This presentation and others from the same session will eventually appear in a book with the title Karl Barth and Pentecostal Theology: A Convergence of the Word and the Spirit, co-edited by Frank D. Macchia, Terry L. Cross, and myself. It will be published, likely in 2020, by T & T Clark in the series “Systematic Pentecostal and Charismatic Theology.”

Because this is an academic lecture, I do use a number of big words, like marshmallow and wheelbarrow.

Typically someone else introduces me when I present at academic conferences, but I was the moderator of the session, so I also had to introduce myself, just as I did for the other presenters in the session.

If you prefer audio only, you can access the mp3 file of the lecture below the Youtube video.

Audio only:

You can download the mp3 audio file by RIGHT clicking here.

You might also be interested in these posts:

• Pentecostals and the Question of Divine Suffering
• Pentecostals and Divine Suffering, Again: My Response to Castelo’s Response to Me
• Should Christians Declare or Decree Things over Their Lives?

Andrew K. Gabriel, Ph.D., is the author of Simply Spirit-Filled: Experiencing God in the Presence and Power of the Holy Spirit as well as three academic books, including The Lord is the Spirit. He is a theology professor at Horizon College and Seminary and serves on the Theological Study Commission for the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada. You can follow him on Facebook or on Twitter.

The post Christ, the Spirit, and the Divine Attributes: Pentecostals and Karl Barth on (Im)passibility and (Im)mutability appeared first on Andrew K. Gabriel.

Photo credit: Tyler Milligan @TyMill6

A student recently knocked on my door, walked into my office, and sat down on my couch. He leaned forward and asked, “Is God’s love reckless?”

He was inquiring about a new song from Bethel Music called “Reckless Love,” a song that I had not yet heard.

I was impressed that he was thinking about what he was singing, even though his concern with the song no doubt ruined his worship experience the first time he heard it. Buy, hey. Our concern in worship shouldn’t only be about having a good time and feeling good. You don’t need worship to do that. From what I hear, you can do that with drugs.

The chorus of the song in question speaks of the “overwhelming, never-ending, reckless love of God.”

I searched for the meaning of “reckless,” and Almighty Google tells me that “reckless” describes someone who acts “without thinking or caring about the consequences of an action.”

I tried the more respectable Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary, and, similarly, it defines reckless as “marked by lack of proper caution: careless of consequences” and even as “irresponsible.”

I don’t think too many Christians would like to say that God is “careless” or that God’s love doesn’t “care about consequences.” Instead, God loves us with the clear and thoughtful intention “that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16).

“ God loves us with clear and thoughtful intention.

Some people try to make a distinction between saying “God’s love” is reckless vs. saying “God” is reckless. But that is a meaningless distinction. Theologians rightly suggest that you can’t separate God from his attributes. Or to use more biblical language, “God is love.”

The Reckless Shepherd Who Leaves the 99?

The song “Reckless Love” alludes to a parable that Jesus tells about a shepherd leaving ninety-nine sheep to search for one lost sheep (Matthew 18:12-14 and Luke 15:4-7). And when I went searching for other places that Christian’s refer to God’s love as reckless, I found a book that draws on the same parable to support its conclusion.

The book’s author suggests that the shepherd is reckless in the sense that the shepherd leaves the ninety-nine sheep “open to wolf attacks, wandering bears, and robbers.”

This is incorrect. As New Testament scholar Craig Keener observes of this parable, “A shepherd could leave his own flock with the other shepherds with whom he worked, who would be watching over their own flocks.”[1]

No carelessness for this shepherd. At least not in this case.

Reckless Christianize

Even though I’m not so poetic myself, I try to be generous toward poetic language in Christian songs. So it doesn’t really irk me so much when Christians want to set things on fire—whether it’s our hearts, the church, or our love.

So, I did some more searching. And I also asked some friends who are more into poetry than I am.

Apparently “reckless” has entered Christian vocabulary more than I realized.

