Doctrine of God – Page 9 – Christ the Truth

What kind of oneness? Part one 6

GlenJanuary 17, 20106 Comments

Husband and wife are meant to be one. Nothing could be clearer.

Matthew 19:5-6:

The two shall become one flesh.

They are no longer two but one.

God has joined together.

Let man not separate.

Oneness is a priority for married couples. The question is - what kind of oneness? Because not every kind of unity is good unity.

We've thought a little bit about one kind of dysfunctional unity - a couple feeding each other's sins.

Or there's the Rescuer-Victim relationship or the Abuser-Victim relationship where the spouses can express and really feel a deep oneness. It's a sick oneness, but a oneness nonetheless.

Then there's the pathologically jealous spouse who is forever suspecting infidelity because their partner has interests outside the home. They are looking for a kind of unity.

Or there's the subtle and unspoken compromises we make with our spouses - I won't challenge you here, if you don't challenge me there. For the sake of unity we decide not to 'rock the boat'.

Or there's the couple who sing the Seeker's song:

Close the door, light the light, we're staying home tonight

Far away from the bustle and the bright city lights

Let them all fade away, just leave us alone

And we'll live in a world of our own

We'll build a world of our own, that no one else will share

All our sorrows we'll leave far be-hind us there

And I know that you'll find, there'll be peace of mind

When we live in a world of our own

Here's unity for unity's sake, with nothing larger to guide or direct them.

So unity in a marriage is not good in itself. There are some really unhealthy ways in which the two can become one. So what kind of oneness does Jesus want us to have?

The trouble with all the above concepts of unity is that none of them model God's unity. In this post and the next we will address that problem. In this post we'll think about how God's unity models to us a union that's not for its own sake. In the next post we'll think about how the Trinity models a unity that is held together with distinctions in equality.

So, first, the unity of the triune God is not unity simply for its own sake. It's a unity that's going somewhere. This is what the missio Dei is all about. God is the ultimate Missionary. His very being is a sending forth of Self in His Son and Spirit. To wind the clock back into the depths of eternity you find that God is always the Sending God. There is not a God who then decides to go out on mission. There is only the Missionary God - the God who speaks His Word / shines His Light / sends His Son. This is not just what He does - it's Who He is. God's unity is a relational unity of Persons who go out and draw in. God's unity is (in Richard Sibbes' phrase) a "spreading goodness". It is of the nature of this unity to be on the move. On mission even. And it's of the nature of this overflowing unity to draw others in. It's not a unity that excludes others, but a unity that seeks to bring more into its own way of love. God's unity is a unity on mission.

And this is the kind of unity we are to look for in marriage. Our unity is not supposed to be one that closes the door so we can 'live in a world of our own'. It's a oneness that is for others. For natural children and spiritual children - those drawn to the Father through our marital witness to Christ.

This paints our marriages on a far larger canvas. The purpose is not simply to become one. The purpose is to have a oneness that's going somewhere - i.e. a oneness that witnesses Christ to the world. An undefined oneness can easily turn into idolatry.

(Note that this is exactly parallel to unity in the church - ecumenism for ecumenism's sake is not the unity which we should seek. We pursue unity in mission - not unity in unity.)

And just as God's unity is a habitable unity - opened out in the Spirit to those adopted in the Son, so our marriages are to be habitable unities - opened out to spiritual and natural children.

We shouldn't pursue a oneness that then has mission as an afterthought. We should pursue a missionary oneness - a oneness for the sake of mission and a mission that forges and reinforces the oneness.

If we pursue this kind of oneness, when the time is right we'll be able to challenge sin and complacency in marriage. If done in wisdom and love, such challenges don't compromise but rather uphold true marital unity.

If we pursue this kind of oneness, interests outside the home won't be thought of as intrinsically threatening but quite possibly as opportunities for our missionary oneness.

If we pursue this kind of oneness, we won't make our marriages into our own private heaven - seeking the kind of relational nourishment that can and should only come from Christ. Instead we will experience the kind of healthy marital oneness that exists for a purpose far more fulfilling than cosy nights in.

More later...

Let Jesus be Jesus [A re-post slightly revised]

GlenJanuary 7, 2010Leave a comment

I'm always banging on about the trinity here.

