When it comes to the things (esp. the nature) of God, why is it that perception seems to play as much a role as the truth? You can talk to one man who exudes warmth and compassion and mercy but may have no standards when it comes to behaviour or right and wrong. And you may also talk to another man who has standards that are immovable. There is right and there is wrong and the bar is raised and you know EXACTLY where it is. Yet in this man there is no concept of forgiveness. The standard has been set and if you do not meet it, tough cookies - you failed. And both these individuals may well claim to portray God. And I don't doubt that they both believe they do. But our natural response in the presence of both of them is different. With the one, we may relax, we may find no condemnation, but we may grow lazy. With the other, we may strive to meet that goal, but if we fail, there is no hope, there is nothing that can be done and no effort made to remedy your failure.
But in both men, there is to be recognized that they may (this has to be judged on an individual basis, but for theoretical purposes, it must be conceded that they) have touched something of God for they both exhibit some of His qualities. So the question then may naturally occur - "Who is closer to God?". Or "Who more accurately portrays God?".
While perusing an article by D.A. Carson entitled "On Distorting the Love of God"( http://www.antithesis.com/features/love_01.html ) , I had a clarification of some confusion that has arisen in my spirit due largely to contradictions that plague the church as I have experienced it. Having been to many denominations, even within the confines of single churches I have found those falling into one category AS WELL AS OTHERS falling into the other category. And between churches in single denominations the same thing - overriding acceptance as well as overriding judgement in the pastors. And of course, between denominations there are general tendencies and trends that mark the more liberal denominations as against the more conservative ones. But even there, the trend SEEMS to be towards the more tolerant type I outlined. Not that those who lean towards it are that way, but that there appears to be more of a merciful attitude than one of highlighting a specific standard.
Now, I must say ahead of time that the article I mentioned devolves (in my opinion that is what it does) into an argument that God loves the elect more than any and it becomes a piece simply meant to support Calvinism, but in it, Carson makes some interesting comments. One is this (bold is his emphasis):
To put this another way, we live in a culture in which many other and complementary truths about God are widely disbelieved. I do not think that what the Bible says about the love of God can long survive at the forefront of our thinking if it is abstracted from the sovereignty of God, the holiness of God, the wrath of God, the providence of God, or the personhood of God to mention only a few nonnegotiable elements of basic Christianity.
He had just finished commenting on the influence of modern cinema on our understanding of things (with which I agreed) and then on Tolkien's and C.S. Lewis' portrayals as contributions to the same (though he distinguished them, as they were from a bygone era) 'indirection' (love's only requirement is that it be comfortable although Lewis and Tolkien seemed to have a higher view).
The influence on culture has been, as Carson points out:
...the love of God in our culture has been purged of anything the culture finds uncomfortable. The love of God has been sanitized, democratized, and above all sentimentalized.
He continues, and points out one of the thoughts I am trying to convey. That is, that the expression of God's character is not ever completely expressed properly. In fact, in society, we simply go from one extreme to another. Now, it's love and acceptance:
It has not always been so. In generations when almost everyone believed in the justice of God, people sometimes found it difficult to believe in the love of God. The preaching of the love of God came as wonderful good news. Nowadays if you tell people that God loves them, they are unlikely to be surprised. Of course God loves me; he's like that, isn't he? Besides, why shouldn't he love me? I'm kind of cute, or at least as nice as the next person. I'm okay, you're okay, and God loves you and me.
But where my contention with Carson (only generally) and theology (generally and because its nature is to intellectualize everything) is illustrated where he says:
The first three difficulties stem from developments in the culture that make grasping and articulating the doctrine of the love of God a considerable challenge.
And here is where I feel (the point of my essay is not to castigate Theology as a study but I do wish to point out its contribution to the problem Carson here displays) theology generally has missed the mark. He says, in essence, that our modern culture has made the love of God something difficult to grasp and articulate! Yet, the bible is replete with those who truly encountered God on a personal level (a prime example being King David...another being Job...still another being Saul of Tarsus) and out of their mouths came expressions of God's character, nature and love that are unmistakeable in their utterance.
