After posting my last essay, Fr. Kimel has noted that David Bentley Hart affirms Divine Simplicity in many places and "divine simplicity is an expression of negative theology. It doesn't say anything positive about God; it simply denies that he is composed of parts." And this is absolutely true about Hart, and his recent book "You are Gods" has several mentions of the implications of Divine Simplicity. But the important distinction I would like to make is that in the West, Divine Simplicity is frequently tied to knowledge of evil which determines created beings to be evil. This makes God the cause of evil, because nothing could be otherwise than God has known it and made it to be.
Hart's concept of Simplicity states almost the exact opposite conclusion: God's Simplicity implies that God will inexorably work good for all beings, even after their choices have led them into bondage to evil. Yet, for Aquinas (and those who follow him) the simplicity and unity of God leads to the inexorable conclusion that God will damn some or most eternally, for God's own glory. So, while I can agree that the concepts of Divine Simplicity as put forward by Aquinas and Hart are similar insofar as they are an apophatic statement of what "God is not" in Godself, they are perfectly opposite as regards what this entails for God as God relates to a created world. At least this is what it seems to me, and it seems that with such a wide difference of effect, therefore one cannot say they are the same concept of Divine Simplicity.
So the major difference I am getting at is that Divine Simplicity is pernicious if it is used as a rationale for why God would will and cause evil in the world, including damning many or most humans eternally.
A secondary problem I have, that is not nearly as morally essential, and is more easily solved is this: The affirmation of Divine Simplicity can sit very uneasily with the affirmation of Divine Triunity. I know many have gone the route of saying that Simplicity is an apophatic statement about what God is not (God is not multiple parts), while Triunity is a kataphatic statement about what God is (God is three relations within Godself). Others have gone the route of being agnostic about what God is like in Godself other than saying God is One unitary reality, while saying that God is Triune as God appears to us in history (the so-called "economic Trinity"). But I am suspicious that this is merely trying to define away the problem without affirming or denying that God is, in fact, Triune.
Now, I will admit that I am probably to some extent conflating a certain form of American Evangelical Reformed Divine Simplicity with Divine Simplicty as taught by Aquinas. And because Hart (and Gregory of Nyssa, and Fr. Kimel) make a substantial case for the ultimate reconciliation of all things, I am overly juxtaposing them against Aquinas-as-seen-through-Reformed-theology on this point. And perhaps Aquinas is more of a bridge than I would like to admit. Nevertheless, he does affirm that God has actively destined a large swath of humanity to suffer eternally (along with late Augustine, Luther, Calvin, etc.). And this inexorable predestination flows forth from the one will and one purpose of God, which is an expression of a certain vision of Divine Simplicity.
So, for me the problem still stands: It may be possible to affirm a similar vision of Divine Simplicity in two different systems of theology, but the consequences of this simplicity will differ greatly depending on the character of God which is unitary and simple. If one affirms that God's simple essence is Love and Benevolence, there is quite a difference than if the simple essence of God is merely Power.
So now that I have pointed out potential problems with Divine Simplicity, and have admitted that perhaps my view of this matter is jaundiced by Reformed misappropriation of the concept, let me construct what I would consider to be a more helpful framing of the idea of Aseity and Simplicity. For starters, I think both Aseity (God as self-caused and non-dependent) and Simplicity (God is One without parts) are necessary to affirm two kinds of things about God: First, God is not made of competing parts or dimensions or motives, such that certain aspects of God are in conflict with other aspects of God. For instance, God's justice and compassion, truth and love, are not contradictory forces within God, but flow forth from the one will and one essence of God. Second, for God to be the kind of Reality that is categorically different from all other realities, all of God's essence must be the same, unitary form of Ultimate Reality. God is not a Being among beings, and God thus must be all of "one cloth" so to speak, as a Reality unto Godself, apart from all other kinds of being and types of beings.
So far, so good. However, I am hesitant to affirm Divine Simplicity (or any other Divine attribute) as simply "negative" as "what God is not" (i.e. God is not multi-parted). This kind of apophatic move can be a helpful method, but it is not a way of making content-bearing statements about the kind of Reality God is. To say "we can say nothing positive or affirmative about God" is self-defeating: We have already said at least one positive and affirmative thing about God by saying God is the kind of reality we cannot say anything about. And if there is one kind of thing we can say affirmatively about God, perhaps there are more. For instance, it is a real statement about what God is to say God's character and purpose may be truly known and experienced in the particular person of Jesus. So, for me, the apophatic way is helpful to strip away ideas of what God is not, so long as we remember there are some positive/affirmative things we can say about what God is in the kataphatic mode.
Divine Simplicity thus says something negative (God is not made of parts) and something positive (God is One). But what kind of "One" is God? What is the moral nature of the One Reality that God is? This again can be approached in a apophatic mode: God is NOT cruel, vindictive, hateful, etc. But to say something meaningful, we also have to approach it in a kataphatic mode: God IS kind, compassionate, merciful, benevolent, good. God is Love.
So the One Kind of Reality that God is, is Love. But then again, we must have positive (kataphatic) ways of understanding what Love is to be meaningful, along with negative (apophatic) ways of bracketing what Love is not. Otherwise, we once again get a Reformed version of Divine Love which is entirely capable of creating finite persons for the sole purpose of torturing them forever in hell. And such an idea of Love is simply meaningless and self-contradictory, not to mention monstrous.