One thing I particularly emphasize is the fact that the distinct Persons maintain their distinct-ness in the unity of the Godhead because this unity is the perichoresis (mutual indwelling) of the Persons. In fact the distinct-ness is upheld in these relations. The Father is truly Father because of His paternal relation to the Son in the Spirit etc, etc. God's One-ness does not steamroller the distinctions, it's a One-ness that includes (and is even constituted by) this mutual, interlocking one-ness. (Just click the Trinity tag on my sidebar and you'll soon come across many such posts).

One implication is this: We can all just breathe a sigh of relief and let Jesus be Jesus.

What do I mean by that? Well let me ask a few questions. When you read the Gospels, do you ever wonder:

Why doesn't Jesus just say 'I am God'? Why all this 'I am sent...' stuff?
Why does Jesus keep saying things like: 'I can do nothing by myself'? (e.g John 5:19,30)
How come Jesus sleeps?
How come Jesus doesn't know when He's returning?

He seems to walk around doing divine things (like forgiving sins), but at the same time He seems to go out of His way to show how dependent He is. Think about the paralytic in Matthew 9. He forgives his sins - which only God can do (v3) - but He does so as the Son of Man (v6) and the overwhelming reaction of the people is to glorify God for giving such authority to men. (v8) Even the most blatantly divine action is done in a distinctly human and dependent way.

Do we get worried about Jesus' weakness which comes out of every page of the Gospels? Are we concerned that Jesus doesn't say "I am God"? Instead He seems most often to claim a dependence on God and He walks around unashamedly humanly, showing Himself to be a complement (not a clone) of the One He calls Father.

Does this infuritate us as we seek to prove from the Scriptures the divinity of Jesus?? It shouldn't do.

It is a revelation of His divine nature (and not a concealment) that we see in Jesus such dependence on the Father. When He says 'I am sent' it reveals His divine nature as the eternal Son of the Father. When He says 'I can do nothing' it reveals His divine nature as the eternal Servant of the LORD. When He sleeps it reveals His divine nature as One dependent upon the ever-wakeful Father. When He says He doesn't know when He's returning He reveals His divine nature as One sent from God. He waits on the Father's command and does not initiate His first or second coming.

He really can't do anything by Himself. He really does sleep. He really doesn't know when He's returning. But for all that He is no less divine. For He belongs to the other Members and as the dependant Son, filled without measure with the omnipotent Spirit, He is a full participant in the communion that is God.

We don't need to assign these differences in Jesus to some 'human nature' locked off from a special sphere of uncorrupted, independent deity. Jesus' deity is not insulated from these differences, it includes them. It is the human Jesus who says 'If you've seen me you've seen the Father.' It is the human Jesus who says 'Son, your sins are forgiven.' In His differences, even in His complete humanity, He is the living God.

His divinity is on show on every page of the Scriptures because His divinity is His anointing with the Spirit and consecration to the Father. That's why the key title for Jesus is not "God" but "the Christ, the Son of God." This title is the most clear expression of His divinity.

So let's let Him be who He is in the Gospels. Let's not fit Him into some pre-conceived notions of divinity. Let's let Jesus be Jesus.

The New Atheism and the Trinity

GlenNovember 26, 2009Leave a comment

Here's Mike Reeves speaking at a student evangelistic event this week. Sound quality is not great but it is well worth listening to!

It's called "How Atheists Are Right." Mike's arguing that the new atheism rightly rejects the solitary dictator in the sky. Christopher Hitchens regularly complains that theism is totalitarianism. The theist God is with you 24-7, cannot be escaped and can even convict you of thought crime - the very definition of a totalitarian regime.

But, as Mike says, traditional Christianity has always stood against the solitary dictator in the sky. Instead, when we say God we mean a fundamentally different being. We believe in a God who is other-centred love. And as John Lennox put to Christopher Hitchens in a recent debate - My wife is with me morning and evening but I don't call my marriage a totalitarian regime! (Or words to that effect.)

Anyway - for Thawed-out Thursday I thought I'd defrost (and slightly revise) an old post originally called 'So what?'. It discusses the way in which the atheism of the west is linked to the trinitarian theology of the west (or lack of it).

Wherever the inter-Personal nature of God is minimized the 'dictator in the sky' is enthroned. And in those circumstances atheism recommends itself very persuasively. But really the solution is to return to a robustly trinitarian theology. In his talk, Mike does this very winsomely.

