As we discuss passion, I think that it is really important to have a proper view of how that connects to being a person. Greek thought, and most Western thought since then, has been dualist, that is, humans have a body and a soul, and those entities, though connected, exist and behave in two different worlds, the physical and spiritual (see attached comment about Plato). The problem with this is that passion typically gets assigned to the physical part of humanity, and thus is looked down on by Christian and non-Christian alike. In Hellenistic societies, passion was considered to be so low that they believed that their gods (little g) were impassible, that is, these gods did not experience any passions. Some in the church after the third century began to believe that our God was impassible also (I have attached to this post a rather lengthy comment that responds to this line of thought). We in the church have largely bought into the Greek (Hellenistic) way of thinking without noting that the Bible has a different perspective.
In the Bible, the body and the spirit are together, a soul. God breathed his spirit into Adam and he became a soul. The body is affected by the spirit and the spirit by the body. At first, this may seem like a distinction without a difference, but to me, this means that not only did God make our passions, he created them with a noble purpose. God expects us to direct them into channels that drive us to him (instead of the opposite).
Thus, the godly thing to do is not to suppress our passion, but to direct or redirect it into ways and uses that glorify God.
2 comments:
Plato's view of a person
The soul was separate from the body and had three parts: the spirit, the emotion, and logic. The appropriate virtues of these were: for the spirit, courage; for the emotion, self-control, and for logic, wisdom. These were combined with the Christian virtues of faith, hope and love to make up the Cardinal virtues espoused in the Middle Ages.
A long note about impassibility
If this old essay of mine doesn't make any sense, don't worry about it. rkb
Cyril tells us that “We say that he suffered and rose again, not that the Word of God suffered blows or piercing with nails or any other wounds in his own nature (for the divine, being without a body, is incapable of suffering), but because the body which became his own suffered these things, he is said to have suffered them for us” (Second letter of Cyril to Nestorius). Cyril’s only evidence for this is the statement that “the Deity is impassible because it is incorporeal” (Documents, 52). Nestorius says “For when he was about to mention the death, to prevent anyone supposing that God the Word suffered, he says "Christ", which is a title that expresses in one person both the impassible and the passible natures, in order that Christ might be called without impropriety both impassible and passible impassible in godhead, passible in the nature of his body” (Second letter of Nestorius to Cyril). It sounds like they are in perfect agreement here. They are not alone; Gregory of Nazianus concurs: “in his [Christ’s] flesh passible, in his deity, impassible” (Documents, 49).
Mar Narsai believes in impassibility, and takes it to a Nestorian extreme:
“He ate and drank and walked and was weary, as Man;
and He put devils to flight by the word of His mouth, as God . . .
He washed the feet of His twelve, as Man;
and He called Himself Lord and Master, as God.”
But if it is true that “he who would be the greatest must be the servant of all,” couldn’t it just be that the same God who commanded the rain that muddied the apostles’ feet bent down to remove his handiwork so as to reveal the true nature of his divinity?
The Tome of Leo struggles with this concept: “Humility was assumed by majesty, weakness by strength, mortality by eternity; and to pay the debt that we had incurred, an inviolable nature was united to a nature that can suffer” (The Tome of Leo, Documents, 54). This may seem be impassibility, but it does seem that the writer infers that God, by choice, assumes these human burdens without a diminishment of his deity. The Tome continues, “For that ‘emptying of himself,’ whereby the invisible rendered himself visible, and the Creator and Lord of all willed to be a mortal, was a condescension of compassion, not a failure of power” (The Tome of Leo, Documents, 55). How can a deity condescend in compassion if that being is impassible? But just when you think the Tome has it right, then follows “for just as the God [deity] is not changed by his compassion, so the man [manhood] is not swallowed up by the dignity [of the Godhead]” (The Tome of Leo, Documents, 56). Perhaps the writer plagiarized from too many people.
Is God impassible? Is this a biblical concept or a Platonic one? In speaking of the God of the Old Testament, the word compassion is used 48 times; for example, “the LORD will turn from his fierce anger; he will show you mercy, have compassion on you” (Deut 13:17). In addition, consider this small and incomplete sample:
“The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin.” (Ex. 34:6,7).
“Give thanks to the LORD, for he is good; his love endures forever” (1 Chron 16:34).
“The LORD became angry with Solomon because his heart had turned away from the LORD, the God of Israel” (1 Kings 11:9).
“The joy of the LORD is your strength” (Neh. 8:10).
“And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption” (Eph. 4:30).
“I know her insolence but it is futile,” declares the LORD, “and her boasts accomplish nothing. Therefore I wail over Moab, for all Moab I cry out, I moan for the men of Kir Hareseth. I weep for you, as Jazer weeps” (Jer. 48:30-32).
These are not words describing an impassible God, nor a cold, aloof, untouchable Deity. And this list doesn’t include any of passages describing the emotion which Jesus displayed (lest anyone think that it was his human nature and not his divine that was the source of the feeling). Someone might argue that the use of emotive terms to describe God’s behavior is nothing more than anthropomorphism, a use of simile or metaphor to try to describe that which is divine in terms that mere mortals can understand. But why would God choose such strong emotive terms to describe his feelings unless he did, in fact, have them? Why do you have to have a body to have emotions? Is it necessary to be corporeal to have compassion?
I think that I have learned more about the heart of God since he has blessed me with children than at any other time of my life. The powerful range of feelings of love, concern, anger, hurt, compassion, and pain that parents experience are just a small taste of what God feels as he accompanies us, as his children, on our walk through life. This is borne out in the feelings apparent in the father symbolic of God found in the parable of the prodigal son.
No, God is not without feeling. Based on these ideas and scriptures, I do not accept the notion of an impassible God.
Post a Comment