God Is Weak

[Kia ora]

And we cannot be honest unless we recognize that we have to live in the world etsi deus non daretur ["as if there were no God"]. And this is just what we do recognize--before God! God himself compels us to recognize it. So our coming of age leads us to a true recognition of our situation before God. God would have us know that we must live as men who manage our lives without him. The God who is with us is the God who forsakes us (Mark 15:34). The God who lets us live in the world without the working hypothesis of God is the God before whom we stand continually. Before God and with God we live without God. God lets himself be pushed out of the world on to the cross. He is weak and powerless in the world, and that is precisely the way, the only way, in which he is with us and helps us. Matt. 8:17 makes it quite clear that Christ helps us, not by virtue of his omnipotence, but by virtue of his weakness and suffering.  

 

So says Dietrich Bonhoeffer in one of his prison letters.

 

He goes on to say:

 

Here lies the crucial difference between Christianity and all other religions. the religiosity of man points him in his hour of need to God's power in the world; for him, God is the deus ex machina. But the Bible points men to the powerlessness and the suffering of God: only the suffering God can help.

 

I think this is so true. God is weak, powerless in the sense that we want him to be strong and powerful. He is not the ultramasculine God who will send down fire, who will succour the hungry by creating bread, who acts as a master of the world. God is not a master. God is a slave.

 

He came as a slave and he died as a slave. If we make the mistake now of praying to God for help in this way (as if he had the power to change things), then we're making the same mistake as the Jews who were expecting a King with military, political, economic, social power.

Edited February 3, 2015 by Kia ora

[Catlick]

The greatest power lies in being able to show the greatest weakness.

 

By the way, Bonhoeffer was an anti-Catholic, comparing loyalty to the Pope with loyalty to Hitler.

[Kia ora]

No one's perfect.

[Oremus Pro Invicem]

I think we're confusing humility with weakness.

[little2add]

Dear OP


Don’t mistake my silence for ignorance; don’t mistake my calmness for acceptance. And most of all, don’t mistake my kindness for weakness.

God

[Kia ora]

What is wrong with being weak? Is there something wrong with God being weak? This is not my Jesus:

 

 

My Jesus died in pain, in agony, suffering, filled with anguish and who cried out why God had abandonned him. Jesus' humanity was not put on. He wasn't faking it.

 

Jesus was weak.

[Oremus Pro Invicem]

What is wrong with being weak? Is there something wrong with God being weak? This is not my Jesus:



My Jesus died in pain, in agony, suffering, filled with anguish and who cried out why God had abandonned him. Jesus' humanity was not put on. He wasn't faking it.

Jesus was weak.

That picture does not show our Jesus either. No one here is saying Christ was faking it. One can be powerful while allowing themselves to be vulnerable. I'm reminded of this fact every time I look at the Holy Eucharist.

[Ice_nine]

So enduring suffering = weakness? In what world? I think that shows strength in my feeble philosophically untrained mind. Brute strength? No, but that is a narrow definition of "strength." God created and loved us despite knowing the pain it would cause Him, perhaps forgoing the whole thing would have been weakness, but choosing to endure torture both in the event of the crucifixion and the perpetual pain of being rejected my many people . . . the word "weak" does not approach my mind.

[Kia ora]

In some way I can agree with the dialectic where God shows His strength in His weakness, in fact I might have said something similar sometime. However I also think that it's often used as a way to look past or ignore or soften the one pole of the dialectic. In other words, yes I might agree that God showed His strength in His weakness, but only if that is not meant to negate the fact that God IS weak. Only if it does not reduce the fact that God become human, and shared the human condition in his humanity.

 

Weakness is a kind of strength in the realm of heavenly things, not on earthly things. By all earthly standards, there was nothing strong about Jesus. Jesus did not, like the Stoic sages of old, patiently hold up under torture. He broke.

 

Jesus was a loser. He was not successful, his life consisted of him making and being hounded by his enemies. Alexander the Great was a 'winner' in ll the earthly terms.

 

I detest this kind of negative implication that weakness and vulnerability and openess to getting hurt and being trodden over and shoved around is a bad thing.

 

It is not a bad thing. I am perfectly okay with calling myself weak, and that's because I think there is nothing wrong with being weak. I think people should realise that too with God. Thinking that weakness is a bad thing, that one should not feel pain or cry or hurt, is a human and not a divine judgement. God himself says that the meek are the blessed.

[Kia ora]

That picture does not show our Jesus either. No one here is saying Christ was faking it. One can be powerful while allowing themselves to be vulnerable. I'm reminded of this fact every time I look at the Holy Eucharist.

 

Maybe I am just misunderstanding your terms. Wherein lies God's power on the Cross?

 

I think His power is precisely in His vulnerability. But this power is not power, but merely the power to be hurt. And this is the greatest power of all, the only power worth being called a power. And this is a power that no strong person possesses.