..........................................................................

A friend of mine is at Bible college and has been set an essay on trinitarian theology and the difference between east and west. He asked me to clarify the difference between an eastern and a western approach to the trinity and then to answer the crucial question: So what!!

Now first of all I'll lay out some broad brush-strokes. Here's a crude but still useful way of discussing our theological method. As Theodore De Regnon has famously put it: In the west theologians begin with the One and work towards the Three. In the east, theologians begin with the Three and work towards the One.

Now that might be completely false historically. My point is not to defend this as a reading of the theological traditions. I'm just wanting to use these definitions of 'east' and 'west' as labels to help the discussion along. But let's make sure we understand the proposition first.

De Regnon is saying that typically, the west begins with the One God and then tries to figure where Three-ness fits in. The east begins with the Three Persons and then figures out how the Three are One.

Now... once again, this is a sweeping generalisation but when I use the labels 'western' or 'eastern' to describe the approach to trinitarian theology, that's what I'm talking about. And I grant that in what follows I am caricaturing positions. No theologian in the 'west' is as bad as I'm saying. But plenty, plenty, plenty, of your average western Church-goers are far worse. Far worse!

And I'm not wanting to get into an argument about whether 'Augustine was a lot more nuanced/ Cappodocian/ economy-driven, etc, etc'. For the sake of argument, let me grant every 'yes, but...' which an Augustine supporter may wish to raise about Augustine's own theology. But let's step back and examine a trend in western Christianity that bears the stamp of his influence. And let's admit that if Augustine doesn't fit the caricature, there are millions descended from him who do.

I should also say that there are basic things about eastern trinitarianism with which I disagree. But on the simple point of our theological method I believe we should begin with the Three and discuss God's Oneness in that light.

And here's why.

If you're eastern you say: "I've met this guy Jesus and He introduces me to His Father and sends His Spirit." And then, having met the Three Persons in the gospel, you ask, 'What kind of one-ness do these three Persons share?' And because you think in this way you can conclude: "These three Persons are one because they are united in love."

So you go to John 17 and you see Jesus saying He wants His followers to be one the same way He and the Father are one. And then you say "Aha! The one-ness of the church is loving unity, therefore it stands to reason that the one-ness of Father and Son is loving unity." And then you remember 1 John 4 and you say with joy: How is God one? God is love! God is a loving community of Three Persons.

And this means that the greatest thing in all reality is love (because God is love). And it means that reality is relational. And it means that loving community among disinct people is very important. One-ness for the east is a loving union of particular Persons who don't lose their individuality. Father, Son and Spirit are all different Persons - they are not one because they are identical.

So, using these rough labels, the eastern approach can say: God is three distinct but totally united Persons loving one another. Let me flesh out three implications of this:

1) It means that difference, distinction, community, relationship, mutuality, reciprocity and LOVE are all at the very very centre of who God is. God's identity is not primarily a collection of attributes but a community of love.

2) Because even the Father, Son and Spirit find their identity in relationships we see that relationship is at the heart of personal identity. God is who He is because He is love. God is who He is because of the relationships of Father, Son and Spirit. Therefore I am who I am because of the relationships I share in.

3) Community is hugely important. Even in God, different voices are not silenced by one dominant ruler. Instead different voices contribute to a one-ness that's all about distinct persons working together in love.

On the other hand (using these crude generalisations) the west begins by saying: "we know that God is one. We know that this one God has all sorts of attributes that go with the 'Creator' job description. So God is omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, impassible, immutable etc etc." Then the west says, "Ok we've got the one God, but now in the gospel we meet these three Persons. So how can the three Persons qualify as this one God?"

The west figures that since the one God is defined by these attributes then the way these Three are One is by sharing in all these same attributes. And so they map these attributes identically onto the three Persons. In this way the distinctions between Persons gets lost. Every difference is blurred into the one God who is defined not by relationships but by attributes (i.e. He's big and clever). Three implications of this:

1) God's identity is primarily a collection of attributes - attributes that are about His distance from creation, His difference to us.

2) If God is who He is because of His attributes - personal identity is essentially about attributes (about being big and clever). Therefore I am who I am because of how big and clever I am.

3) Community is not really that important - there's only one voice and will that counts. Distinctions and difference will get bull-dozed before the all-important one.

Ok, now that I've laid it out like this, hopefully you can see some of the 'so what' significance??

