The God of Indifference is an otherworldly God

As I am continually reading Jurgen Moltmann's The Crucified God and I am still astounded at the incredible depth's of love in which his theological premises reach.  To set up this following quote, Moltmann is critiquing the "god of theism otherwise known as the brother of atheism", by stating that Christian theology is not against theism, since the cosmos is directly involved in a theology of the cross, and as we know that theism directly relates to the way that atheism developed especially in Western culture,  Moltmann puts a frame around atheism and I personally completely agree with his conclusion, since it is something which I have experienced and have seen.  His conclusion is that, "there is something which the atheist fears over and above all torments. That is the indifference of God and his final retreat from the world."  The questions of many atheists to Christians is, "Where is your God? and why does your God seem so distant and angry?"  It is not an insult, it is theological inquisition.

Remember that the opposite of love is not hate, it is indifference.  N.T. Wright in What Saint Paul Really Said, has a way of framing what he calls inaugurated eschatology, by saying "that what the Jewish people thought God was going to do for Israel at the end of time, God did in Jesus of Nazareth in the middle of time."  This makes me think of Martha's statement to Jesus in John 11 that she knew Lazarus would rise in the resurrection at the end of time, but Jesus makes it clear that he, himself is the resurrection and since the kingdom of god is brought forth by Jesus himself, this would mean that Jesus inaugurated the kingdom by the resurrection, of which a foretaste would be raising Lazarus. Why on earth would atheists think that God has retreated from the world?  It may have something to do with the rampant evil exhibited within humanity and structures originally designed as good by our Creator, but have become thoroughly corrupted either by apathy, ignorance, laziness, or sheer intent. Therefore, indifference and apathy could only be associated with our god of success, the god who is cold, heartless, and does not suffer with the pain of humanity. Dorothee Soelle in her book entitled, Suffering has stated that cultural success will never choose to identify with the suffering of humans, and it is almost an impossibility to expect it to, since success by design has distanced itself from those it considers to be failures.

This god of success is not embodied in love, but is either dis-embodied as a theistic other worldly ruler or as a revolutionary who will simply replace the already evil structures with new structures of oppression.  Moltmann explains further,

"The peak of metaphysical rebellion against the God who cannot die is therefore freely-chosen death, which is called suicide.  It is the extreme possibility of protest atheism, because it is only this that makes man his own god, so that the gods become dispensable.  But even apart from this extreme position, which Dostoevsky worked through again and again in The Demons, a God who cannot suffer is poorer than any man.  For a God who is incapable of suffering is a being who cannot be involved.  Suffering and injustice do not affect him.  And because he is so completely insensitive, he cannot be affected or shaken by anything.  He cannot weep, for he has not tears.  But the one who cannot suffer cannot love either.  So he is also a loveless being. Aristotle's God cannot love; he can only be loved by all non divine beings by virtue of his perfection and beauty, and in this way draw them to him.  The 'unmoved Mover' is a 'loveless Beloved'.  If he is the ground of the love (eros) of all things for his (causa prima) and at the same time his own cause (causa sui), he is the beloved who is in love with himself; a Narcissus in a metaphysical degree: Deus incurvatus in se.  But a man can suffer because he can love, even as a Narcissus, and he always suffers only to the degree that he loves.  If he kills all love in himself, he no longer suffers.  He becomes apathic." (Apologies for the gender exclusive language)

It seems that one of the starkest problems today are our Christian traditions.  Our Christians traditions either remain committed to one form or the other.  The two choices seem to remain, traditional or non-traditional, which is in and of itself a tradition.  I have highlighted a segment of the text, because to me this speaks volumes to exactly how the churches in our present society are falling in love with the artistic expression of the beauty and perfection of God, while the rest of the world lives in squalor and dirt. I know that many people would protest saying, "No, we point people to the beauty and artistic qualities of God, because that will draw people to him." Dietrich Bonhoeffer said that the German church readily embraced the artists and elites, but pushed the working classes and poor out of the church.  Why would this happen? I think that once again this theological tradition truly thinks that this draws people to God.  Is this once again, repackaged Theism, and how does the incarnation fit into this paradigm? If God wanted humans to be drawn to God's self simply through beauty, then why was Jesus, God incarnate, crucified on a cross, which is a symbol of shame and torture in the Roman world?

We sing songs that say, "The beauty of the cross", but is the cross truly beautiful, or have we made our worldview determine that it is beautiful, because it is too difficult to understand the implications if we say that it is truly shameful, grotesque, and destroys our sensibilities?  I am not against the churches who proclaim the beauty of God, since God is truly beautiful, but as Moltmann continually reiterates, "Jesus is not like God; God is like Jesus."  If we situate our understanding at the point of the incarnation, then I believe our worldview is transformed.  My good friend, Nick Warnes has done an excellent exegetical study on Judges 2, and in the literal translation of a verse in the text says, "God was found within the evil".  I was absolutely floored by that, because it is not that God condones the evil, but was found within it, in the middle of it.  This is why Jewish scholars such as Elie Wiesel can say that God suffered in the gas chambers with the victims of the Holocaust, and as Moltmann has added, "and they (the victims) will one day rise again." 

On another note, I wrote an e-mail to Ergun Caner, the President of Liberty Theological Seminary concerning an article he had written entitled, The Racism of Black Liberation Theology.  There are mainly two reasons why I wrote this e-mail; first, it was to point to the fact that his opinion of this form of theology is not simply The Truth, because he has said it, and second, to point out that he can not determine that an entire form of theology is racist, because he does not agree with it.  There are many people out there who would disagree with dispensationalism and although I am one of them, there are many points of dispensational theology which are positive, such as addressing some of the anti-semitism contained in many Reformed traditions.  Anyways, I could go on, but I will not for now, Peace and Love!