Toward a Post-Cartesian Theology, Part 7: The Light Touch

If I define salvation as divine volitional unanimity (i.e., wanting the things that God wants) what are the implications?

First, I would like to clarify that volitional change isn’t beyond human capabilities. We can and do change. Frankfurt’s point, rather, is that we rarely experience seismic shifts in the things we love or care about. Generally, what we love simply comes to us, unreflectively. I never chose to love my children, but I find I do. Deeply. And this volitional necessity affects my choices, on a daily basis.

The point is, yes, we can change. It is just that change, at this volitional level, is difficult and time consuming. I can’t, in an instant, choose not to love my sons.

Thus God finds us in a variety of volitional situations. Yet, God wishes us to love the things He loves and to feel free in this love. Divine volitional unanimity. But in a weak volitional world, God cannot simply place choices before his creatures: Choose me and live! Reject me or die!

No, God is going to have to affect the love, what the agent cares about. But to influence the agent at this level is tricky.

Here’s the dilemma. If God acts too aggressively from an external perspective we will feel coerced. And this violates our Frankfurtian sense of freedom. We don’t act freely when we feel we are externally coerced.

Let me be clearer. If God were to disclose His presence to us He would place humanity in a difficult volitional situation. For example, you love A. But God, the Ultimate Power Who Will Reward and Punish, hates A. God wants you to love B. What is a person to do in this situation? You don’t want to do B. But, given the situation before a revealed Deity, you comply. You’re damned if you don’t comply. But in this compliance you don’t act freely. You don’t love B, you don’t want B. So, in your compliance, you don’t realize free will. You experience coercion and force. There is no volitional unanimity, no freedom.

In short, God cannot reveal Himself. If He does so, He cannot save. His Revelation undermines His ability to move us toward divine volitional unanimity.

Further, God faces difficulties if He attempts to work internally (e.g., by the internal promptings or support of the Holy Spirit). If God overworks it from the inside the person will feel overthrown, as we do when we fight against an impulse within us; where we wish to expel or dismiss an impulse. Thus, God must us a light touch inside of the agent as well.

To summarize all this: If salvation/sanctification is focusing on the volitional structure of humanity God is facing a very difficult task. As best as I can tell, this task seems to demand that God use a very light touch as He interacts with humanity. More strongly, this volitional approach seems to demand that God remain hidden from us. Why? Because the issue isn’t about choice. It’s about volitional unanimity, which creates a different set soteriological dynamics.

Now we can see why eschatology bears a heavy load in this model. Given that God is using a light touch to save/sanctify humanity, he needs more TIME. In the resurrection event, God defeats death and pledges to devote the requisite time to work out the salvation of all humanity. That is, the volitional approach demands some kind of post-mortem persuasion and even universal reconciliation.

Finally, this model also adds a novel perspective to theodicy debates. Why is there so much suffering? Why is God hidden? According to this perspective two answers suggest themselves. First, given that God must use a light touch, He cannot intervene in robust ways. Second, and related to the first point, God must remain hidden. These perspectives don’t answer all the issues related to theodicy, but they are, as far as I can tell, new slants on some old debates.