God Never Changes … or does She?

July 25, 2012 by Bo Sanders 32 Comments

I got an email from a friend asking me:

“ … there’s just one thing that I’m still not sure about: the idea that God changes over time. And the reason this bugs me is because, to me, that means we can never know who/what God is. How do we know that God really is love? What if God really use to be as violent as He/She/It was back in the Old Testament?”

I thought it would be good to post part of my response here and compare notes (theology, after all, is dialogical).

There are 3 things that we need to flesh out (pun intended) about this question:

1. While God may not change, how humans view and speak of that God evolves. There is little doubt that over the centuries how we conceptualize and even construct our language about God (or Gods) has changed, adapted, morphed, absorbed and modified. There is no reason to shy away from that. It is a healthy response to growing awareness and – I will even say – progressing revelation.

God is at work in our midst and God has also given us Holy Spirit to lead us and guide us. We say that God is infinite, but as I have heard it said “then no matter how much we know about God – there is infinitely more to know.”

The only objection to this seem to be a ‘you think that your better than them?’ defense of the ancients. Seriously – that is the only real defense I hear of conserving antiquated notions of God. Don’t you dare going moving stuff and changing what they set down!

That is silly. We must acknowledge as Merold Westphal told us in his visit to the podcast that all our knowledge is situated or what we call perspectival. This is where Elizabeth Johnson’s book “She Who Is” becomes so valuable. I wrote about this in ‘She Who Is Not’ and ‘Horse Gods’.

2. Many groups and thinkers would challenge the notion that God doesn’t change. As Keith Ward points out in God: a guide for the perplexed

“ it is important the see how different the classical view is from the popular view. Whatever the Trinity is, it cannot consist of three distinct ‘parts’ in God, who has no parts. Whatever is meant by ‘God becoming man’ is cannot mean that God changes by taking on human flesh. Whatever is meant by the Holy Spirit working to sanctify the hearts of man and women, it cannot mean that God is actually changing by acting like a finite being in history. All statements about God changing and acting, wether they are in the Bible of not, must be metaphors, All changes are in finite things, and not in God, who is changeless.”

Ya see – the old Platonic conception of changeless ideals means that there could not have really been an incarnation. The stories in the Old Testament about God ‘changing his mind’ must be anthropomorphism. You run into to real problems really quick if you say that God never changes.

Now, having said that – we can say, as a matter of faith, that the character and nature of God never changes. In fact, I would go as far as to say that when we say that God never changes, what we are commenting on is God’s loving nature. You want to know why I can say that so confidently as a Christian …. it’s because I believe that the highest revelation that we have of God in this world is in Jesus.

3. Process thinkers have an especially helpful take on this. Built into a Process theology is a dipolar nature of God. They distinguish between the Primordial nature or God and the Consequential Nature (some get even more advanced and add a Superjective nature … but that is for another time.) The Primordial nature sets out all the possibilities – the Consequential nature is the perfection of the divine experience. Therefor the Primordial nature of God, what God desires, is preserved and can be said to ‘never change’ while God is fully participatory and even impacted by what happens.

What are your thoughts? Is there anything I could add to make this stronger?

Filed Under: engaging, latest, living, post-something, thinking Tagged With: anthropology, anthropomorphic, Bible, book, books, church, God, jesus, projection

27 comments

Newest | Oldest

iamstillrobdavis

You dudes need to have someone explain some of these theories to us skeptics. I'm recently becoming more interested in theology again, after a long period of atheism turned agnosticism. But, the skeptic in me just wants to say "how do you know any of this stuff?" My natural reaction is that it's all hooey, i.e. metaphysical speculation that bears no relation to reality. I have a hard time getting past that...

Woodylovesjesus

Bo, I'm trying to understand process theology better. Would you say the primordial nature of God is the purest form of god that we as finite human beings have tried to conceptualize since the beginning of human history? And then the consequential nature is the evolving concepts of God throughout human history with Jesus as the highest revelation?

BoSanders moderator

1 Like

@Woodylovesjesus Great question! ... but the answer is 'no'. It's not quite that compartmentalized.

The whole thing is the real God that we have been trying to conceptualize throughout human history. The consequential nature of God goes back to and informs the primordial nature (which is the aspect that we talk about in that 'sets out all the options') Then, with that new information, God comes back to the world in each moment to influence the future (as best as possible) - this is the superjective aspect I mentioned above.

