This question seems to have an obvious answer. Of course God has emotions. Scripture, especially the Old Testament, is full of descriptions of God having emotional reactions toward human persons. God can be happy and pleased with us, and God can become grieved, indignant, and angry.
The question of God having emotions seems pretty straightforward. And yet, it's a lot more complicated than may seem.
This issue came to mind reading John Mark Comer's book God Has a Name. In the book Comer makes an impassioned case for God experiencing emotions. And he does so to support the view that God is a relational God. By "relational" we mean reactive and responsive to us. More strongly stated, God is affected by us. By contrast, if God was unaffected by us, the argument goes, God wouldn't be in a real relationship with us.
The debate brewing here--Can you see those storm clouds on the horizon?--is between descriptions of God from what is called "classical theism" versus views of God often described as "relational." More than the issue of emotions is debated here. The other big issue concerns if God changes his mind in response to human actions and prayer. God changing his mind is another example of God being affected by us in a responsive, relational way. For example, along with describing God as having emotions, Comer also describes God as changing his mind in response to our prayers. These two topics--God's emotions and God changing his mind--often go together. And again, it's easy to see why. The Bible describes God changing his mind. Often because humans make a request or repent. But for this post, I'm going to keep my focus on God's emotions and leave the issue of God changing his mind to the side.
We can appreciate the psychological appeal and power of Comer's arguments. If God didn't have emotions and if God never changed his mind then God wouldn't appear very responsive or relational. God would appear distant and impassive. And that's exactly the word classical theism uses to describe God's "emotions"--impassive. God is impassive, meaning "not subject to passions." But an impassive God seems cold and emotionally removed, not the relational God John Mark Comer so passionately (no pun intended) describes and defends.
So, we get the point. If you had to choose between an emotional God and an impassive God most would go with the emotional God. No pastor wants to preach a sermon about God's impassivity. That word "impassive" just doesn't have the warm, fuzzy feelings we'd like to associate with God. "Impassive" makes God seem chilly and remote. And yet, there is a problem. You knew there would be.
Here's the biggest problem, from my perspective. Once you allow God to have emotions we open up the possibility of God having negative emotions, emotions like anger and wrath. And again, there is Biblical support for God having these negative emotions. God can even hate human persons. That's the dark consequence of Comer's move, releasing God's hate into the world.
This is the irony and inconsistency of "relational" views of God. By ironic I mean that relational views of God are typically motivated by the attempt to remove or delimit God's wrath, anger, and hatred. Most relational views of God preach that God is wholly and consistently loving. And yet, by arguing for God's emotionality they release into the world God's negative emotions, the very emotions they are wanting to deny. That's the irony, how their attempt to deny something about God creates its very possibility.
The inconsistency of the relational views of God is illustrated by Comer himself. For example, after arguing for God's emotionality Comer goes on to describe how, because God desires a "real relationship" with us, that we should dare to be raw, bold, honest, and angry in our prayer life with God. But for a lot of us, such boldness feels risky. We feel we must pull our punches and to talk to God with respect and reverence. We fear that addressing God in anger and with accusation will elicit his disapproval and indignation. As Comer writes, "There are prayers in the Scriptures--in the books Moses wrote and especially in Psalms--where I cringe, half expecting lightning to strike the person dead. But it doesn't. In fact, God seems to love that kind of raw, uncut prayer, skirting the line between blasphemy and faith. He's not nearly as scared of honesty as we are." Notice the curious move here, how Comer makes blasphemy-adjacent prayer safe by taking God's emotions off the table. God isn't upset or triggered by our honesty or our rage. In fact, as Comer says, God welcomes it! And I totally agree. But notice Comer's inconsistency. He's arguing for a real and honest relationship with God in prayer by premising it upon God's impassability. We can rage in prayer because God is impassive toward our rage. God isn't going to strike us dead with lightning. That is, God's emotions toward us, His eternal Love, is unaffected by our rage. God isn't triggered or shocked. Despite the accusations we throw at God, God's love toward us is unchanging. And it is this unchanging and impassive posture toward our rage that makes honestly expressing our feelings in prayer both welcome and safe. As Comer describes, you don't need to cringe away in fear because God isn't going to strike you dead with lightning. Yell at God all you want, skirt the line between blasphemy and faith, God is not going to be emotionally provoked. God isn't emotional in that way.
So you see both the irony and the inconsistency. Relational views of God release God's hate into the world, that angry God who strikes people dead with lightening bolts, the very thing relational views seek to avoid. In fact, relational views of God, in proclaiming God's unchanging love toward us, are the most vociferous and dogmatic apostles of God's impassivity. Especially in contrast to the emotional volatility of the God proclaimed by the fire and brimstone preachers.
And beyond the irony, there is the inconsistency, how relational views encourage us to express honest feelings toward God but preach that what makes those expressions safe is God's impassivity toward our anger, doubt, and accusation.
There is a better way to talk about God's emotions, which I'll describe in the next post.
