Questioning the immutability of God

Ranters was a Commonwealth era sect that wasn’t necessarily Utopian or apocalyptic as such. Some say it didn’t really exist either. I bring them up anyway, because they held some interesting beliefs that suggest the idea of change unlike any other during their time. Namely, that God wasn’t immutable.

Ranters came about around 1649. They adhered to a notion similar to that of Quakers, that Christ was present in every believer – or in all living creatures. While Quakers took this to mean that the believer existed in a sinless state when Christ was present in them, Ranters maintained that nothing could be sin while Christ was in them. This led to a behaviour that was judged amoral by their contemporaries, like cohabiting without marriage and multiple partners living in a marriage-like arrangement. Mosaic laws didn’t concern them either when they were in the state of grace.

Parliament considered Ranters to be a highly disruptive force that had to be destroyed at all costs. However, some modern historians argue that the group didn’t really exist, that they were created by the conservatives as the other to be feared. The middle view is that they were small disconnected groups without proper leaders. Whatever the true scope, they disappeared soon after the Restoration when the sects were being purged.

Even though the sect was never large or powerful, some texts are attributed to them. A Single Eye (1650) is a pamphlet by Laurence Claxton (1615-1667). In it, he questions the immutability of God. As I mentioned in an earlier post, one reason why Christians were unable to see the future different from the present was the notion that God and His word – in this case, the end of the world – were unchanging.

In the letter to the reader, Claxton states that he has seen God being worshipped in so many manners around the country that it isn’t possible He is the same for all. According to him, God “thou pretends to Worship, whether he be Infinite, or Finite; whether he be subject to passion and affection, … and whether he can be changed by thy prayers, so us to expiate a judgement, or produce a deliverance … is passionate, God is affectionate, and if either, then changeable.”

For Claxton, a god who could be one thing to one person, and completely different to another, was changeable. In a culture that believed in the immutability of God, the idea was radical. It’s also the kind of mentality that is prerequisite for the modern concept of time. I haven’t run into similar examples, however. As a unique text, it is intriguing, but doesn’t yet herald a new word view.

A Single Eye by Laurence Claxton, 1650.