Ever ask yourself that question? Not who is God, but what is God? I mean by that that when we say "god", what are we referring to? Are we referring to a person? A title? A job? A name? In essence, what is the concept of "god"?
A couple months ago, I was sitting in my New Testament class when the issue of the nature of the Trinity came up. As is almost always the case when discussing things that are beyond our understanding, half a dozen people began to argue their particular perspective against another's. This dragged on until the girl sitting next to me, who apparently had less patience than I, raised her hand.
"This is essentially pointless," she said (although I am paraphrasing). "God is way beyond our comprehension so knowing how the Trinity works is something that we simply won't understand." So far so good, but she did not stop there.
"Trying to understand God is a waste of time because if we understood God, then he wouldn't be God."
Hold on, what? If we understood God then he would not be God? How does that makes sense? To my surprise, many people, including my professor, nodded in agreement. Some even commented on how right she was that if we understood God he would no longer be God. This is a statement that I have heard made several times and is generally agreed upon.
But before we say amen, let us think about what exactly that statement means. God's identity, his ability to be God is entirely dependent on whether or not we are capable of being able to understand him. It is the same kind of statement that God cannot exist without faith, which is equally absurd. Essentially we are saying that God's existence and substance is dependent on us. How then can this being truly be God?
This brings us back to the question of what do we mean when we say "god." In the ancient Near East, the Canaanites had a whole pantheon of gods, the most famous of which are Asherah (Astarte), Ba'al, and Molech. But there was one deity that was over and above all of them and he was simply called "El." He was the father of the gods and of people. He had no temple and there is little known about him. He simply existed above everyone else. His was a title.
In time, this word came to be a generic term for "god." in the Hebrew language. In Exodus, when God is talking to Moses, he introduces himself saying, "I am the God (Elohe, a construct of El) of your father, the Elohe of Abraham, the Elohe of Isaac, and the Elohe of Jacob." (Ex. 3:6). But this does not tell Moses who this being is, merely what this being does. He is the powerful creator and sustainer of existence. That is his title and that is his job, but not truly his identity. So later, in verse 13, Moses wants to know who this Elohe is. There are lots of Elohe, but who are you? Moses essentially asks.
This Elohe obliges and says that he is the, "I am who I am." From this comes the Hebrew name for this Elohe, Yahveh. That is his identity, that is who our God is. That is the person behind the title.
Think of it like the President of the United States. Currently, our President is Barak Obama. President is his job and his title. However, none of us, I hope, would be foolish enough to say that President is what defines the person who is Barak Obama. They are two separate things that work together. One is the person; the other is the job that person does. Yahveh is the person; God is the job that Yahveh does.
Now let us say that I got to know Barak Obama, the person, on a deep and intimate level. Say we became best friends and I could really say that I understood Barak Obama. Would then Barak Obama cease to be my President because I understood him? Of course not. Even if I understood his job as well as his person, he would still remain and be able to function as President. His ability to do so is not dependent on my lack of understanding. The reason for this is simple: who Barak Obama fundamentally is as a person is not dependent on my understanding of him. He is who he is whether I understand him or no. The same is true for the office of President. Whether I understand it or not, the nature of the office itself does not change. It has existed long before me and very likely will exist long after me as well. The same is true with Yahveh being God. Who Yahveh is no more depends on my ability to understand him than does Barak Obama. The position of God does not change with my understanding of it. The authority, power, and responsibility is the same and independent of my understanding.
If anything does change, it is my respect, which could only increase. The more I would get to know Barak Obama the person, the more respect I would have for Barak Obama the President as I see the man struggle with the awesome responsibility the office holds. The more I get to know Yahveh the person, the more respect I have for Yahveh the God. The more I see and understand that only Yahveh has the strength to be God and that there is no way that I could ever do such a task.
This in no way says that we will actually be able to truly understand Yahveh. The inability for the finite (us) to grasp the infinite (Yahveh) is another topic. Rather, the point here is this: god is a title and job, one that can only be filled by the person Yahveh. Behind the office is a person, an infinite, loving, kind, yet wise and just person who likes you and wants to get to know you. And he wants you to get to know him.
19 November 2010
18 November 2010
A confession and an understanding
Typically I will not do this, write about my personal issues. I have people that I talk to, but I do not feel that this is the proper venue for such things. In this case, however, I am making an exception to share something that I believe will be meaningful to whoever reads it.
I have all the skills to be a pastor. I have a very active mind that thinks in abstract ways. I can decode a Bible verse with the best of them and draw out its meaning. I am philosopher at heart. I can preach, teach, give a Bible study, confront anyone on sin. You name it, as a pastor I can do it.
