![](\"https:\/\/images.theconversation.com\/files\/353722\/original\/file-20200819-14-ezlw0s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=84%2C37%2C3013%2C1790&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip\")
\n Photo by Hulton Archive\/Getty Images<\/a><\/span>
\n <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n
By Sameer Yadav<\/a> of Westmont College<\/a><\/em> and Helen De Cruz<\/a> of Saint Louis University<\/a><\/em><\/span><\/p>\n President Trump claimed<\/a> recently that the prospect of a Biden presidency would \u201churt God.\u201d <\/p>\n More specifically, he said, Biden would be \u201cfollowing the radical left agenda, take away your guns, destroy your Second Amendment, no religion, no anything, hurt the Bible, hurt God. He\u2019s against God. He\u2019s against guns.\u201d<\/p>\n With this speech, delivered in a rally-style address on Cleveland, Ohio\u2019s airport tarmac on Aug. 6, Trump conveyed that a vote for Biden would weaken religion in the public sphere and restrict access to guns, thus tapping into the anxieties of his conservative Christian base<\/a>. <\/p>\n As experts in Christian theology<\/a> and the philosophy of religion<\/a>, we explain how under in Christian thinking, it might actually be possible to hurt God \u2013 just not in the way that Trump claims.<\/p>\n Classically, Christians have held that the God described in the Bible is metaphysically ultimate \u2013 meaning that everything that isn\u2019t God was created by God and depends for its existence on God. God is believed to be a perfect being, without defect in mind or will. <\/p>\n If, as Christians suppose, God is an ultimately perfect being, then God\u2019s perfect personhood necessarily involves a fulfilled inner life, a perfectly satisfied mind and will. God must possess perfect beatitude, perfect happiness and perfect well-being<\/a>.<\/p>\n God then is believed to not be susceptible to sadness and other such emotions that are expressions of unfulfilled desires. <\/p>\n Theologians have coined the term \u201cimpassibility<\/a>\u201d to this idea that God\u2019s well-being must be unaffected by anything or anyone, for good or for ill. The root of this term is the Latin \u201cpassiones,\u201d which means emotions or \u201cpassions.\u201d<\/p>\n There are many proponents of this view. Bishop and early Christian author Ignatius of Antioch<\/a> described God as \u201cimpalpable and impassible,\u201d in a letter to a Polycarp<\/a>, another bishop in the early Christian Church, that dates from around A.D. 118.<\/p>\n A detailed defense of this idea appeared centuries later with the fifth-century theologian Augustine of Hippo. In later years, Thomas Aquinas, a 13th-century Italian theologian with enormous influence in the Catholic tradition, also supported this view.<\/p>\n In the 16th century, the Swiss theologian John Calvin and the German reformer and theologian Martin Luther, who started the Protestant Reformation, made impassibility a standard picture of the divine. <\/p>\n But Christian thought does allow for the possibility of \u201churting God\u201d in other ways. <\/p>\n The medieval theologian Anselm of Canterbury examined how humans might hurt God in his book \u201cCur Deus Homo<\/a>\u201d or \u201cWhy God became human.\u201d <\/p>\n In that book, he aimed to answer the following question: If Jesus atoned for our sins, what does this mean? <\/p>\n Sin, as understood by Anselm and other Christians, is wrongdoing against God. Anselm thought that God is impassible, so sin can\u2019t mean that we literally harm God\u2019s inner happiness. However, Anselm thought that it is still possible to harm God\u2019s honor. <\/p>\n To understand what it would mean to harm God\u2019s honor, consider this analogy<\/a> by Catholic philosopher of religion Eleonore Stump<\/a>. She asks us to imagine a situation where you spread a false, hurtful rumor about your colleague Beth to your friend Priya. Priya knows you\u2019re lying, so you haven\u2019t harmed Beth. But there is still a sense in which you\u2019ve done wrong by Beth \u2013 you have done her an injustice. <\/p>\n Theologians believe that humans can harm God in similar ways: They can\u2019t hurt God, but can still do God an injustice. But unlike human beings, God can\u2019t feel upset or otherwise emotionally dissatisfied. Any such emotional dissatisfaction would be inconsistent with the fulfilled inner life that a