"4 For there is not a word in my tongue, but, lo, O LORD, thou knowest it altogether.
5 Thou hast beset me behind and before, and laid thine hand upon me.
6 Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain unto it.
7 Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?
8 If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.
9 If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea;
10 Even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me."
Psalm 139:4-10
Here is a God David cannot comprehend, whose praise he utters countless times in the book of Psalms.
"1 Then Job answered the LORD, and said,
2 I know that thou canst do every thing, and that no thought can be withholden from thee.
3 Who is he that hideth counsel without knowledge? therefore have I uttered that I understood not; things too wonderful for me, which I knew not.
4 Hear, I beseech thee, and I will speak: I will demand of thee, and declare thou unto me.
5 I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee.
6 Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes."
Job 42:1-6
Here the mere voice of God brings Job to his knees in repentance. I realize this is part of what Carson was getting at, but part of this love, part of the expression of God is that it is unutterable. Just the encounter with God brought Job to repentance, truth and he saw the counsel of God. And the rest of his days were blessed because of it. Yes, a 'tough love' but a very simple one - experiencing the presence of God. Yet the theorists desire to tell us that we have a 'challenge' in expressing the doctribe of the love of God?!? Talk about hubris! No mere doctrine, but an expression of His presence in one's life!
" For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,
Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."
Romans 8:38,39
" O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!
For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor."
Romans 11:33,34
" That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love,
May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height;
And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God."
Ephesians 3:17-19
And the Theologian wants to express the 'doctrine of the love of God' to combat the ineffectual faith? The Theologian desires to bring all these things of God to a carnal level - a level that the human mind can grasp -- by study and understanding and deduction. No, the love of God, the character of God, the expression of God cannot be brought down to that level. For those who met God knew the inexpressible nature that they confronted. To think we can express that is arrogance - it is the pride of man displacing faith in God. It is the man wanting to replace faith with things seen, manipulable and INTO AN IMAGE. The passage in Romans 1 that speaks of that has one thing at its core - faithlessness because of lack of thanksgiving. The unthankful heart is the perverted heart. It is the heart that has strayed from its first love. It is self-trusting and no longer brought low by the glory and love of God. It relies on the mind rather than the spirit in communion and constant communication with the Living God. When such a wonderful thing as the character and love of God is brought down to a point where we think we can grasp and articulate it, it is no wonder that the world knows nothing of the true love in our lives.
But in both men, there is to be recognized that they may (this has to be judged on an individual basis, but for theoretical purposes, it must be conceded that they) have touched something of God for they both exhibit some of His qualities. So the question then may naturally occur - "Who is closer to God?". Or "Who more accurately portrays God?".
While perusing an article by D.A. Carson entitled "On Distorting the Love of God"( http://www.antithesis.com/features/love_01.html ) , I had a clarification of some confusion that has arisen in my spirit due largely to contradictions that plague the church as I have experienced it. Having been to many denominations, even within the confines of single churches I have found those falling into one category AS WELL AS OTHERS falling into the other category. And between churches in single denominations the same thing - overriding acceptance as well as overriding judgement in the pastors. And of course, between denominations there are general tendencies and trends that mark the more liberal denominations as against the more conservative ones. But even there, the trend SEEMS to be towards the more tolerant type I outlined. Not that those who lean towards it are that way, but that there appears to be more of a merciful attitude than one of highlighting a specific standard.
Now, I must say ahead of time that the article I mentioned devolves (in my opinion that is what it does) into an argument that God loves the elect more than any and it becomes a piece simply meant to support Calvinism, but in it, Carson makes some interesting comments. One is this (bold is his emphasis):
To put this another way, we live in a culture in which many other and complementary truths about God are widely disbelieved. I do not think that what the Bible says about the love of God can long survive at the forefront of our thinking if it is abstracted from the sovereignty of God, the holiness of God, the wrath of God, the providence of God, or the personhood of God to mention only a few nonnegotiable elements of basic Christianity.