This is a huge concept I am clumsy at explaining :( sorry for that. But does it help at all ? -Bo

Woodylovesjesus

@BoSanders thanks! Yes I think that helps clarify a bit. So the consequential nature, is the new information it brings back to the primordial nature, the decisions that we make based on the options the primordial nature set forth? And the consequential nature goes back to the world to try to influence every moment/occasion/decision? Hope that question made sense ^^

BoSanders moderator

1 Like

@Woodylovesjesus Good! we will have to get a real Process person on to explain this aspect better ;) -Bo

ScottJCowan

I think you got closest to the subject when you said that, "when we say that God never changes, what we are commenting on is God’s loving nature."

Maybe I'm incorrect, but the passages about God's un-changability all somehow are speaking towards God's love and faithfulness to those who call on the God of Israel - via YHWH or Christ/Messiah:

1: In Mal. 3:6, the direct statement is made, "I, YHWH, do not change." Malachi is a book all about the constancy of God's faithfulness to the covenant he made with Israel. It is a book where Israel is questioning God, the main question being, "how have you loved us?" (1:2). His 'un-changeability' is proven to Israel here by his continued love for them; it is made as close to tangible as it can be by God's historical commitment to them. The main point of 3:6 is not that God does not change - it is about how "you, O children of Jacob, have not perished." This verse is primarily qualifying something rather than declaring something (i.e. God's faithfulness being seen through the material existence of the people). In addition, God's responses to Israel are thoroughly contingent upon Israel's ability to follow Torah (2:6, 3:18). Because God is faithful to and loves Israel (unchangingly, cf. Rom. 11 [especially vv. 2 & 28-29]) he is going to faithfully and lovingly bring them to live in a way that fulfills Torah (i.e. walking in justice, righteousness, faithfulness, etc.). Malachi 3:16-4:6 further clarifies what the 'day of the Lord' has to do with the constancy of God - it involves judgement, yes, but much more does it involve living in a way where judgement produces blessing.

2: Hebrews 13:8 says, "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever." These are the two explicit texts that deal with eternal unchanging. But again, this verse is in the context of being instructive of a way of life. It is less about Jesus' being than it is about how to live faithfully in a way that builds up and brings people together. This passage follows the so-called 'heroes of faith' section. We can live in faith precisely because other people have lived in faith; the section is completed when the Messiah's faith is explained in 12:1-3 as being a humiliating process. This is the way chapter 13 introduces how we are to live as a group of people - not neglecting strangers, not favoring financial issues over prisoners; and, if married, being content in marriage. Loving mutually means that if one person is struggling, all participate in the struggle. V. 7-8 are key, this way of living and sharing is unchanging because it is the faithful and loving way of the Messiah. The nature of God's love and faithfulness do not change.

3: James 1:17-21 is not only an investigation of God's nature or being, it is about how people react to temptation and how people love one another in and with generosity. The way people relate to one another somehow is able to fulfill 'his own purpose'. That way is the way of the word of truth (v. 18). This is all being said so that the readers of James understand how to be receptive to and live according to God's righteousness and faithfulness (v. 19-21).

4: Other verses that deal with the issue or related are: Is. 40:8 (deals with God's word being eternal), Ps. 33:11 (God's intent not being shaken), Ps. 18:30 (deal with a way of living in relation to trustworthy promises), Heb. 6:17-18 (unchangeable character and purpose) Num. 23:18-24 (though not completely isolated, this is a particular instance about God keeping promises and not a broad over-arching prophecy)

Much like in Malachi or Hebrews, when God "changes his mind," it is in relation to how people are living (1 Sam 15:27, Ex. 32:13-24, Jer. 18:6-8, etc.). It doesn't really seem to matter (or even be a discussion) if the concept, language, etc. etc. of God changes. Like you say about Jesus being the highest revelation of God - I think trusting in God's un-changability is similar to trusting in the life/death/res. of Christ. The way Christ lived is a revelation of God's unchanging intent; Jesus healed and brought community together, over against the political, social, religious, ethnic, and violent claims for 'peace'. Forgiveness of enemies ties closely with this issue, then.

The only way the Bible speaks about God is in how God relates to creation - there are no abstract formulas for knowing God apart from the world. Therefore, claiming ontological knowledge of God is somewhat presumptuous and always a perspectival exercise in language and the elasticity of culture. A second point being that creation is a mode of transmitting information/understanding rather than just being the medium in which we live.