perfect divine person must have. <\/p>\n Yet, a puzzle arises: The scriptures frequently talk about God\u2019s emotions. For example, God is often depicted as angry or as taking pleasure in things creatures do. <\/p>\n Aquinas helps us reconcile divine emotions with impassibility, as religion scholar Anastasia Scrutton<\/a>, explains<\/a>. Aquinas draws a distinction between \u201cpassiones,\u201d emotions that are not under our voluntary control, and \u201caffectiones,\u201d which are voluntary and rational. These constitute ways in which God evaluates situations. <\/p>\n In human beings, affectiones and passiones are always bound up together. For example, when a human being is angry \u2013 when she witnesses an unjust situation, for example \u2013 she will also feel upset. By contrast, theologians imagine that God can become angry without becoming upset. <\/p>\n In Aquinas\u2019 views, when our character and conduct occasion God\u2019s negative affectiones, we harm not God\u2019s inner well-being but God\u2019s relationship to us. <\/p>\n[Deep knowledge, daily.<\/em> Sign up for The Conversation\u2019s newsletter<\/a>.]\n Under this interpretation, the question arises: What kinds of character and conduct dishonor God, displease God and therefore do God an injustice? <\/p>\n In the Bible, the Prophet Isaiah<\/a> says that the time when the Messiah returns is a time when the people of all nations \u201cwill beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore.\u201d <\/p>\n Put in today\u2019s context, Isaiah\u2019s vision of the social order God aims to establish is one in which tools of war are exchanged for tools of agriculture and ecological caretaking. <\/p>\n For those who take Isaiah\u2019s words to express divine intentions for human beings here and now \u2013 those who read Isaiah religiously as Scripture through which God addresses us \u2013 this vision calls readers to forfeit their implements of war, such as guns, in today\u2019s world. Thus, in Isaiah being \u201cagainst guns\u201d does not imply being \u201cagainst God.\u201d In fact, it is quite the contrary. <\/p>\n On erasing religion from the public sphere<\/a>, God speaks<\/a> through the mouth of the Hebrew Bible prophet: \u201cI hate, I despise your religious festivals; your assemblies are a stench to me.\u201d God despises these festivals, because the people are, in God\u2019s views unjust. Thus, the Prophet says \u201cEven though you bring me burnt offerings and grain offerings, I will not accept them.\u201d Instead of religious festivals, God exhorts people<\/a> to \u201clet justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream.\u201d <\/p>\n It would appear then, for readers who take these words in Isaiah to heart, that harming God is not the same as removing religion from the public sphere. Indeed, being unjust would be a greater harm. <\/p>\n No one better embodies this repudiation of violence and being a voice for the underclass than Jesus himself.<\/p>\n According to traditional Christian teaching, Jesus is God manifest as a human being. The Gospels clearly state how he advocated<\/a> \u201clove your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.\u201d He condemned the religious hypocrisy<\/a> of seeking the place of honor and public respect while neglecting the poor, oppressed and socially marginalized. <\/p>\n Dishonoring these stances taken by Jesus, God in the flesh, would then appear to harm God. As religion scholars, we then argue that the Christian tradition to which Trump appeals when he claims that a Biden presidency would \u201churt God\u201d does not support that claim.Impassibility<\/h2>\n
Harming God\u2019s honor<\/h2>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/images.theconversation.com\/files\/353723\/original\/file-20200819-24722-nixli0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip\")
<\/a>
\n Photo by Mondadori Portfolio via Getty Images<\/a><\/span>
\n <\/figcaption><\/figure>\nA view from the Scriptures<\/h2>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/images.theconversation.com\/files\/353725\/original\/file-20200819-43015-1egdbtw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip\")
\n alex.ch\/Flickr.com<\/a>, CC BY-NC-SA<\/a><\/span>
\n <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n![\"The](\"https:\/\/counter.theconversation.com\/content\/144325\/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic\")
<\/p>\n