Let me tease it out by discussing the three implications:

Regarding 1): In the west, God has been defined as a collection of attributes that place Him at an infinite distance from us. Now if you go out on the streets and talk to people about whether they're religious, basically (keeping eastern influences out of this) people will say either they do or they don't believe in a distant, uni-personal God who is approximately the 'omni-being' of philosophy. Whether they believe in "God" or don't believe in "God", the "God" they're talking about is the collection of attributes which the western theologian began with before they examined the gospel!

The god that our western culture has either embraced or rejected is not the God of the gospel! Instead the "god" of the pub discussion is pretty much the "one God" that the western theologian began with. And if the bloke in the pub rejects that god - I don't blame him!! And if Christopher Hitchens rejects that god - we don't blame him, right? Because that's not a god who is obviously related to Jesus of Nazareth (or His Spirit or the Father He called 'Abba'). And therefore its not a god who appears to be particularly interested in us - its not a god revealed in gospel love but in philosophical speculation.

Now the cultures shaped by the western church have been shaped by this doctrine of God. When they accepted "God" it was this "God" they accepted. When they rejected him, it was this "God" they rejected.

Atheism has basically been the rejection of this god. People have decided they don't want a distant omni-being over against them and proclaimed his non-existence. And what people like Colin Gunton have asked is, "Would the west have rejected "God" so thoroughly if the "God" they were presented with by the western church was the community of committed love revealed in Jesus?" The answer still might be yes, but at least we'll be discussing the true God when we evangelise!

Regarding 2): The question of personal identity. Well if we go with the west (as I've been defining it), my identity is all about my attributes. I need to build up a CV of my big-ness and clever-ness. That will define me. But if I go with the east then my identity is about my relationships. I am who I am because fundamentally I'm in Christ (and what's more I'm a son, a brother, a husband, etc). When I take this seriously, my western status-anxiety can be relieved in a second. I find liberation from the western drive to prove myself and forge an identity for myself. I am given identity in the relationships I have (primarily my relationship with Christ).

Think also of the abortion debate. What is it that defines whether this foetus has personal identity? Ask a westerner and they'll instinctively answer you in terms of attributes: "This foetus can/can't do X, Y, and Z therefore the foetus can/can't be aborted." But what if the foetus is a person not because of its attributes but because it already stands in relationships of love?

Regarding 3): The point about community. Here's a quote from the website: (https://christthetruth.net/audio/threepersonsunited.htm)

"...what can we learn about relationships and community from The Relationship? In gender relations, in multi-ethnic society, in equal opportunities policies, in the church, in our families - we are constantly confronted by people who have real and important differences and yet people who ought to be treated with equal respect and dignity. How do we appreciate the differences and uphold the equality? If we treat all in exactly the same way, are we not ignoring the valuable distinctives? This ‘melting pot' approach falls foul of oppression-by-assimilation. The incumbent majority always wins out at the cost of the minorities - they either become like the majority or they die. Do we, therefore, treat specific parties differently in an attempt to give them a leg-up? When this happens stereo-types can be re-enforced by ‘special treatment' and work against the value of equality. Furthermore: who defines the appropriate yard-stick of "success" in a culture? Perhaps it is better to abandon the idea of community altogether and accept along with Margaret Thatcher that there is "no such thing as society."

"Well what can the Trinity teach us? At the heart of reality lies a Community of different but equal Persons who have their own identities constituted by their mutual interdependence. They work together as One. There definitely is such a thing as society. Person-hood can never be considered individualistically but is made up of relationships on which we depend. Within The Community, the Persons freely submit to one another in roles of subordination while never losing their equal status. They do submit to differences in treatment and in function - but they maintain a definite equality of being and uphold one another in bonds of unconditional love. Here is a Community on which to model our own."

...........................................................................

I think Mike's talk is the most brilliant example of how this approach pays off in evangelism. Do listen to it.