[Oremus Pro Invicem]

Maybe I am just misunderstanding your terms. Wherein lies God's power on the Cross?

I think His power is precisely in His vulnerability. But this power is not power, but merely the power to be hurt. And this is the greatest power of all, the only power worth being called a power. And this is a power that no strong person possesses.

I think I'm misunderstanding your terms.

[KnightofChrist]

Meek is not weak. The Lamb is also the Lion. 

[Seven77]

I have a serious problem calling God weak. By his very nature God is not weak. He accepted a weakness, in a sense he chose to become weak--- while remaining powerful. Accepting weakness is powerful. This is a paradox. 

 

When I am weak, I am strong, as St. Paul puts it. But I am not necessarily a weak person. Whatever the case may be, in accepting momentary weakness, I am actually strong.  This is possible because of the virtue of humility. Weakness as a state of being is not a virtue-- but humility is. And humility, like every virtue, is quite powerful indeed.

 

I think the problem is perception-- one can look weak, out of humility, while being strong. Humility is strength of character. God is humility itself.

[Oremoose]

In some way I can agree with the dialectic where God shows His strength in His weakness, in fact I might have said something similar sometime. However I also think that it's often used as a way to look past or ignore or soften the one pole of the dialectic. In other words, yes I might agree that God showed His strength in His weakness, but only if that is not meant to negate the fact that God IS weak. Only if it does not reduce the fact that God become human, and shared the human condition in his humanity.

 

Weakness is a kind of strength in the realm of heavenly things, not on earthly things. By all earthly standards, there was nothing strong about Jesus. Jesus did not, like the Stoic sages of old, patiently hold up under torture. He broke.

 

Jesus was a loser. He was not successful, his life consisted of him making and being hounded by his enemies. Alexander the Great was a 'winner' in ll the earthly terms.

 

I detest this kind of negative implication that weakness and vulnerability and openness to getting hurt and being trodden over and shoved around is a bad thing.

 

It is not a bad thing. I am perfectly okay with calling myself weak, and that's because I think there is nothing wrong with being weak. I think people should realise that too with God. Thinking that weakness is a bad thing, that one should not feel pain or cry or hurt, is a human and not a divine judgement. God himself says that the meek are the blessed.

 

I bolded the points I want better clarification about.

 

"He Broke." What makes you say that. That terms means that he begged for mercy and that the torture would stop. The only mercy he begged for was for us that our sins may be forgiven. the only time he ever asked for the torture to stop was in the garden and that was before it started. Once it began he was silent like a lamb lead to slaughter.

 

"Jesus was a loser. He was not successful, his life consisted of him making and being hounded by his enemies."

was he now? He had a close following, people flocked to him. Yes is enemies tried to trip him up but "haters going to hate" (proverbs 9:8). He was not continually on the run like a convict on the run. He was really only really hunted to be killed after the resurrection Lazarus. So he was pretty rad for his day.

 

lastly IMOHO weakness for me makes me think of sinfulness and not living to the standards that I can achieve with God's help. I would not call "vulnerability and openness to getting hurt." weakness that is merely being human. and being human is not the same as being weak.

 

As to "being trodden over and shoved around" that is not the same as being vulnerable and is something that should be something to take pride in. that is abuse and one should stand up against that type of treatment.

[Kia ora]

I bolded the points I want better clarification about.

 

"He Broke." What makes you say that. That terms means that he begged for mercy and that the torture would stop. The only mercy he begged for was for us that our sins may be forgiven. the only time he ever asked for the torture to stop was in the garden and that was before it started. Once it began he was silent like a lamb lead to slaughter.

 

I'm talking about a greater breaking, the greatest breaking of man in all of history. Begging for mercy is normal. No one would begrudge Jesus for doing that.

 

Jesus broke when He cried: "My God, My God, why have You forsaken me?"

 

 

"Jesus was a loser. He was not successful, his life consisted of him making and being hounded by his enemies."

was he now? He had a close following, people flocked to him. Yes is enemies tried to trip him up but "haters going to hate" (proverbs 9:8). He was not continually on the run like a convict on the run. He was really only really hunted to be killed after the resurrection Lazarus. So he was pretty rad for his day.

 

 

People flocked to Him, but who flocked to Him? Not the priests, not the theologians, not the rich, not the powerful, not the 'important' people in other words. Demoniacs, the poor, the sinners, they all flocked to Jesus. By earthly standards, in which the rich, the powerful, the wise and the pure are the most important people, Jesus was not successful in those terms, that's what I mean.

 

From birth to death. From Herod's persecution of the innocents, to the Romans and Jesus' fellow Jews. Jesus' life is a life of persecution.

 

lastly IMOHO weakness for me makes me think of sinfulness and not living to the standards that I can achieve with God's help. I would not call "vulnerability and openness to getting hurt." weakness that is merely being human. and being human is not the same as being weak.

