Images of God: How Theology Shapes Our Experience of the Divine

In this series on Images of God, I have explored how our personal psychology can shape our perception of — and relationship with — God, through the potent inner images of the divine we may consciously or unconsciously carry. I have also reflected on how wider cultural consciousness influences these images, often in ways we barely notice.

Another significant, and sometimes overlooked, influence on our images of God is theology itself — the ways we have learned to think about God, whether explicitly through teaching, or implicitly through the assumptions absorbed from the particular stream we follow of our religious tradition. These ideas do not remain abstract. Over time, they seep into our inner world and quietly shape how we imagine God, how we pray, and how we understand suffering, love, and responsibility.

Within Christianity there is a rich and diverse theological heritage. Yet certain theological concepts — particularly those formed within patriarchal cultures — have tended to dominate, often shaping God-images that emphasise distance, control, and immutability. As we have seen elsewhere in this series, such images can profoundly affect our spiritual life.

The following guest article, originally published in The London Free Press, is written by my friend and fellow spiritual director Dr Bruce Tallman, who lives and works in Ontario, Canada. Drawing on contemporary theological thought, Bruce offers a clear and accessible reflection on how inherited ideas about God — particularly the image of God as an “unmoved mover” — may no longer serve us in an evolutionary, relational world. His reflections illuminate how shifts in theology can open the way to more relational, compassionate, and life-giving experiences of the divine.

I am grateful to Bruce for allowing me to share his work here, as it speaks directly to the themes explored throughout this series.

Old Concept of Immovable God Outdated

    '' Our contemporary world is characterized by awareness of evolutionary and historical processes; science and technology; rapid change and uncertainty; diversity in sexuality, race, and religion; awareness of human rights; and globalization.

    No one in biblical times knew anything about this, and theology has not kept up with these changes until recently. According to some experts, open and relational theology is the best approach for adapting Christianity (or any religion) to the modern worldview. It also fits the biblical record better than traditional orthodoxy.

Open and relational theology may upset some classical theologians. Still, many contemporary thinkers, such as Ilia Delio, a Franciscan expert on Teilhard de Chardin's evolutionary theology, and particularly Thomas Jay Oord, one of the main proponents of open and relational theology, believe some serious rethinking is necessary.

    The God of classical theology was the “Unmoved Mover,” who moved the whole universe but was unmoved by it. This concept of God derives more from ancient Greek philosophy (Aristotle) than from scripture. The concept of an unmoved God makes no sense in an evolutionary world. Growth in consciousness, love, and justice is the overall direction of the universe (although we presently are in a temporary political setback). The universe has evolved from pure matter to human beings capable of love.

    The God of classical theism creates a sharp division between a constantly changing world and a detached God who never changes. In open and relational theology, God is incarnate in the universe as God’s Body. God and the world are intertwined and interactive. Spirit and matter are inseparable, not distinct as in Greek philosophy.

    In open and relational theology, God is not unchanging; God is the “Most Moved Mover,” constantly moved to compassion and joy by what is happening in the world. The biblical God changes his mind depending on what people do, see, for example, Jonah 3:9-10.

    Not only classical theism, but also classical atheism, is misguided. The main cause of atheism is the problem of evil: if God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent (all-good), and sees evil happening (for example, someone harming a child), and does not do anything, this God is a moral monster, a false god who should not be believed in.

    Saying that God’s inaction in the face of evil is “a mystery,” as classical theism did, is a false escape from the problem. Classical theism also cannot be defended by saying that God allows evil because God does not want to interfere with human freedom.

    Atheists like Friedrich Nietzsche were right: the God of classical theology, the Unmoved Mover, is dead. However, atheists were misguided because God, per se, is not dead, just unhelpful concepts of God, which atheists rightly reject.

    In open and relational theology, God is not omnipotent, all-powerful through might. God is “amipotent,” all-powerful through love. Love is the most powerful force in the universe, and the universe’s origin, sustenance, and goal. God is intimately involved in, but does not coerce, creation or human beings. God is love at work in each moment, trying to bring the best out of us, which we can resist. God tries to move our hearts and consciences to do the right thing, for example, not harming a child, but we can disobey.

    Love does not control free will but works with it. Open and relational theology rejects an all-controlling, all-powerful God. God is positively influential without being controlling. God is in solidarity with us, and suffers and rejoices with us, a biblical God of the crucifixion and resurrection.

    To sum up, open and relational theology is more in sync with our lived experience, evolutionary science, scripture, and desire for love than is classical theology. ''

Bruce’s reflections remind us that theology is never neutral. The ways we think about God — often inherited rather than chosen — shape the inner images we live with, and these images in turn shape our spirituality, our sense of self, and our way of relating to the world. When theological concepts no longer resonate with lived experience, they can quietly harden into images of God that feel distant, implausible, or even morally troubling.

As this series has explored, becoming aware of our images of God — whether shaped by psychology, culture, or theology — is not about abandoning tradition, but about allowing it to mature. It is an invitation to loosen our hold on concepts that no longer give life, and to remain open to images that foster relationship, compassion, and inner freedom.