Self-giving is absolute reality

GlenNovember 17, 2009Leave a comment

[I]n self-giving, if anywhere, we touch a rhythm of all creation and of all being. For the Eternal Word gives Himself in mortal sacrifice; and that not only on Calvary. For when He was crucified on Calvary He did that in the wild weather of His outlying provinces what He had done at home in glory and gladness. From before the foundation of the world, Christ surrenders begotten Deity back to begetting Deity, in obedience. And as the Son glorifies the Father, so also the Father glorifies the Son. ...From the highest to the lowest, self exists to be abdicated and, by that abdication, becomes the more truly self, to be thereupon yet the more abdicated, and so forever. This is not a... law which we can escape... What is outside the system of self-giving is... simply and solely Hell... that fierce imprisonment in the self... Self-giving is absolute reality.

C. S. Lewis in The Problem of Pain, ch 10, p157

Read it and weep.

Great links

GlenNovember 16, 2009Leave a comment

I know I still have a couple of posts on the Piper quote to write. I'll get to that...

Have you noticed the recent addition to my sidebar? You can read some recommended posts I've found helpful or at least provocative.

They all seem to be by Peter Leithart. How did that happen? Simple. He writes far and away the most interesting stuff. And it makes me wonder what the rest of us are playing at...

Anyway - of particular interest to me recently has been his blogging on Athanasius and especially how we must conceive of the divine attributes in thoroughly Trinitarian ways. (e.g. here or here on 'the dependent God')

Athanasius argued that the Son was and is the Wisdom of the Father eternally so, such that the Father without the Son would not be wise. Athanasius is so sure of this logic that he uses it as an argument against the Arians. The argument goes like this - The Son is the Wisdom of the Father, the Father has never been without wisdom, therefore the Son is eternal. Good argument huh?

But do you see the assumptions? It does not assume that each Person has each attribute 'in Himself' considered apart from the Others. Rather they possess each attribute because they possess each other.

Leithart puts it like this:

Does the Father have wisdom “in Himself”? Yes, because the Wisdom that is the Son dwells in Him by the Spirit. Does the Father possess His being “in Himself”? Yes, because the Son is the fullness of His deity, and the Son indwells Him through the Spirit. Vice versa: Does the Son have wisdom considered in Himself? Yes, because what is “in Himself” is the fact that the Father dwells in Him in the Spirit, so that His existence “in Himself” is His existence as the Son indwelt by the Father.

And so on.

This allows us to speak of Father and Son distinctly; it also makes it clear that the Father is not Himself except as He has and is indwelt by His Son, nor is the Son Himself except as He has and is indwelt the Father.

Halden picks up on these thoughts in this stimulating post on Trinity and attributes.

It's stuff I tried to argue a while back in these two diagrams

Another brilliant Leithart post is here on Gethsemane - Christ crushed that the oil of His anointing Spirit might spread to the world.

And you can't beat the Old Adam doing what he does best here - offering the gospel in all its beautiful and stark freedom.

Avoiding a fourth [Thawed out Thursday]

GlenNovember 13, 2009February 21, 2015Leave a comment

No (good) trinitarian theologian wants to have a fourth thing - a divine substance considered apart from the Three Persons. But it's important to be aware that this error (effectively having a quaternity) has two versions. There is a vulgar quaternity and a more insidious one.

The vulgar one looks like this:

Here is the "shamrock" trinity - three bits growing out of an underlying stuff. In practice this is, roughly, how many unthinkingly view the trinity. Such a vulgar quaternity is rightly rejected by theologians. It can be seen immediately that the 'Godness of God' is considered at a completely different level to the three Persons in their roles and relations. What makes God God is fundamentally impersonal attributes that may be expressed in the Persons but not constituted by their mutual inter-play. So we can safely reject this version of things.

But I find that many theologians, having rejected the vulgar quaternity, congratulate themselves prematurely. There is also the insidious quaternity to be dealt with. There is another way of having a fourth...

Fundamentally this error consists in conceiving of the one God separately to a consideration of the three Persons in communion. Recently I read a theologian say "God is both one and three - both a person and a community." This is an example of the insidious quaternity. One-ness and Three-ness are laid side by side to uphold a belief in the equal ultimacy of one and three. Yet the one-ness of God is conceived of as a uni-personal one-ness - that is, it is separately considered to the multi-personal three-ness. One and Three were not mutually interpreting truths but instead the 'one God' is thought of in non-communal (that is, non trinitarian) terms.

This is the approach taken by by so many doctrine of God text books where De Deo Uno (on the One God) is addressed prior to De Deo Trino (on the Trinity). Yet, unless the two section are integrated at the deepest levels then there is grave danger of a fourth thing - i.e. "God plus Trinity" or "God apart from Trinity."