So, for Love to have some kind of meaning as the unitary essence and will of God, we need to say something affirmative about it. I'm not sure we can say that something by pure reason, without looking to revelation to help us understand how this Simple Unitary Reality acts toward other created realities which are different from God. At least I need revelation. Other minds may be better at reasoning what Love is strictly from logic.
At this point we would need to insert an entire canon of Scripture and thousands upon thousands of books interpreting that canon. So, I will skip ahead and say that I find Jesus Christ to be the definitive self-disclosure of the character of the Unitary God to humanity. And this immediately complicates that Unity because we are saying that a human person somehow embodies and reveals a God who is in some sense separate from himself. And he does this through his Spirit, which is now a third kind of reality which carries God's presence and makes Christ present to us, and yet is somehow distinct from God and Jesus. A strange and complex form of Simplicity is emerging.
But all three aspects of God communicate and share the same Love. And this Love, to be meaningful, must have an inter-dynamic nature and "movement" within the Simple and Unitary Love that is God. To use a definition from Aquinas which seems surprisingly useful: Love is to will Good for the other. But in order to do this, there must be potential states of being for the other to enter into, which are good, as well as potential states of being for the other to avoid, which are not good, or not as good, or perhaps evil. So, Love has a dialectic of willing the Good, and the potential for the Good which is willed. And for Love to be Love, it must act to actualize and bring about that Good for others, and steer them away from what is less than Good. Love has the will/desire, the potential, and the act to realize that potential. Without this dialectic, Love cannot be Love in any sense that seems meaningful.
So, now we have a peculiar Divine Simplicity indeed. This unitary Love which is God includes in Godself the will for the Good, the potential for the Good, and the act to realize that Good potential in others. This active, dynamic Love is expressed in a Father, a Son, and a Spirit. These persons actualize in history the relations of God in eternity as will, potential, and act. God is a dance of Love, Beloved, and Loving. So, as a positive concept, Divine Simplicity yields a kind of dancing, flowing Love within Godself, which overflows to create, redeem, and transform the cosmos into the Goodness which God eternally desires. A strange a beautiful Divine Simplicity indeed.
There is a whole side path here that also includes the idea that for Love to be real, the other has to be truly other. And to be truly other, the other has to have autonomy and difference and distinction. And this in turn entails that the other has to have agency as a self who possesses freedom to accept or deny Love. This entails that the other may choose what is against Love, and what harms itself and others. Since this Divine Love is infinite and all powerful (other aspects of the Divine Self we have not had time to fully develop, but which are generally accepted by Theists) this would entail that the others which are made by Divine Love are finite and limited in power (since for them to be other from infinite all-powerful Love, they would have to NOT be infinite and NOT be all-powerful).
So, if the other turns away from Divine Love and severs itself from the very Ground of its existence, it will not have the power nor the infinity to join itself back to Love. It will fall progressively into what is worse and worse for itself, eventually destroying itself entirely. Yet, if Love allows this situation to persist, it would not be Love, since Love wills and acts for the Good of the other, and the other has no power in itself to bring about its own Good. So, for Love to be fully realized, Love must keep on trying and striving and disciplining and sacrificing until the other comes to embrace the Love that made it. This Love cannot give up until the other has turned from its self-destruction to experience the Good that Love has always willed for it. And perhaps the most explicit way this is realized is by the embodiment of Love in the form of the other, to draw the other back into Love. Or, as Saint Athanasius says: God became human so that humans may become god.
So, Divine Simplicity seems to be very paradoxical indeed: From the One Reality and the Unitary Character of God flows a Love that implies the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the whole Theodrama of God creating, redeeming, and transforming the whole Cosmos of unique and particular others. If this is what is meant when someone affirms the Unity, Simplicity, and Aseity of God, then I am fully on board. If, however, someone uses Divine Simplicity to argue that God wills and works evil, suffering, and destruction in the world as a positive expression of God's will, then I would hold that this makes God into an cosmic contradiction that is unworthy of the title God. So, to keep it simple: God is Love, and this unitary, single-minded Love never gives up until the whole cosmos is united in Love.
*The image of Divine Simplicity and Trinity was created by prompts given to Dall-E.
It's not helpful to use "negative" and "positive" in explaining divine simplicity; I have found that these add confusion in understanding the meaning and usage of apophatic theology. Let's be clear, divine simplicity is not a negative or positive quality: it is, rather, an affirmation reached by way of negation. Instead of ""divine simplicity is an expression of negative theology. It doesn't say anything positive about God; it simply denies that he is composed of parts" I would correct it with the following: "divine simplicity is an affirmation of the nature of God's nature by way of negation." So, for instance, we can affirm that God is good and the Good for we negate in God a distinction between doing and being, a distinction between what God wills and what God is. Another example is that we affirm (with Gregory of Nyssa) that in God there's a perfect coincidence of desire and possession: with the negation of imperfection and necessity we affirm divine plenitude, the supra-overflowing-abundance of that dance you refer to. This goes a long way in understanding divine simplicity and in diminishing its strangeness. Yes in human nature simplicity is a negative for in us, as composites, there is a difference between what we do and what we are. To simply "be love" (if we could be thus and nothing else) would indicate a lack of something else, to be a one dimensional, undeveloped being. But the subject of theology is God for whom simplicity denotes plenitude not absence of this or that quality. As to those who claim that God wills evil - this is a catastrophic failure of understanding divine causality, one does not need divine simplicity for that.
ReplyDelete