I found another book. This one is called The Reckless Love of God. For this author, it appears that “reckless” just means “passionate” given his subtitle: Experiencing the Personal, Passionate Heart of the Gospel.

For some other people I talked too, “reckless love” simply meant “extravagant love.”

So, I figure “reckless love” is probably just Christianeze.

I’m guessing (I do admit) that non-Christians would probably never use the word “reckless” this way. Outside of Christian circles, I can’t think of any way that a person would use “reckless” without it having negative connotations. Consider

• “Reckless driving.”
• “Spending money recklessly.”

Reckless Heresy?

I certainly wouldn’t go so far as to say that it is heresy to refer to God’s love as reckless. To be charitable, whenever someone says something that sounds heretical, I always want to ask, “what do they really mean?”

“ Whenever someone says something that sounds heretical, I always want to ask, “what do they really mean?”

So, for example, if someone describes the Trinity by saying that God is three substances, I probably (…probably) won’t consider them a heretic, because they are trying to express the correct theological intuition that God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Now, there are some true heretics out there (I’ve taught some of them ;). But I doubt that the author of the song “Reckless Love” is a heretic because I don’t think the theological intuition behind his use of the word “reckless” is heretical.

From the song, I gather that the author simply means that God’s love “chases me down” and “fights ’til I’m found.” And God’s love will climb mountains, kick down walls, and tear down lies, to come after us.

I think the author meant that God’s love is relentless. But “relentless” has three syllables, not two, so it wouldn’t have fit so well in the song. “Passionate” also has three syllables

So, what should we do? I see no need to completely abandon singing an otherwise perfectly good song. That might be reckless.

At my church I noticed that we sing another song from Bethel Music called “Forever.” It also speaks of God’s “reckless love,” but when we sing the song, we sing about God’s “perfect love” instead. (I’ve noticed that most places the song lyrics are found online only say “perfect love.”)

So, my suggestion is to sing of God’s “perfect love” instead of “reckless love.” Or, perhaps even better, for the context of the song in question, we could sing of the “steadfast love” of God (it even has two syllables!).

However, I’m not sure we can change the title of the song on the screen. Hmm…

Perhaps I have missed something. That’s why I first went around and asked some of my friends what they thought.

You might also be interested in these posts:

• Experiencing the Holy Spirit in Corporate Worship Services
• Plead the Blood: Questions about a New Song by Cody Carnes, Brandon Lake, and Chris Davenport
• What’s Wrong with Songs that Worship the Holy Spirit?

Andrew K. Gabriel, Ph.D., is the author/editor of six books, including Simply Spirit-Filled: Experiencing God in the Presence and Power of the Holy Spirit. He is Professor of Theology at MCS and Horizon College & Seminary and serves on the Theological Study Commission for the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada. You can follow him on Facebook or on X.

[1] Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament (Downer’s Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 1993), 93.

The post God’s Love is not Reckless, Contrary to What You Might Sing appeared first on Andrew K. Gabriel.

Download the notes here:  God, the Trinity.

Outline for the talk:

The post God, the Trinity appeared first on Andrew K. Gabriel.

GOD IS IMPASSIBLE AND IMPASSIONED: TOWARD A THEOLOGY OF DIVINE EMOTION.

Lister joins the ranks of those who are challenging the contemporary theological tendency to reject the doctrine of divine impassibility. Lister directs his work primarily at an evangelical audience, choosing not to engage contextual theologies (such as feminist and liberation theologies). He begins with a helpful evaluation of how the doctrine of impassibility developed in the early church, through the middle ages and Reformation periods, followed by a survey of the widespread rejection of the doctrine in contemporary theology, as well as its varied reception by evangelical theologians. Lister then moves to a defense of divine impassibility. He focuses on hermeneutical considerations and then interpreting biblical texts that speak of divine invulnerability and divine emotion. Lister also considers issues of theodicy and christological implications from the incarnation. He does not engage possible pneumatological issues, such as the suffering of the Spirit (a common theme in contemporary pneumatology). Lister’s understanding of impassibility is well-nuanced: “impassibility” does not mean that God is devoid of emotion; rather, it means that “cannot be manipulated, overwhelmed, or surprised into an emotional interaction that he does not desire to have or allow to happen.” In spite of this nuance, one might wonder if a qualified doctrine of impassibility is preferable to a qualified doctrine of “passibility,” especially given the current negative connotations of the word “impassible.”