What I lack are the skills to be a Christian. Sad irony, I know, but true. I do not really have a relationship with Yahveh. I suppose on shallow level I do, but the fact is that whether I want to admit it or not, Yahveh is just a tool for me. Any motivation I have to get closer to him or to let him into my life is simply a stepping stone for getting something that I want.
I wanted to become a better person to get a girl, to show her that I was worthy of her. Of course being the intelligent Christian, I knew that the best way to become a better person is to get close to Yahveh. So I did, honestly thinking that it was for the right reasons. I am apparently a master at deceiving myself.
By now any possibility (if there ever was) of that relationship has gone the way of the Dodo. With it went my motivation for getting closer to Yahveh. For the longest time I have tried to convince myself that it was some other reason why I seemed to be in such a rut with God, but I cannot avoid the truth any longer. I am not getting closer to Yahveh because my motivation is no longer there.
This in no way is a knock on the girl or anything related to her. In fact, she has nothing to do with the real problem; the situation simply helps illustrate my point. I only get closer to Yahveh when it will ostensibly get me something that I want. Yahveh has become an means to an end, rather than an end of itself. No wonder I am in such a rut with him. I am the worst of fair-weather friends.
I have deep commitment issues. Long ago, I taught myself to never make promises in case I could not keep them. Ever since I was young, I would never extend my hand so far that I could not draw it back if I needed to. Perhaps this also has to do with my innate and deep distrust of people, I do not know. More likely this is just plain selfishness on my part.
Like I said, I never commit to anything so that I can be free to do what I want. This usually involves wasting my time in front of the computer or TV, disconnecting myself from every form of reality. I say no or maybe to events. Even on the rare occasion I say yes, there is at best a fifty-fifty chanced that I will actually show up. My promises and word means nothing. And honestly, neither should it. I am often unsupportive, unprepared, uninterested, unreliable, uncaring, and all around lazy. This is how I have treated my friends and family and this is how I have treated God. This, I am realizing, has got to change.
I am now truly intending to commit myself to Yahveh. There is (as far as I can tell) no motive for pursuing a deep relationship with him. He is the end, not the means. Things are going to change for me, big time. I am going to have to give of myself, my time, my interests, even my personality. It means that I am going to have to commit myself to being there for Yahveh and others. It means keeping my word and giving it my best, whether I feel like it or no. It means really getting involved in something that is living like Jesus, no matter how awkward or time-consuming it is. It means truly investing in people for their sake, not mine. Yes, things are going to change. For those who I have let down (which is just about anyone who has ever met me) I am deeply sorry. I hope that I have not damaged things too much to be beyond the point of repair. Tomorrow is a new day.
I have all the skills to be a pastor. I have a very active mind that thinks in abstract ways. I can decode a Bible verse with the best of them and draw out its meaning. I am philosopher at heart. I can preach, teach, give a Bible study, confront anyone on sin. You name it, as a pastor I can do it.
What I lack are the skills to be a Christian. Sad irony, I know, but true. I do not really have a relationship with Yahveh. I suppose on shallow level I do, but the fact is that whether I want to admit it or not, Yahveh is just a tool for me. Any motivation I have to get closer to him or to let him into my life is simply a stepping stone for getting something that I want.
I wanted to become a better person to get a girl, to show her that I was worthy of her. Of course being the intelligent Christian, I knew that the best way to become a better person is to get close to Yahveh. So I did, honestly thinking that it was for the right reasons. I am apparently a master at deceiving myself.
By now any possibility (if there ever was) of that relationship has gone the way of the Dodo. With it went my motivation for getting closer to Yahveh. For the longest time I have tried to convince myself that it was some other reason why I seemed to be in such a rut with God, but I cannot avoid the truth any longer. I am not getting closer to Yahveh because my motivation is no longer there.
This in no way is a knock on the girl or anything related to her. In fact, she has nothing to do with the real problem; the situation simply helps illustrate my point. I only get closer to Yahveh when it will ostensibly get me something that I want. Yahveh has become an means to an end, rather than an end of itself. No wonder I am in such a rut with him. I am the worst of fair-weather friends.
I have deep commitment issues. Long ago, I taught myself to never make promises in case I could not keep them. Ever since I was young, I would never extend my hand so far that I could not draw it back if I needed to. Perhaps this also has to do with my innate and deep distrust of people, I do not know. More likely this is just plain selfishness on my part.
