Yesterday I read a portion of a book that resonated deeply with me and I want to share them with you for your own thought life. In the work that I've been doing on openness theology I have been wrestling with a very difficult question. Do the metaphors, narratives, and poems of the Bible really reveal to us what God is like? Certainly, God is a mystery to man, and we will never fully understand him, and that is fine with me, but the question is: are the words of Scripture reality-depicting?
I have always believed that when the Scripture said that God was angry, sad, or grieved that it meant that God truly experienced anger, sadness, and loss. Yet, classical theism, popularly expressed in much reformed theology states that God is not affected by the world and does not experience anger, sadness, loss, or joy, but exists eternally in a perfect state of blessed happiness.
Many say that these metaphors and narratives are an example of God "talking down to us." John Calvin wrote that God lisps to us like a nursemaid lisps to a child. With this understanding, it seems difficult to see the metaphors as reality-depicting, therefore many theologians and pastors for years have talked about the God behind the metaphors as the true God while the Scripture "speaks down to us" and gives us the God of revelation. For them it is not proper to speak of God experiencing emotion; it is not "dignum deo" for us to think of God this way.
There are many questions, concerns, and problems that arise if we start talking about the "God behind the metaphors." How could anyone really speak about the God behind revelation? How could anyone verify that the metaphors are not reality-depicting? How can someone make the claim that God does not experience anger or frustration at the obdurate nature that human beings can sometimes display? In order to have such information about the God behind revelation, wouldn't they have to have some kind of privileged access to God in order to see that he was in fact different than what we read about in Scripture?
The following authors reject a "God behind revelation" and believe that God has indeed revealed his essential nature in salvation history. These lines resonated with me:
The revelation of God in salvation history is a genuine self-revelation, not a temporary expedient or a public relations ploy, but a portrait of what God is really like.
-Richard Rice, theologian and professor at Loma Linda University
The very nature of God who is self-communicating love is expressed in what God does in the events of redemptive history. There is no hidden God....behind the God of revelation history, no possibility that God is in God's eternal mystery other than what God reveals Godself to be.
-Catherine LaCugna, Feminist Catholic Theologian, author of God For Us.
This revelation is a genuine self-giving. God's true self, God's innermost reality, comes to expression in God's dealings with creation. Consequently, God's saving actions become central to God's identity. In creating and saving a world, he commits himself to the world in such a way that his own destiny and his own identity are forever linked to that of his creatures. Like British generals who acquired their titles from their battlefield triumphs, God's name derives from his saving activity. For Christians the Trinity names God--as Father, Son, and Spirit--identifying God by the definitive moments in salvation history: the mission of the Son and the sending of the Spirit.
Now, if salvation history is a revelation of God's inner reality, we must think of God in a way that is consistent with what we find in this history. Since the qualities of sensitivity, care, commitment, self-giving, and self-sacrifice are prominent in salvation history, as the cross [of Christ] supremely testified, these are the qualities that characterize God's essential reality.
-Richard Rice
[Quotes taken from, Searching for an adequate God: A Dialogue between Process and Free Will Theists. ed by John B. Cobb and Clark H. Pinnock. pgs. 196-197.]
So if salvation history testifies to the nature of God, then God is affected by our world; he is a God who suffers; he knows anger and frustration; he really rejoices like the Scriptures say. God has shown us his true self at the Cross of Christ; there is no God behind the curtain, for in the crucifixion of Christ we see God's true self--we see what God is really like. In Christ, we see that God is self-giving love.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I think you are dabbling in the realm of people that think too much.
God is who he has revealed himself to be...man made in his "image" blah blah blah. Certainly we have to try to reconcile the pre-fall reality with what we now face, but I think the principles remain.
I think there are not so many differences in the emotions we experience (God and man)as there are the ways we respond to those emotions. I dont think God exists in perpetual bliss-an emotion unto itself imo- (although I think it was probably supposed to be that way)...but 1)just because God is transcendent doesnt do away with his 'image', personality and potential for raw emotion...I believe its a matter of ontology. 2) Even if everything was still "paradise" as it was pre-fall, that simply eliminates the stirring of said emotions through lack of environmental stimuli(haha I sound so smart). It does not mean they dont exist.
You could explain away the countless times of anger or jealousy as human terms in regards to the objective judgment of God upon his people...yet how do we see the humanity and divinity of Jesus if this is the case: his anger and fear?
Better yet, how do you objectify "love" and the constant mercy shown his people. If everything is "objective" and "without emotion", how do we reconcile the tension between judgment and mercy. How does God draw the line saying "enough is enough" and bringing judgment...and how does he continue to show mercy to the underserving. If he simply draws a dry line, maybe we interpret "nearing the line" as mercy...yet if we've never crossed the line, do we get to go to heaven anyway?
The entire question becomes more absurd as I think about it, as you question the nature of God you question everything built upon it, such as man, sin, judgment etc. If he's in perpetual bliss, I think I'll become a deist...OR I could believe what the Bible teaches. /wink wink
Jon,
I'm not sure how to take your comment as I am not sure if you are trying to disagree with me or if you are building on what I was getting at. I have edited my post for clarity and that may help.
On another note, I don't think I'm "dabbling in the realm of people that think too much," for this has been a very popular teaching on God since the time of Augustine.
More specifically stated, God, according to Augustine, Anselm, and Classical Theism is completely immutable, impassible, and unconditioned by the world. God, for them, is not influenced by anything that happens in creation.
I believe that the metaphors in Scripture are reality-depicting and I reject Calvin's idea of a lisping nursemaid, but I think it is important to wrestle with this question because it has shaped the way many Christians (Calvinists) think about God.
nah I'm not disagreeing... I'm not sure I know what "immutable" means lol, but I think I get the gist.
If they want to say that God is unaffected by creation, they better be more specific as what they mean by that. I think that "who God is" is unaffected by creation as he is ontologically unchanging...but if they say that God is unaffected emotionally to the happenings within his creation, I think they're dumb. Just because you become an important historical figure doesnt give you credibility.
On the same note, just because its been a "popular teaching", doesnt automatically qualify it as "useful" or even "intelligent".
This kind of argument, philosophically, has no answer and profits very little as you just go 'round and 'round and 'round with opinion...and I'm not surprised that you said Anselm, cuz it has always been my impression that his logic and use of language is quite circular and...really rather annoying. I think biblically and spiritually this issue is resolved rather quickly...and I think at some point and time (not you mind you) the intellectually proud take this kind of near fruitless philosophical tension and go around and around simply just to hear themselves talk. Just like all the dumb greeks who sat around gossiping about ideas, posturing themselves amidst their peers to see who had the "biggest brain".
Anyhow I suppose it does affect current thinking of calvinists...I dont remember the 'lisping nursemaid' reference enough to comment. Really though, calvinists push the realms of reasonable christianity imo...its chalk full of potholes.
I admit, I find this stuff interesting and I enjoy you humoring my episodes... I also admit that I suffer from a bit of intellectual ego despite not being well read, or even "read" at all. So shoot me down if you dare sucka! I will bring the PAIN!
well i'm not re-reading this to clarify or edit, so take it as it is
peace
I think the metaphors in the Bible do what they are intended to do...give us an idea of what God is "like" as you said. My opinion is that they are reality in so far as limited language, human powers of understanding, perception etc. allow us to perceive reality. Jesus was a great one to describe things by using the phrase "such and such is like..." In His words I understand that my experience won't allow me to really know what God "is" only what He is like. We see through a glass dimly...but someday...
thanks for thinking about these things and blogging.
Post a Comment