefathers some more on these issues case by case and I’ll try to do this in ensuing posts and in conversation.
Thanks for your words, bro.