(As a fulfilment of copyright, I am required to say that this review will be published in Religious Studies Review)

The post Book Review: “God is Impassible and Impassioned: Toward a Theology of Divine Emotion” by Rob Lister appeared first on Andrew K. Gabriel.

FORSAKEN: THE TRINITY AND THE CROSS, AND WHY IT MATTERS. By Thomas H. McCall. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2012. Pp. 171. $20.00.

McCall’s primary concern is to critique the teaching (of Moltmann, but also many who follow him) that at the death of Christ there was a rupture in the Trinity. McCall argues that the Father only forsook Jesus in the sense that he allowed him to die, but he maintains that the unity of the Trinity could never be broken. McCall explains how the Trinity ‘matters’ because it shows that God does not forsake those he loves, with the result that for believers there is no condemnation, no defeat, and no despair. Along the way McCall includes helpful discussions of atonement theology, trinitarian theology, divine love and wrath, impassibility, simplicity, determinism, justification, and sanctification. McCall implicitly critiques some versions of penal substitution (although never explicitly mentioning penal substitution), preferring the christus victor theory and viewing Jesus’ death as a sin offering. McCall presents a clear description of the issues at stake (even for non-specialists), while both drawing on historic sources and giving readers a good sense of the contemporary discussion. One minor weakness of the book, however, is that when discussing justification, McCall advocates the forensic view without engaging with current biblical or theological critiques of this view. Overall, McCall offers readers a theological delight that is sure to inspire many scholars, preachers, and lay readers.

(As a fulfilment of copyright, I am required to say that this review will be published in Religious Studies Review)

The post Book Review: “Forsaken: The Trinity and the Cross, and Why it Matters” by Thomas H. McCall appeared first on Andrew K. Gabriel.

If sin separated us from God, wouldn’t that mean that there isn’t much hope? We would have been stuck in our sins forever. Plus, if I was really separated from God, then I suppose I could keep on sinning anyhow (God isn’t around to see it happen, right?).

“ If sin separated us from God, wouldn’t that mean that there isn’t much hope?

There may be some theological reasons for thinking that sin separates us from God. For example, God is holy. The word holy does (to some extent) connote “separated.” However, God is not holy in the sense that God is separated from sinners. God is holy as one who confronts us (separate), but primarily as one who blesses, restores, and helps. As the Holy One, God reaches out (not separate!) and overcomes sin through the reconciling work of the Son as well as the sanctifying work of the Spirit. God is holy in relation to his people—the Redeemer is “the Holy One of Israel” (e.g., Isa 47:4).

I say all this simply to highlight that we have to significantly qualify what we mean when (or if!) we ever say that sin separates us from God.

There is a sense in which sin does separate us from God. In fact, Isaiah 59:2 says, “your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God” (similarly, Eph 2:12 and 4:18). However, when we look at the context of this verse in Isaiah, we know it is not literal: verse 1 speaks of God’s hands and ears and verse 2 speaks of God’s face. This indicates that the biblical author is using metaphorical language in these verses.

Therefore, “separation” between God and humanity is metaphorical. We are only separated from God relationally. Most of us understand what this means. I can even be sitting right beside someone with whom my relationship has (in a sense) been cut off! Similarly, Isaiah 59:2 explains how this “separation” from God means that God is not responding positively to the Israelite’s prayers; metaphorically speaking, God “does not hear” them (v. 2). It certainly does not, however, mean that God does not love them (John 3:16!), as a human relationship “separation” might imply.

So, sin separates us relationally from God. But if we don’t make clear what this “separation” means (and doesn’t mean!), people might end up with unfortunate misunderstandings regarding their relationship with God.

