My view from the pew - Theistic Mutualism

In All That Is In God, James Dolezal critiques "theistic mutualism" or "theistic personalism." He argues that it deviates from the classical theism of the reformed creeds and the works of earlier theologians such as Athanasius, Augustine, Anselm, and Aquinas.¹ The premise of theistic mutualism (TM) is that in order for God to be relatable, there needs to be give-and-take with His creation. Without this, God is reduced to a cold and distant deity.

For example:

We will have to teach the following: that not only does humanity change in its relation to God, but the living relations of God to humanity... also undergo changes, as both are manifest in the world... Without reciprocity between God and world such vital relations would have no authentic reality. ²

... if God should not experience change over time in His "intimate actual relationships with His people" then God's love would be reduced "to the frozen wastes of pure speculative abstraction."³

In relational mutability, God does not change in his essential nature, purpose, will, knowledge, or wisdom; but he does interact with his people in the experience of their lives as these unfold in time. God actually enters into relationship with his people, while knowing from eternity all that they will face.⁴

But give-and-take requires change, so this view runs smack into God's immutability. To get around that, TM proposes that God is immutable in His nature but He arrives at a new state that is somehow separate from His nature in relationship with creation.⁵ But does this offer anything new? Dr. Dolezal is human, and he never was nor ever will be a giraffe. His essential nature as a human being never changes, but this does not make him immutable.⁶ And how is it logically possible for one be unchanging and yet have an aspect of change? Law of noncontradiction anyone? Some TMers would argue that the change doesn't violate immutability so long as God sovereignly chooses to make that change. ⁷ But where is the line drawn as to what God is allowed to change in Himself? This reminds me of the Arminian argument that God chose to limit Himself for the sake of honoring our "free" will. And doesn't this imply that there is something that God gains via this change? What was He lacking before, and if He was in need of something, doesn't this deny His perfection?

Another major flaw in TM is that its advocates "have made human personal relations, which are irreducibly correlative, the paradigm for understanding all meaningful relations."⁸ Again what knowledge would God gain about relationships from man? Doesn't Psalm 139 tell us that God knows us inside and out by virtue of being Creator? This is also interesting because Bruce Ware is a major proponent of TM and the Eternal Subordination of the Son ESS), where the relations within the Godhead takes its cue from people.

The Father and the Son relate  to one another as a father and a son relate to one another in a human family; the father directs and has authority over the son, and the son obeys and is responsive to the directions of the father. The Holy Spirit is obedient to the directives of both the Father and the Son.⁹

This may seem obvious, but who came first? God or people? For the record, I agree with Dr. Dolezal. I am not a pastor or a seminary-trained theologian, but I agree that theistic mutualism undermines our understanding of God. If God in His essence needs to become more like us to be more relatable to us, then, as my daughter eloquently and succinctly put it, we're screwed.

But there seems to be a crucial missing piece when we talk about relating to God. In one sense, everyone person is in a relationship with God as creature to Creator. But this is where the human relationship paradigm breaks down. People-to-people relationships normally don't require a go-between, but we're doomed if we do not have someone intervening on our behalf with God. I don't mean to sound harsh, but for Christians to talk about reciprocity with God is ludicrous. We couldn't span the chasm created by sin to approach Him. He condescends.  We needed a substitute to pay the penalty for our sins. God the Son became man to die in our place. We needed perfect righteousness. God the Son became man to live the life we could never have lived. We were dead in our sins. God the Holy Spirit regenerates and brings us to repentance and faith. We had no understanding of who God is, but we have seen the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. When I doubt that God understands, I look to my Great High Priest who was tempted as I am yet without sin. On every side, we are debtors to mercy. (Incidentally, Christ as mediator makes it an absolute necessity that He is equal in power and authority with the Father or else we would have had a lesser Savior. ESS does have gospel implications.)

The Triune God is a mystery. As Stephen Charnock states, "Though we cannot comprehend Him as He is, we must be careful not to fancy Him to be what He is not." Maybe I'm the ignorant one, but I would rather steer clear from fancy views that are departing from what God has revealed in His Word and what has been confessed by saints through the ages. If I am tempted to think that God is remote and distant, all I need to do is remember this phrase from the Nicene Creed -

God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, 

begotten, not made;

of the same essence as the Father.

Through him all things were made.

For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven

Afterthought: To be clear, the hypostatic union and the incarnation in no way changed God. He remained and still remains immutable. Jesus is fully God and still fully man. Not a blending. Not 50/50.

1. All That Is in God: Evangelical Theology and the Challenge of Classical Christian Theism, James E. Dolezal. Reformation Heritage Books, 2017, pg, 1.

2. Ibid. pg. 5.  Directly quoted from Isaak August Dorner's Divine Immutability.

3. Ibid. pg. 23. In quotes is from J. Oliver Buswell's Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion.

4. Ibid. pg. 25. Directly quoted from Bruce Ware's God's Lesser Glory.

5. Ibid. pgs. 2, 23.

6. Ibid. pg. 26. Footnote 38.

7. Ibid. pg. 29. J.I. Packer is cited as an example. Ouch. 

8. Ibid. pg. 6.

9. Yes this quote is from Grudem, but this is still a rationale for ESS. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, Wayne Grudem, Zondervan, 1994, pg. 249.
Updated 10:42 to correct typo and formatting problems.