 

 

 

I disagree. I think being human is precisely the same as being vulnerable and openness to getting hurt. That is, mortality is weakness. Jesus was human, and to be human, He had to be able to be hurt and get hungry and cry and suffer and even be tempted. I believe our embodied status as human beings is weakness, and that's what makes the Incarnation meaningful, because He debased Himself by becoming one of us.

 

As to "being trodden over and shoved around" that is not the same as being vulnerable and is something that should be something to take pride in. that is abuse and one should stand up against that type of treatment.

 

Pride is a sin.

 

I didn't say being trodden over and shoved around is a good thing. I said that I detest the implication that weakness and vulnerability and openness to getting hurt and being trodden over and shoved around is a bad thing.

 

Being open to being trodden over and shoved around is an acceptance of our mortality. Openness does not mean running towards personal suffering, but it doesn't mean running away from it other. Those who refuse to suffer are simply denying their humanness, and those who refuse to suffer are refusing the imitation of our Lord, who freely accepted the suffering allotted to Him. I believe it is a duty to accept the fact that we may be hurt, or WILL be hurt throughout life, by God even (like Job).

 

There's no shame to being trodden over and shoved around either. There's no shame in being the victim. There's no contradiction between believing there's no shame in being a victim, and still seeking justice in this world, so that there are no victims. One must never justify victimhood, but one must never look down on victims either.

[KnightofChrist]

People flocked to Him, but who flocked to Him? Not the priests, not the theologians, not the rich, not the powerful, not the 'important' people in other words. Demoniacs, the poor, the sinners, they all flocked to Jesus. By earthly standards, in which the rich, the powerful, the wise and the pure are the most important people, Jesus was not successful in those terms, that's what I mean.

 

Over all yes the rich and powerful didn't flock to Christ, but a few did. Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea for example. I do believe by worldly or earthly standards it can be said Christ is and was weak, and that Christianity is also weak. Also according to worldly standards Christ was not successful but God's success is not to be measured by worldly standards.  

[KnightofChrist]

Pride is not always sinful. Pride is often used interchangeably with honor. 

[Nihil Obstat]

[21] For seeing that in the wisdom of God the world, by wisdom, knew not God, it pleased God, by the foolishness of our preaching, to save them that believe. [22] For both the Jews require signs, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: [23] But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews indeed a stumblingblock, and unto the Gentiles foolishness: [24] But unto them that are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. [25] For the foolishnessof God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

[25] The foolishness: That is to say, what appears foolish to the world in the ways of God, is indeed most wise; and what appears weak is indeed above all the strength and comprehension of man.

[26] For see your vocation, brethren, that there are not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble: [27] But the foolish things of the world hath God chosen, that he may confound the wise; and the weak things of the world hath God chosen, that he may confound the strong. [28] And the base things of the world, and the things that are contemptible, hath God chosen, and things that are not, that he might bring to nought things that are: [29] That no flesh should glory in his sight. [30] But of him are you in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and justice, and sanctification, and redemption:

[31] That, as it is written: He that glorieth, may glory in the Lord.

 

 

[Kia ora]

as Seven77 said, st. paul said that when i am weak, i am strong (corinthians). but that is when i am weak.

 

and when jesus said that those who lose their lives for his sake will find it, but those who save their lives will lose it, i really think he meant that to find life, one must lose life.

 

and this may mean losing one's life in terms of martyrdom. whatever the life it is that the martyrs gain in the next world, perhaps one could call it the 'true' life, surely it cannot be denied that they are also losing their earthly life for god.

 

for the other side of the equation to be true, the first must be true as well.

 

i am frightened of the idea that we fall into word games in order to make jesus' teachings less disturbing. that is, we may appreciate and proclaim that to save one's life is to lose it, and that to lose one's life is to gain it, but we don't really believe it.

 

if someone came up to you and said that you had to drop your possessions, your family, your friends, your job, your dreams and hopes, and work in the service of god for the rest of our earthly lives, with the probable outcome of achieving precisely diddly squat, then we'd better believe that is really losing one's life.

 

only if one really loses, only if one is really weak, can one really gain, can only really be strong.

[MarysLittleFlower]

I think that Our Lord IS able to do anything but He doesn't always choose to do certain things.

The reason He stayed on the Cross is not because He couldn't send legions of Angels to free Himself.. Or just do that by His direct power and will... But because He FREELY willed to die out of love. It was love not weakness that made Him take on so much suffering. He made Himself as a slave freely for love, not because He had no power. That is why it says in the Bible that He lowered Himself to a servant - that assumes He has the highest place of His own nature, but humbled Himself out of love.

God is all powerful and He emptied Himself taking the form of a slave because of His Will, which has the power to do anything. Jesus could have done any miracle to save Himself but He didn't choose to do that because He wanted to suffer to the maximum and give all - for us.

It doesn't mean He didn't show true suffering on the Cross. He did. And He loves us tenderly, and He wept for Lazarus, - but He also raised Lazarus from the dead.