He had just finished commenting on the influence of modern cinema on our understanding of things (with which I agreed) and then on Tolkien's and C.S. Lewis' portrayals as contributions to the same (though he distinguished them, as they were from a bygone era) 'indirection' (love's only requirement is that it be comfortable although Lewis and Tolkien seemed to have a higher view).
The influence on culture has been, as Carson points out:
...the love of God in our culture has been purged of anything the culture finds uncomfortable. The love of God has been sanitized, democratized, and above all sentimentalized.
He continues, and points out one of the thoughts I am trying to convey. That is, that the expression of God's character is not ever completely expressed properly. In fact, in society, we simply go from one extreme to another. Now, it's love and acceptance:
It has not always been so. In generations when almost everyone believed in the justice of God, people sometimes found it difficult to believe in the love of God. The preaching of the love of God came as wonderful good news. Nowadays if you tell people that God loves them, they are unlikely to be surprised. Of course God loves me; he's like that, isn't he? Besides, why shouldn't he love me? I'm kind of cute, or at least as nice as the next person. I'm okay, you're okay, and God loves you and me.
But where my contention with Carson (only generally) and theology (generally and because its nature is to intellectualize everything) is illustrated where he says:
The first three difficulties stem from developments in the culture that make grasping and articulating the doctrine of the love of God a considerable challenge.
And here is where I feel (the point of my essay is not to castigate Theology as a study but I do wish to point out its contribution to the problem Carson here displays) theology generally has missed the mark. He says, in essence, that our modern culture has made the love of God something difficult to grasp and articulate! Yet, the bible is replete with those who truly encountered God on a personal level (a prime example being King David...another being Job...still another being Saul of Tarsus) and out of their mouths came expressions of God's character, nature and love that are unmistakeable in their utterance.
"4 For there is not a word in my tongue, but, lo, O LORD, thou knowest it altogether.
5 Thou hast beset me behind and before, and laid thine hand upon me.
6 Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain unto it.
7 Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?
8 If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.
9 If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea;
10 Even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me."
Psalm 139:4-10
Here is a God David cannot comprehend, whose praise he utters countless times in the book of Psalms.
"1 Then Job answered the LORD, and said,
2 I know that thou canst do every thing, and that no thought can be withholden from thee.
3 Who is he that hideth counsel without knowledge? therefore have I uttered that I understood not; things too wonderful for me, which I knew not.
4 Hear, I beseech thee, and I will speak: I will demand of thee, and declare thou unto me.
5 I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee.
6 Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes."
Job 42:1-6
Here the mere voice of God brings Job to his knees in repentance. I realize this is part of what Carson was getting at, but part of this love, part of the expression of God is that it is unutterable. Just the encounter with God brought Job to repentance, truth and he saw the counsel of God. And the rest of his days were blessed because of it. Yes, a 'tough love' but a very simple one - experiencing the presence of God. Yet the theorists desire to tell us that we have a 'challenge' in expressing the doctribe of the love of God?!? Talk about hubris! No mere doctrine, but an expression of His presence in one's life!
" For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,
Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."
Romans 8:38,39
" O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!
For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor."
Romans 11:33,34
" That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love,
May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height;
And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God."
Ephesians 3:17-19
And the Theologian wants to express the 'doctrine of the love of God' to combat the ineffectual faith? The Theologian desires to bring all these things of God to a carnal level - a level that the human mind can grasp -- by study and understanding and deduction. No, the love of God, the character of God, the expression of God cannot be brought down to that level. For those who met God knew the inexpressible nature that they confronted. To think we can express that is arrogance - it is the pride of man displacing faith in God. It is the man wanting to replace faith with things seen, manipulable and INTO AN IMAGE. The passage in Romans 1 that speaks of that has one thing at its core - faithlessness because of lack of thanksgiving. The unthankful heart is the perverted heart. It is the heart that has strayed from its first love. It is self-trusting and no longer brought low by the glory and love of God. It relies on the mind rather than the spirit in communion and constant communication with the Living God. When such a wonderful thing as the character and love of God is brought down to a point where we think we can grasp and articulate it, it is no wonder that the world knows nothing of the true love in our lives.