This is much too long and I'm not sure I said what I initially was thinking.

Thanks for the post!

BoSanders moderator

@ScottJCowan Thank you for the thorough and thoughtful comment!

The one thing I would want to clarify with you is to point out that the writers of scripture were not immune to the limits of language and liquidity of culture. There were located as well. In that sense, Scripture is different in degree and not kind to our talk about God. They are not entirely different things.

We give the scriptures a historical authority (rightly) but I am nervous about your contrasting some strongly with contemporary reflection.

I like what you say about Creation and Jesus. Those are good points. But your use of 'ontological' in the last paragraph is suspicious. as if the Bible were not any of those things ... it is an odd contrast (begins with 'Therefore'). You may be contrasting the Bible too strongly.

-Bo

ScottJCowan

@BoSanders

Thanks for the reply! I rushed the end half of that comment when I realized the comment was getting long.

I had intended the Bible to also be included in the 'therefore claiming ontological knowledge...' comment in the last paragraph. It was poor wording/phrasing.

I must have missed a huge part of my thought process in there because I wasn't trying to contrast the bible with today so strongly. It was more about trying to see how different authors understood and regarded the idea in the Bible. James, Malachi and Exodus were talking about very different things in very different ways, but where they agree is that: however it is that God is un-changable, it relates to faithfulness, love, and the way people are living/treating each other. They (like we) are talking about something specific and situational, not about the entire scope of God's existence.

You had asked, Is there anything I could add to make this stronger?

I was unsuccessfully trying to suggest that saying 'God doesn't change' can mean a lot of things, but it doesn't necessarily mean anything we want it to. (I am now realizing that your topic number 1 probably covers this without having to say it.)

Does this sound anywhere near relevant?

BoSanders moderator

@ScottJCowan so glad you wrote back! That was very helpful in clarifying. -Bo

MarshallPease

How about restating as "God keeps God's promises". Then there can be lots of thing not committed to yet. ... One promise God did make early on was to give dominion to humans, meaning "I will back your play (even when I don't think it's a good idea)".

My partner here (raised Missouri Synod) suggests that God can change his mind without changing his character. Obviously that would be true only concerning superficial matters; not as strong as "fully participatory and impacted".

BoSanders moderator

@MarshallPease Hmmmmmm ... How about "God keeps God promises to the degree that it is possible given the contingencies of others choices. God's intentions never change." ?

That works better for me. Otherwise we leave the door open for coercive action in order to 'make sure this thing I promised comes to pass".

thoughts?

MarshallPease

@BoSanders

Having taken in my own process a giant step from my Unitarian upbringing into an Bebbingtonish retirement I want to insist on an Absoluteness about God; otherwise the whole thing gets wishy-washy, like the left horn of the New Atheist's Dilemma. Coercive activity of God is perfectly possible: there's the Plagues in Egypt, and Jesus compelled demons at various times. If you think God is coming from the future, an excellent place for him to dwell, then he can avoid stupid mistakes like Jephthah's. (Do you subscribe to eschatological assurance? Isn't that a form of compulsion?)

Planting fixed promises like boundary markers constrains but does not suppress interactive activity. I see a lot of places where God offers a choice to humans: High road or low road? Choose, but having chosen that's where we're going with the whole caravan. Genesis 3 of course, Joshua 6 and 1 Samuel 8, and also Good Friday. I guess God demands that we Israelites keep our promises, too.

BoSanders moderator

@MarshallPease sorry for the delay :( I read your comment as an explanation and didn't plan on responding... so I'm glad you let me know that you were waiting.

I read your comment again and am glad that you clarified some stuff. I have tried to take a similar line of reasoning with the demon thing. Though i do not hold them as literal beings I do hold to the demonic as a category. That can be tough to explain and so I get your point with Unitarian-Charismatic continuum.

We might have to circle around again and flesh out some of that other stuff :) hope you are well. -Bo

MarshallPease

@BoSanders

C'mon Bo don't just leave me here. Am I communicating? Am I crazy (yes) or wrong or ignerint or evil or what? You asked, I tried, am I helping or what?