When this theological method is followed, often (not always but most times) section one unfolds such that the Three Person'd interplay takes no meaningful part in the discussions of the attributes. Yet, typically, these attributes are asserted to be the virtue by which God is God. On this view it is still possible to discuss the 'Godness of God' without reference to the perichoretic life of the Three. Here One-ness and Three-ness are considered to be non-competing perspectives on the same God. This effectively means that it is possible to speak in non-triune terms about the living God. 'God', then, is not the same thing as 'the Three Persons united in love'.

This is also a quaternity. Just a more insidious one.

And the only way I can see to avoid this fourth thing is to side with the Cappodocians: God's being consists without remainder in the Three Person'd perichoresis .

The one-ness of God is not a simple divine essence but the very unity of the Three. The being of God is not an underlying substance (contra the vulgar quaternity). But nor is it a separately conceived essence (contra the insidious quaternity). Rather God's being is the very communion by which the Three are One.

Trinity is not a perspective on the one God. Rather the only God there is is trinity. And the only way to conceive of Him is in triune terms. 'God' is 'Trinity'. Unless this strict identity is maintained a fourth enters in.

Thus we must never conceive of the one God in any other terms than trinitarian ones. (Re-write the text-books!). God's being is in His communion (to use Zizioulas's phrase). His One-ness is in His communion. And (let's not forget) His Three-ness is in His communion - the Three are only who they are in this eternal perichoresis. To put it another way: God is love.

This is a re-working of an older post on One-ness and Three-ness.

God’s Glory In John’s Gospel

GlenNovember 7, 2009August 17, 2017Leave a comment

Jesus insists He will not glorify Himself, but His Father glorifies Him (John 8:50,54). Glory is other-centred - even for God.

John 13:31 - "Now is the Son of Man glorified and God is glorified IN HIM."

Let's think about the 'Now'. The Now is the cross. The cross glorifies God. This truth has two aspects, both of which need to be held together:

The cross glorifies GOD.

and

THE CROSS glorifies God.

The first is important, and we'll unpack its trinitarian character below. But too easily we can trumpet the first without realizing the radical truth latent in the second affirmation. The cross glorifies God. God is glorified in His gracious, self-motivated, self-sacrificial, saving action. Where the Son is lifted up in ignominy, in weakness, in apparent folly - there God is glorified. What kind of God is glorified by this? What is His glory, if this is it? It can be nothing other than His incredible self-giving.

What else to say...

The Father is glorified in the Son and the Son in the Father (17:1-4). This is an eternal, intra-trinitarian truth. But it also flows out via the incarnate Son and through His work.

This eternal glory is displayed at the cross. (17:5,24)

It doesn't stand behind the cross, it IS the cross.

The cross is not a bridge or stepping stone to something else called glory. The cross is the display of God's eternal glory. Whatever Jesus brings us into at the cross, it is the eternal glory of God.

Can we begin to grasp this? The cross and eternity, eternity and the cross - Jesus wants us to hold these things together somehow.

The glory of God is not simply locked up in eternity - not simply an impenetrable family secret between Father and Son. It's not a banqueting hall replete in itself and Christ crucified is merely the door into it. Christ crucified and the bride He would thereby win is at the heart of it. The bride is certainly in by grace and not by nature - yet it is God's glory to include us in His eternal life.

John 17:10 - Jesus speaks of His church and says, "I am glorified in them." (KJV)

Again we need to hold onto both sides of this:

JESUS is glorified in the church

and

Jesus is glorified IN THE CHURCH

Wow. Just as the Father is glorified in the Son, the Son is glorified in His people.

Wrap your head around that one! The eternal Christ is glorified in His Church.

Now obviously glory is not a something we give to Jesus. As He says:

"I do not receive glory from men." (John 5:41)

We've got nothing to offer in the glory stakes. So then, how is Christ glorified in His church. It must be because His glory simply is to give Himself to us in incarnation, cross and exaltation. In this way He is glorified. Because His grace is His glory.

We therefore participate in the divine glory. How? By receiving it. (John 5:44).

And so we find ourselves on the receiving end of God's glory, which IS His trinitarian life overflowing in creation, salvation and judgement.

But not only does this glory spread out from Father to Son and Son to Church, such glory is meant to draw in the whole world:

"I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me." (John 17:23)

So then:

God's glory is the cross.