Like I said, I never commit to anything so that I can be free to do what I want. This usually involves wasting my time in front of the computer or TV, disconnecting myself from every form of reality. I say no or maybe to events. Even on the rare occasion I say yes, there is at best a fifty-fifty chanced that I will actually show up. My promises and word means nothing. And honestly, neither should it. I am often unsupportive, unprepared, uninterested, unreliable, uncaring, and all around lazy. This is how I have treated my friends and family and this is how I have treated God. This, I am realizing, has got to change.
I am now truly intending to commit myself to Yahveh. There is (as far as I can tell) no motive for pursuing a deep relationship with him. He is the end, not the means. Things are going to change for me, big time. I am going to have to give of myself, my time, my interests, even my personality. It means that I am going to have to commit myself to being there for Yahveh and others. It means keeping my word and giving it my best, whether I feel like it or no. It means really getting involved in something that is living like Jesus, no matter how awkward or time-consuming it is. It means truly investing in people for their sake, not mine. Yes, things are going to change. For those who I have let down (which is just about anyone who has ever met me) I am deeply sorry. I hope that I have not damaged things too much to be beyond the point of repair. Tomorrow is a new day.
07 November 2010
Speculation versus Doctrine
Quick preface: I am departing from uploading the book I have been working on to simply posting thoughts of Yahveh that come to my mind every now and then. If you wish to get a copy of God Likes Us, then email me at jgardner@southern.edu. Same rules still apply as in the introduction.
The Bible is an amazing book. It truly is; in its pages are the words of life and what we need to know about God. It is the standard of truth by which all other things claiming to be truth are measured. It gives us something sound and sure to base our lives on.
All that said, the Bible certainly does not tell us everything. In fact, it does not tell us everything about God. There are a lot of blank spots when it comes to God that Word of God simply does not fill. This is where the issue of speculation versus doctrine comes in.
We humans are a rather curious bunch. We have this need to figure everything out and know everything. That is what got us into this whole sin mess to begin with; a need to know and have an answer for everything. Sometimes, whether we like to admit it or not, there is not an answer that we can grasp. Somethings of God are simply beyond our understanding.
But because we mustknow the truth and we must have an answer, we make one up that somewhat makes sense to us and go with that. This is what is called speculation, meaning that we come up with an explanation for something that is not based on clear, irrefutable evidence, but is instead a guess. Educated guess it maybe, but a guess it is nonetheless.
In his book Mere Christianity, C. S. Lewis gave an analogy for speculation when he was dealing with how Christ's death saves us. He said that exactly how it works is like a physicists model of the atom. While the model helps us understand the atom and gives us picture to go with, no physicist would claim that the model is exactly what the atom looks like. The reality of the atom is in the mathematical formula, but that does not help us visualize it. So it is true with models of Christ's saving death. I would venture to say that such a principle applies to all forms of speculation.
Doctrine, on the other hand, is the formula. It represents something that is real, even if it makes no sense. Jesus' death saves me from my sins. That is irrefutable in the Bible; that is the truth; that is what happens. This tells me nothing about how exactly it works, just that it does. A formula tells us what happens, not what it looks like, nor even exactly how it happens. Just that it does. That is doctrine.
Here is where things become a problem: often people (theologians are particularly guilty of this) confuse speculation with doctrine. They think that their model is absolute truth and everyone else's is wrong. What they fail to see is that their position is no more provable than their opponents. And so we get into huge debates about things that we really do not understand.
Let me give you an example of this: for over a century in the early Christian church, there was a huge debate of the nature of the Trinity. No one was really denying that there was a Trinity; instead people were debating how the persons of the Trinity related to each other. Some said that God was only one conscious, but three manifestations of it. Others said that God created God. Others proposed three individual entities that were God.
Who was right? God (literally) only knows. Why? Because this is all speculation. The Bible is clear that God is one and yet made up of three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But that is where the Bible stops. The Bible does not explain exactly how the Trinity works or exactly how they relate to each other. In all likelihood, the true answer is something completely beyond our comprehension. Truth be told, it does not really matter exactly how the Trinity works. If it did, God would have bothered to make that point very clear. But he did not, so we must assume that such knowledge is a) beyond our understanding and b) not dreadfully important to our salvation.
The point here is not to discourage speculation, but to caution it. It is good for us to stretch our minds and imaginations when reaching closer to God. We are designed to want to get to know him more fully. We are meant to draw closer and closer to him. So taking guesses and coming up with pictures that help us understand God more is a good thing, as long as we remember that we are still just guessing.
We must remember the line between speculation and doctrine. When it comes to something that is doctrine, we defend it with all our might. When it comes to speculation, we temper it by knowing that it is simply a guess. Above all, we DO NOT hold speculation as doctrine. We leave each in their respective realms.