MarshallPease

@BoSanders

I was responding to Woody, whom I interpret to be rejecting the idea that demon possession was responsible for the tomb-dweller's condition, and therefore my claim that Jesus compelled the demons was nonsensical. *I* don't reject demon possession; if you think the demon was real, then it was the demon, not the man, that was compelled.

People torment themselves a LOT, and often enough all they have to do to stop is to STOP. I don't say that that is always possible for a person, unaided, to do that. Of course besides compulsive self-destructive attitudes there is organic damage, criminally bad nurturing, extreme trauma. In the modernist tradition of individualism the man's condition ... any man's condition ... we have to be talking about it as the reflection of his individual being. People are the agents of themselves. That is "literally" true in a causative sense, like saying people are made out of molecules. It is hard-hearted to put it that way when you are talking about agony, but if you are allowing human free will what can you say against it? Do you think that God *wants* madmen to be that way?

Because we as beings-in-the-world are expressing our own nature yet beyond our own control, maybe we are talking about conscious control, that is precisely why we need Jesus to compel us to change. New attitude, or supernatural healing. Or at least supernatural comfort. Demons or no demons, either way, against what I took to be your argument that God/Jesus/Holy Spirit, as respecter of human self-determination, doesn't do "coercive action".

... My pastor ran a number of one-man shops in the Church of God, finally left and started a missional coffee shop that grew into a church; it's still independent, pastor runs it out of his pocket. I never could find my feet in everything-works liberal Unitarianism or liturgies of high-church Episcopalianism, but when I wandered into this place the keys started turning in the locks. We don't do Holiness, we do Relationship. He is theologically rather conservative, but I find that we disagree on broad abstract issues much more than on narrow practical behavioral ones. We're out in the bushes so my view of this end of the pasture is pretty parochial, not like you preachers'-kids. I'm sure my development isn't complete, I sure hope not! Fun game! I have lots idiosyncratic ideas that need to be sharpened or recycled for scrap. Iron against iron. Nice to be here, thank you very much.

Back to the top of the topic, what I was trying to do with my comment was to show that you can be all of the most hard-headed Enlightenment modernist you can be, and Christianity still works. That is, you don't have to give up Unitarianism to be a Charismatic.

BoSanders moderator

@MarshallPease my wife thinks I should clarify that I was joking about the church of personal responsibility :) (I thought the smiley face was enough)

I was kidding about that part but I do not help with the rest. -Bo

p.s. I am guessing by your comment about creation, shot at the news, comfort with Israel language, pro- personal responsibility, and quoting your pastor that you are either Pentecostal or Fundamentalist ... am i right? [this is a fun game]

BoSanders moderator

@MarshallPease when I read about your migration from Unitarian upbringing ... I was trying to give you some space. That seems like quite a journey... but you have clearly bought into something else here.

That was one of the oddest reading of Mark 5 I have ever heard of ... I think you are missing something BIG! The demoniac did not make a 'personal decision' to live out there. A) he was tormented B) he was ostracized. He had both an internal and external cause beyond his 'personal choices'.

And it was not HE who begged Jesus but the demonic influence within co-opting his voice. I can't believe you think that you he CHOSE to live out there ??????? Have you ever encountered tormented folks ?

Anyway - Jesus would then be partnering WITH the man to bring him to liberation.

I am just stunned that you called it 'personal choice'... Have I misunderstood you? You mention you pastor, what church do you go to ? The church of personal responsibility? :)

please help me here. -Bo

MarshallPease

@Woodylovesjesus

I believe that God works through Nature, or rather the way we experience nature (regular, causal) is God keeping his creation Word. How could we have dominion over things if it's just one fool thing after another?? One mistake the News make repeatedly is to confuse a mechanical explanation of how things happen with a moral explanation of what part they play in the world. In Israel's story.

You could read Walter Wink for a more subtle view of demonology. But on a purely psychological interpretation, for example the man with an unclean spirit in Mark 5 had made his personal decision to live naked in the tombs and terrorize passers-by; he adjures Jesus not to torment him. But Jesus against his stated will <i>compells</i> him to assume the dignity of a man.

I believe you are making a personal mistake by not having lofty expectations of God for healing, prosperity, and being a blessing for the nations. My pastor would say you are praying the problem, not the solution. What leads to an inevitable letdown is having false and lofty expectations for ourself: ego, in a word.

