Terence Fretheim, in The Suffering of God, emphasizes the voluntary nature of God's suffering. I believe this voluntary nature of divine suffering is essential for developing a theology that includes divine suffering without obliterating the character of God. There is a danger in asserting divine suffering that God can become subject to the world, and in a way become less than the world, being subject to it or at least dependent on it, to the extent that it leads to the forfiture of God's "God-ness." This would be to ssay things such as "the world imposes things on God." This is different than the idea that God is truly in a genuine relationship with the world. Yes, God is affected by the world, but the world holds no direct power over God. It cannot require God to change God's being, cannot coerce God into action. Instead, we can develop a theology of kenosis, of God loving the world, and in this love, poured out to the world, God takes suffering upon Himself. Suffering is not a necessary and eternal attribute of God, but instead is a voluntary and contingent experience for God.
Fretheim cites the covenant that God made with Noah as an example of God committing to undertake suffering. He goes so far as to ssay this covenant "necessitates divine suffering." This gives an example of God allwoing freely for evil to exist, and along with it of God allwoing Himself to suffer. This same type of voluntary suffering on God's part extends, as Fretheim points out, to God's willingness to undertake the sin of the world upon Himself instead of using "strictly legal terms." God's grace and mercy are examples of God voluntarily undertaking suffering in order to demonstrate His love for creation. The implied conclusion underlying this understanding is one that comes out in the parable of the wheat and the weeds in Matthew 13. Even though the Master is not the sower of the weeds, and is able to uproot them if he chose, they are left in the ground because their destruction would also bring destruction to the wheat. Likewise, God allows evil to exist because its destruction would result in the destruction of good as well. I do not want to impose too much meaning on the parable, but I believe that taking the idea to a relational level, for God to not allow evil to continue would be to destroy the ability for good. Similar to the point made by Douglas John Hall in God and Human Suffering, if there was no vice, there would be no true virtue either. A measure of suffering, or at least the possibility for it, enables the existence of true good.
I believe a kenotic understanding of this self-limitation on God's part is very fruitful. In choosing to allow evil to continue to exist, and further in choosing to take upon Himself the suffering of the world, God is voluntarily emptying Himself of the glory of divinity in humiliation. I believe this is the same type of humiliation that Christ endured. In emptying Himself of the glory and privledge of divinity, Christ became a servant, submitting to humiliation and suffering, even unto death on the cross. This is the definition of kenotic love. This is the same kenotic love that God has shown from the beginning of the world, by giving existence to something other than Himself, and in giving that other true freedom. The amazing part is that God simultaneously chooses to limit Himself, suffering with that creation, loving it, and bringing it into a true relationship with God. The salvific implications of this divine submission are clear in Christ, and as Fretheim points out, are also present in God's undertaking of suffering in general, as he writes, "God's statements of suffering are in coordination with redemptive purposes and goals." God is not a masochist in sending His Son to die, and neither is He a masochist in taking suffering into his very being. Instead, suffering is undertaken out of love. And there is no greater love than this. For God has laid down His very life for us. |