It is other-centred.

It is ecstatic ('ek' - out of; 'stasis' - where you stand) and eccentric (out of the centre).

It overflows to include us.

We do not add to it but it is His glory to make us part of it!

Theo-centric? 10

GlenOctober 30, 2009August 17, 201710 Comments

What does it mean to be "theo-centric"? It's a fine aim - it's the only aim really for Christians. But here are some things to think about when someone urges us to be God-centred...

First we should ask: Which God are we talking about?

The person who cries 'God-centred' the loudest is not necessarily the most biblical. (Nor is the person who cries 'biblical', but that's another story). The absolutely key question is what kind of God is central to our thinking. And that question is not resolved in the slightest by saying He's central. In fact to say that 'God' is central to our theology is basically a tautology.

As Simone Weil says:

"No human being escapes the necessity of conceiving some good outside himself towards which his thought turns in a movement of desire, supplication, and hope. Consequently, the only choice is between worshipping the true God or an idol."

We're all God-centred. The question is, which God?

I have little patience for theologians or bloggers who claim a superiority because they are 'God-centred'. Often it's accompanied by the accusation that their opponent is 'Man-centred'. (And one of these days I'll write a post about how they're both wrong - we should be 'God-Man (i.e. Christ)-centred'). But really, in Simone Weil's sense, we're all 'God'-centred. What we really have to do is sort out who this God is who is central to our thinking.

But let's note well: the fact that our theology should be (and, in a sense, always is!) utterly consumed by and radically focussed upon God, in no sense tells you whether God Himself is consumed by and focussed upon Himself. Those are two entirely separate questions.

One is about our theological method, the other is about the 'theos' who, of necessity, stands at the centre of it.

Of course we should have our hearts and minds fixed on the living God, and of course if we fixed our ultimate affections elsewhere that would be idolatry. Ok, great. What bemuses me is the claim that God Himself must fix His affections on Himself lest He be an idolater too. Do you see how theo-centrism as a theological method gets confused with theo-centrism as a doctrine of God? And that gets confused with theo-centrism as God's doctrine of God!

More dangerously, do you see how such a method is in fact anthropocentric? It's an argument that says 'We would be idolaters to set our affections on lesser beings, so God must be an idolater if He did that.' It's a theology from below. And yet I find it on the lips of the very people who want to accuse all around them of man-centredness.

So let's be clear - everyone is already God-centred in their theology. The real issue is what kind of God we're talking about. And the question of theo-centric method does not at all settle the question of God's own being. While we must be theo-centric, we have to admit that God Himself is higher than the 'musts' that apply to us. The theologian who says God "must" love Himself higher than the creature has actually followed a logic that is less than God-centred.

We do not by nature know the kind of being that God is. And we cannot reason it out from the basis of how we find life as creatures. To tell a person that 'God' must be at the centre of their thinking will not tell them anything really. God cannot be assumed from the outset, He must be revealed.

The fact that all the gods of human religion are self-centred means nothing. The fact that we are called to be 'God-centred' means nothing for God's own life and being. It neither means that God should be centred on us, nor on Himself. The question of His own being is the key question and it can only be resolved as God reveals Himself.

He loves us because He loves us

GlenOctober 29, 2009Leave a comment

I wasn't a huge fan of this paragraph quoted on Tony's blog (as my comment makes clear).

But I love this one:

Thomas Manton, from a sermon on John 3:16

“Love is at the bottom of all. We may give a reason of other things, but we cannot give a reason of his love, God showed his wisdom, power, justice, and holiness in our redemption by Christ. If you ask why he made so much ado about a worthless creature, raised out of the dust of the ground at first, and had now disordered himself, and could be of no use to him? We have an answer at hand, Because he loved us. If you continue to ask, But why did he love us? We have no other answer but because he loved us; for beyond the first rise of things we cannot go. And the same reason is given by Moses, Deuteronomy 7:7–8: ‘The Lord did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because you were more in number than any people, for ye were the fewest of all people; but because the Lord loved you…’ That is, in short, he loved you because he loved you. All came from his free and undeserved mercy; higher we cannot go in seeking after the causes of what is done for our salvation.”

–Thomas Manton, The Complete Works of Thomas Manton, 2:340–341.

Huh?

That's what I'm talkin about.