You might also be interested in my post, “Is God For You…Not Against You?“

The post Does Sin Separate us from God? appeared first on Andrew K. Gabriel.

In a previous post I noted a response I published to Daniel Castelo regarding divine impassibility (especially concerning the possibility of God suffering). Castelo has since published a response to my article: Daniel Castelo, “Toward Pentecostal Prolegomena II: A Rejoinder to Andrew Gabriel,” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 21 (2012): 168-180. (Due to copyright, I can’t post his article here.)

While I didn’t think it necessary to publish another response to Castelo, I thought I would still post a few comments here for those who may be interested.

Firstly, I think Castelo has changed my mind to some extent (oh the joy of theological conversation!). In my response article to him I argued that it might be best to drop the term “impassibility” due to the way that the term is often inappropriately understood. To a limited extent, this was because the term “impassibility” needs much qualification. However, Castelo has convinced me that because the term “passibility” also needs sufficient qualification (I already agreed with him regarding this), use of the term “impassibility” can continue “as a linguistic option” that “can serve the purpose of introducing conceptual boundaries and possibilities” (p. 178). Nevertheless, in some contexts, I still think the term “impassibility” will inevitably do more harm than good.

Secondly, and primarily, I want to emphasize that Castelo and I have realized that we actually agree on quite a bit. I do still see differences between how we are interpreting Thomas Aquinas as well Thomas Weinandy (at least in the implications of what they are saying). Nevertheless, those differences are not as important as the outcome of our interpretations and our own theological proposals. Significantly, Castelo and I agree:

• God is consistent in his actions (one might say God is consistent in God’s changing relationships with us) (p. 172).
• The God of “classical theism” (more on this term below) is certainly not “static,” as some critics have suggested (p. 173).
• Human and divine affections differ (p. 174).
• God does not have sinful passions (p. 174-175).
• The theology of the early church does not represent a corruption of Christian thinking via a “fall” into Hellenization (p. 175-176).
• “Passibilist language will always be a part of their [Pentecostals’] God-talk” (p. 177).
• “A deity who is indifferent, uncaring [etc.] is unfaithful to the reality…Pentecostals have experienced” (p. 180).
• “Much of what Gabriel states in his fifth chapter [of The Lord is the Spirit,regarding divine (im)passibility,] is compatible with what I have written in The Apathetic God” (observed in his review of my book The Lord is the Spirit, see below).
• We share the concern that “divine attribution has generally not been pursued in a thoroughly trinitarian way” (also noted in his review of my book).

Thirdly, I also want to add a point of clarification regarding the extent to which Castelo is directly responding to me in his comments in his rejoinder article. As I read Castelo’s rejoinder, it became clear to me that although he does respond to me at points, he was primarily expressing his concerns that lead him to write his original article (as well as his first book). Accordingly he writes:

• “The article hopes to make clearer my guiding assumptions and ends that drove the original article in question…” (p. 168).
• “I will mostly focus in this article on clarifying my perspective…” (p. 168).

I note this just to say that most of his concerns are not specifically directed at me (as a further indicator, he mentions open theism a number of times in the article). Rather, I share many of his concerns. For example, one of his chief concerns is with how too many theologians use the term ‘classical theism’ as though the church’s theologians have been consistent in the way they have historically defined the divine attributes. Castelo himself realizes that I have not followed that route (p. 170).