Woodylovesjesus

@MarshallPease could the plagues in Egypt be a divine coincidence that were ultimately a chain reaction caused by a nearby volcanic eruption, a natural disaster? And Moses interpreted the moment/occasion as God using those events to lead the Hebrews out of slavery? So Moses had the responsibility to choose from the options the primordial nature of God set forth and the consequential nature of God tried best to influence? Could Jesus compelling demons be a metaphorical device used by the author to explain how the power of God was liberating people from their illnesses and based on a theology of demons the authors presumed to be true? Much of the demonic activity was explained as such because that's what they knew in antiquity. But now with modern psychology and science we have better rational explanations for those illnesses. It doesn't take away from the power of Jesus to heal but we must also remember those healings and "exorcisms" were guideposts or signs that pointed to Jesus being messiah, so there was specific historical occasion. Yes I still believe healings happen but I don't have false and lofty expectations which lead to an inevitable letdown. I think medical physicians are given gifts by God, whether they believe or not, of healing and compassion to help diagnose, cure and heal people. Idk, just some thoughts to ponder...

Mtdan

Yeah. Been listening and sometimes participating in this conversation for years. Two observations. 1. Progressive revelation or our evolving experience/understanding of God (whichever we are most comfortable with) is a part of this conversation that I think is extremely healthy. The assumption that all perceived advances are improvements on the past is a big mistake. One of the things that evolution teaches us is that not all "progressive" mutations are long term improvements. Antiquated world views often contain truths that our "modern" or post-modern epistemologies make us blind to. Don't get too excited over every scientific or intellectual advance. Some look like progress but are not. 2. While I don't use the same language as process theologians I love the need for god to be imminently involved in his creation. God as a person who acts according to his will and his moods is more biblically tenable than a god of absolutes and who "never changes". I am concerned about the widely held idea that god does not respond to humanity from within relationship. It seems that transcendence is more important to much of the church than it should be. I love the bottom line assertion Bo, that all discussion about the nature of who god is must pass through the revelation of the son of man, Jesus.

BoSanders moderator

@Mtdan You make several good points:

" Antiquated world views often contain truths that our "modern" or post-modern epistemologies make us blind to" is a good caution. Just remember that in the post-modern approach there is an appreciation for a plurality of voices including that of myth-legend. What we learn in stories like the ancient flood account (in many civilizations and traditions) is important ... don't get distracted by the science of it. Hear what is in the story. So I like what you say there.

- We agree on the imminent involvement of God. My only recognition to stated is that A) language is not univocal about God. Jesus called God 'Father' but that does not mean He had sex with Mary or comes home from a day's work 'grumpy and tired'. It is relational language that Jesus related to God as one relates to a Father.

B) we also need to acknowledge the danger of anthropomorphizing god with mood swings and such. While God is a person, we need to be careful of giving God our personality. Analogy is good. It just needs to be stated as such.

Mtdan

@BoSanders @Mtdan Anthropomorphizing is an interesting concept. You get into a "which came first chicken or the egg" scenario. We are made in his image. How much of the scriptural revelation of father is cultural context - a product of near-eastern patriarchal society and what of god as a father is reflected in the actual activity of human fathering? "we need to be careful of giving god our personality". Who decides what is good or bad in a personality, therefore making it a possible part of the image of god in man? I think it is dangerous stuff to reason our way toward answers to these questions. If I experience go as a father or a mother or as having "mood swings" then god is a father or a mother or he/she has mood swings. I guess to express that last idea a different way. I think all good theological,work starts with experience.

BoSanders moderator

@Mtdan Thanks for writing back! It was good to flesh this out a little bit and see that we really do have some differences in our approaches! BIG ones :)

1) You can't start with experience because all experiences is interpreted. We are all groomed, socialized and conditioned within families, communities and language. Experience is interpreted experience. It is not wholly 'trustworthy' as a solo location for theological work.

2) Experience must be one valuable node within a web of meaning - this includes reason, tradition, scripture and several other things. Reductive moves to simplify it down miss the inter-related and complex nature of existence and social experience.

3) Your use of univocal language about God having mood swings makes me nervous that you have made god just a big version of you in the sky. That exactly what I am cautioning against.

4) The chicken or egg thing is a bit of a misnomer ;) Its like saying Did god or birds have feathers or wings first (Psalm 91:4) ? Did rock exist and God was like them or were the rocks made like God (Psalm 18:2)? No, this is language as expression - not representation. It is analogous not exacting.

