Claim. SMM argues that the dominant Christian picture of God — an omniscient/omnipotent Sovereign on the throne, dispensing judgment, separated from “profane” creatures — is internally incoherent and pastorally untenable.
Elaboration. The critique runs along three lines. (1) The cross problem: “If He is all-knowing and all-powerful, why did He allow Jesus to be nailed to the cross?… If God is all-knowing and all-powerful yet still unable to save Jesus from the cross, such a God is a cruel God whom we should chase away” (7.1.-existing-doctrines-of-god-are-contradictory, 136-128, 1985.12.22). (2) The Satan problem: if God is omnipotent, Satan should be summarily executed; the persistence of Satan exposes a missing premise (ibid, 127-112, 1983.5.5). (3) The judge problem: a “righteous Lord of judgment” who sends some to hell and some to heaven would, by analogy with human judges, fall sick within ten years (ibid, 198-285, 1990.2.5).
The constructive aim is not deism or process theism but a relocated theism: God’s “omni-” attributes are real but subordinated to His parenthood and to love (see csg-even-god-is-absolutely-obedient-to-love, csg-god-is-personal-with-intellect-emotion-will). The throne-and-gavel image is the wrong picture of the right God.
The argument has obvious force ad evangelicum. The standard evangelical response (theodicy via free-will and felix culpa) lies outside this chapter and will need a thread once DP is ingested.
See also. csg-gods-omnipotence-operates-within-principle
Referenced by. csg-god-miserable-throughout-history