One area of his rejoinder article that does directly apply to my work is his critique of the use of the category named “classical theism” (also noted in his review of my book). We both emphasize that the history of the Christian doctrine of God and understandings of certain attributes is diverse. However, because of this he “would even venture to say that the move of using one category to describe all this diversity is historically and theologically careless” (p. 170). Many other theologians have felt this way. I myself have pondered on more than one occasion if I should drop the term ‘classical theism’ on account of this. Nevertheless, unlike Castelo, I still feel there is value in the term. In my mind the existence of diversity (in any category) always struggles against a definition. Hence, (analogously) on account the clear historical and global diversity of Pentecostalism, some have argued that we can only speak of PentecostalismS (plural), but not of a general Pentecostalism (singular). In contrast, it seems to me that if we are going to speak of any category in the plural, there must be something that holds the plurality together, which allows us to label individual instances under that plural category. In other words, it seems to me that the existence of PentecostalismS presupposes that we can talk of a commonality among the diversity. To state it another way, the term PentecostalismS presupposes some idea of a PentecostaliM (singular) that allows us to identify when and where something counts as an instance of Pentecostalism(s) and not something else. With regards to “classical theism” Castelo still considers the possibility of speaking of “classical theismS” (p. 172). It seems to me that he allows for this because he himself recognizes “a shared conceptual tradition” (p. 171) in Western theologies of God’s attributes; in other words, he recognizes a “formal similarity” amidst the “material diversity” (p. 172). Beyond this, I would suggest that there is also enough material similarity in the history of the Christian doctrine of God to provide further support for using the term “classical theism.”

Finally, while I have here (and in my published response to Castelo) focused on questions concerning the divine attributes, I want to affirm one of Castelo’s main concerns and proposals regarding how “Pentecostals envision the theological task more generally,” particularly pertaining to the role of language in theology(p. 178). More specifically, I fully agree that “the Pentecostal experience implies…a recognition that words, concepts, and descriptions of experiences can only go so far” and that, therefore, Pentecostal theologians must “recognize the limits of language as they relate to the theological task” (p. 179).

I thank Castelo for the clarifications he has offered in his article. They have not only helped me to better understand his concerns, but they have also changed my mind in one respect.

On a side note, Castelo has also published a review of my book The Lord is the Spirit in the journal Pneuma vol. 34 (2012): pages 95-107.

The post Pentecostals and Divine Suffering, Again: My Response to Castelo’s Response to Me appeared first on Andrew K. Gabriel.

To say there is ‘senseless’ evil presumes you have a basis to say it is senseless. However, saying something is ‘senseless’ just means you can’t make sense of it. That is, it means that you can’t figure out why God would allow it. However, calling some evil ‘senseless’ doesn’t prove there is no reason (just that you don’t know it). Essentially, it is saying “If I can’t think of a reason, there can’t be one.” If we have a God big enough to be mad at God for allowing suffering, then surely we also have a God big enough to have reasons we can’t think of.

Here Ravi Zacharias suggests that even asking about the problem of evil presupposes the existence of God.

Regardless of the possible explanations for evil, they are not always that helpful when we are actually going through suffering, because we generally don’t know which explanation actually applies in our own circumstance. Shortly after the tsunami (Dec 2006- Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia) Rowan Williams (the Archbishop of Canterbury) wrote, “If some religious genius did come up with an explanation of exactly why all these deaths made sense, would we feel happier, or safer or more confident in God?”

As far as a pastoral response to evil, I appreciate the words of Tim Keller (poor quality video!).

2 Corinthians 1:3-4~ Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of compassion and the God of all comfort, (4) who comforts us in all our troubles, so that we can comfort those in any trouble with the comfort we ourselves receive from God.

The post Problem of Evil appeared first on Andrew K. Gabriel.

Abstract: This article responds to Daniel Castelo’s recent recommendation of the doctrine of divine impassibility to Pentecostals. In contrast to Castelo’s proposal, this article argues that Pentecostals are justified in dropping the term ‘impassibility’, and, moreover, that Pentecostals have a pneumatological reason for affirming divine passibility implicit within their spirituality of speaking in tongues.

Keywords: Divine Impassibility, Passibility, Speaking in Tongues, Holy Spirit, Doctrine of God

The post Pentecostals and the Question of Divine Suffering appeared first on Andrew K. Gabriel.

Pleased to announce the publication of my first book: THE LORD IS THE SPIRIT. You can view the cover and some of the inside on Amazon. The publisher’s page is here.

The post Book Publication Announcement: The Lord is the Spirit appeared first on Andrew K. Gabriel.