So there are 4 clear things that we disagree on :) Am I reading that right? If not, let me know -Bo

JanG

Good stuff, as always, Bo. You're probably familiar with the so-called Albigensian heresy, which essentially splits God -- and I think it was mostly in order to grapple with the existence of evil, which sneaks into many essays, blogs, and discussions about God's nature. I've occasionally tossed out a comment when I feel like causing mischief, to the effect that if God created everything, then God also created evil. Archibald MacLeish addressed the notion in J.B., a drama popular a number of years ago. Part of the reason I toss this out is that it's easy for others (not you, I'm certain) to become complacent about feeling they "know" God, whatever that means. And that brings me to the 2-part quesion I hope you will address:

1) Why do we humans feel it is possible to know and understand God?

2) Why do we feel it is necessary to know and understand God?

Are we Icarus, in other words, jumping off the cliff to fly at the sun? Probably too inflammatory a metaphor, pun intended. We are more likely than Icarus to approach that quest more humbly, for one thing, always a good stance from which to see truth. And for me, the "why?" of it always strengthens an argument.

BoSanders moderator

@JanG interesting take ... couple of thoughts in response.

- The creation of evil thing is a tricky one until someone helps you see through the fog (I refer people to the Keith Ward book) then it's like that argument never existed ;) I might blog it soon.

- We feel that we can know god because of a matrix of meaning - a web of interpretation if you will. We have combination of history (cultures have traditionally believed in gods) , experience, our tradition (which gives us frameworks for our experiences) and reason ... to name just 4.

- We feel it necessary because if we have been given the mental capacities that we have (A), the historical revelation of the tradition (B), been personally visited as a planet (C) and been touched personally by Spirit (D) then one could think that you were supposed to pursue this kind of reflection and speculation ;)

- Philip Clayton in "the Predicament of Belief" talks about different levels of epistemic certainty as crucial for the theological endeavor.

watcha think?

DouglasHagler

1 Like

Is it worth noting that we can't possibly determine whether God changes or not? As you point out, there's no doubt that human ideas about God (any god) change. So one thing I look at is what are the results of a claim made about God. If you say "God never changes...therefore I will continue to love you even though you mess up or don't fit in", awesome. If you say "Got never changes...therefore I will be hostile to basic scientific knowledge and people who are not like me, and will not listen to any reasons not to be hostile", that's a disaster (and incredibly common).

So maybe "God never changes" isn't actually a statement that matters. That is, it doesn't have content. It has to be "God never changes...therefore", and I think that we can judge the 'therefore', since it is concrete and comprehensible (unlike God) a lot more easily. In my view the important claims we're making are about ourselves and other people and our relationships.

BoSanders moderator

@DouglasHagler I get what you are saying here. I kinda like it. I do think that we are mostly saying something about our selves or our community when we say this kind of thing.

Where I would differ a little is two expand it by two degrees. the first is that evidence/experience is a way that we would say something about god. We could say 'that never happens anymore' as 'God isn't working that way anymore'.

The second would be philosophically. After the thought of the 20th century, we conceptualize of God a little differently. I have no issue to say that systematic theology is different post- Heidegger-Hegal-Tillich.

always appreciate your thoughts -Bo

Trackbacks

A Silly, Sarcastic, & Sporged Out Nerd Out! says:

August 9, 2012 at 11:18 am

[...] God Never Changes … or does She? [...]
So God Made a Farmer? and other things that are kinda true says:

February 4, 2013 at 9:55 am

[...] Side Note: I have been clear that language about god is not univocal. It is not a 1:1 equation. I have also talked openly about female pronouns for god (in God never changes, or does She?) [...]
So God Made A Farmer – and other kinda true sentiments « navigating between the everyday and theology says:

February 5, 2013 at 4:53 pm

[...] Side Note: I have been clear that language about god is not univocal. It is not a 1:1 equation. I have also talked openly about female pronouns for god (in God never changes, or does She?) [...]
God Is Not Like Me says:

May 12, 2013 at 11:03 pm

[...] that God is not on the side of ‘the powers’ but of those in need of liberation – that it is equally as accurate and as inaccurate to call God ‘She’ and it is to call God ‘He’ – and that according to 2 Corinthians [...]

Claremont School of Theology

God Never Changes … or does She?

Trackbacks

Search

Subscribe via iTunes

Support the brew