We must understand that with speculation, it is not the real thing, nor does it accurately portray the real thing, like the model of the atom does not accurately portray the real atom. Rather it is a device that helps us comprehend the incomprehensible. So we must understand that whatever it is we speculate on, the reality is probably still much different.
I do not know exactly how Christ's death saves me, neither do I know exactly how the Trinity works. I simply know that Christ's death does justify me and that God is three and one at the same time. And yes, I do have speculative models that help me understand how these things work. Yet these are just models and nothing more. I would never hold such an opinion as doctrinal truth.
So, continue pursuing a deeper knowledge of God. But as you do, remember that at times, often even, you will probably be out of your depth. That is okay, as long as you know it.
The Bible is an amazing book. It truly is; in its pages are the words of life and what we need to know about God. It is the standard of truth by which all other things claiming to be truth are measured. It gives us something sound and sure to base our lives on.
All that said, the Bible certainly does not tell us everything. In fact, it does not tell us everything about God. There are a lot of blank spots when it comes to God that Word of God simply does not fill. This is where the issue of speculation versus doctrine comes in.
We humans are a rather curious bunch. We have this need to figure everything out and know everything. That is what got us into this whole sin mess to begin with; a need to know and have an answer for everything. Sometimes, whether we like to admit it or not, there is not an answer that we can grasp. Somethings of God are simply beyond our understanding.
But because we mustknow the truth and we must have an answer, we make one up that somewhat makes sense to us and go with that. This is what is called speculation, meaning that we come up with an explanation for something that is not based on clear, irrefutable evidence, but is instead a guess. Educated guess it maybe, but a guess it is nonetheless.
In his book Mere Christianity, C. S. Lewis gave an analogy for speculation when he was dealing with how Christ's death saves us. He said that exactly how it works is like a physicists model of the atom. While the model helps us understand the atom and gives us picture to go with, no physicist would claim that the model is exactly what the atom looks like. The reality of the atom is in the mathematical formula, but that does not help us visualize it. So it is true with models of Christ's saving death. I would venture to say that such a principle applies to all forms of speculation.
Doctrine, on the other hand, is the formula. It represents something that is real, even if it makes no sense. Jesus' death saves me from my sins. That is irrefutable in the Bible; that is the truth; that is what happens. This tells me nothing about how exactly it works, just that it does. A formula tells us what happens, not what it looks like, nor even exactly how it happens. Just that it does. That is doctrine.
Here is where things become a problem: often people (theologians are particularly guilty of this) confuse speculation with doctrine. They think that their model is absolute truth and everyone else's is wrong. What they fail to see is that their position is no more provable than their opponents. And so we get into huge debates about things that we really do not understand.
Let me give you an example of this: for over a century in the early Christian church, there was a huge debate of the nature of the Trinity. No one was really denying that there was a Trinity; instead people were debating how the persons of the Trinity related to each other. Some said that God was only one conscious, but three manifestations of it. Others said that God created God. Others proposed three individual entities that were God.
Who was right? God (literally) only knows. Why? Because this is all speculation. The Bible is clear that God is one and yet made up of three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But that is where the Bible stops. The Bible does not explain exactly how the Trinity works or exactly how they relate to each other. In all likelihood, the true answer is something completely beyond our comprehension. Truth be told, it does not really matter exactly how the Trinity works. If it did, God would have bothered to make that point very clear. But he did not, so we must assume that such knowledge is a) beyond our understanding and b) not dreadfully important to our salvation.
The point here is not to discourage speculation, but to caution it. It is good for us to stretch our minds and imaginations when reaching closer to God. We are designed to want to get to know him more fully. We are meant to draw closer and closer to him. So taking guesses and coming up with pictures that help us understand God more is a good thing, as long as we remember that we are still just guessing.
We must remember the line between speculation and doctrine. When it comes to something that is doctrine, we defend it with all our might. When it comes to speculation, we temper it by knowing that it is simply a guess. Above all, we DO NOT hold speculation as doctrine. We leave each in their respective realms.
We must understand that with speculation, it is not the real thing, nor does it accurately portray the real thing, like the model of the atom does not accurately portray the real atom. Rather it is a device that helps us comprehend the incomprehensible. So we must understand that whatever it is we speculate on, the reality is probably still much different.
I do not know exactly how Christ's death saves me, neither do I know exactly how the Trinity works. I simply know that Christ's death does justify me and that God is three and one at the same time. And yes, I do have speculative models that help me understand how these things work. Yet these are just models and nothing more. I would never hold such an opinion as doctrinal truth.
So, continue pursuing a deeper knowledge of God. But as you do, remember that at times, often even, you will probably be out of your depth. That is okay, as long as you know it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)