The Goodness of God, Righteousness as Relationship.
When I was a boy, my parents hung a simple scripture plaque on the basement wall over my childhood bookshelf. It was a simple black background with two scriptural phrases in white italics. The first was "God is Love," but just below that ran the quote "God is Light." Quite simple in design, this plaque nevertheless uniquely conveyed two of the most vital attributes of God. In a previous post I spoke of God as Love, and hence, as relationship, with the eternal dance of the Trinity serving as both source and object of that divine affection. Now I wish to attempt the same for light, or, to interpret the metaphor, I wish to do the same for the Goodness, the Righteousness of God.
Before I begin, it is important to state my views on an important facet to this discussion. Goodness is a fundamental attribute of God. While few would take issue with this statement, I have nonetheless run into a peculiar explanation of how that comes to be that I think needs to ne stated before I can continue. Some view the Goodness of God as secondary to his sovereigty, conceptualizing God is Good as God defines what is good by holy decree. Now, on the surface this is true, of course God's decrees are just, but beneath it lurks a subtle misconception, the idea that God is arbitrarily good, that He chooses and decrees what is good from many alternatives, as we might choose a pair of pants or our dinner. Nothing could be further from the truth. God's goodness is an intrinsic part of His character.
I first realized what this meant as I read C.S. Lewis's conversion account. In it, he speaks of his childhood fascination with the Norse myths, and in particular their account of the end of the world. Unlike our more upbeat notions, the Norse were depressingly morose, believing that in the end Odin (their king of the gods) would fall, and al creation be plunged into darkness. But rather instilling a need for psychotherapy, Lewis claimed that thid story taught him about the Goodness of God, for he realized as he read it that even if the darkness won, it was still right (in that context at least) to follow Odin to the end of the world. In short, he was good even if he wasn't all powerful. Thankfully this won't be an issue with us, as God is certainly Omnipotent, but even if he weren't, even if the adversary would win in the end, it is still right, still just, to follow Him. His Goodness does not depend on his power. It just is. With that prelude, I can begin.
To get back to the plaque. As I pondered it the other night, a question that I had never dreamed of floated through my mind. The question was this, Can Goodness exist in a vacuum? Or, in other words, is it possible to be truly Good without anyone or anything to be truly good to or with? And so I looked for what Goodness meant in the Bible, to see what light it could shed on this question.
The Ten Commandments are often regarded as a keystone of morality, and if each one is looked at, it is easy to see that each involves two persons, the one committing the infraction and the one infracted, so to speak. Now, that other person isn't always human. In fact, the first tablet is largely about our actions toward God. Either way, it seems clear that the Goodness they describe (or closer to the mark, the badness they prohibit) always involves a relationship.
The New Testament drives this point further home, for when Christ is asked about what the centerpoint of the Law is, he replies "Thou shalt love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul and mind, and love your neighbor as yourself." I can add nothing to this.
It should be obvious now where I am going, for if Goodness is, in the final analysis, relational, then a God of intrinsic Goodness must contain relationship as a fundamental part of his being. In short, He must be Triune. God is Good because within Himself he fully defines the statement made by Christ. He in fact loves the Lord with all his Heart, Soul and Mind, for the Father ever loved the Son, and the Son likewise the Father, with that Love ever manifest in the person of the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, he loves his neighbor as himself, for his Neighbor is Himself. In fact, if this is a true idea, then it may be that all the personal attributes of God proceed from his triune nature. This has far reaching apologetic implications. Think about it. If this idea bears scrutiny and turns out to be correct, then it is not possible to speak of a Unitarian God who is intrinsically Love and Light, you might as well speak of a square circle or claim that two plus two equals eight.
If, as I said, the idea bears scrutiny. As I look back voer this pos, I realize that I have been writing in a very definitive tone. The truth is, these ideas have greatly advanced my appreciation of who God is and what He has done. They have only served to increase my desire to worship the One who made all things, and in whom perfect Love and Righteousness meet and embrace. But I could be wrong. And so I invite comment and discussion. Read this, think about it, tell me if you agree or disagree and why. My desire in this, as in all things, is to be sharpened by the words of other believers as iron sharpens iron.
Before I begin, it is important to state my views on an important facet to this discussion. Goodness is a fundamental attribute of God. While few would take issue with this statement, I have nonetheless run into a peculiar explanation of how that comes to be that I think needs to ne stated before I can continue. Some view the Goodness of God as secondary to his sovereigty, conceptualizing God is Good as God defines what is good by holy decree. Now, on the surface this is true, of course God's decrees are just, but beneath it lurks a subtle misconception, the idea that God is arbitrarily good, that He chooses and decrees what is good from many alternatives, as we might choose a pair of pants or our dinner. Nothing could be further from the truth. God's goodness is an intrinsic part of His character.
I first realized what this meant as I read C.S. Lewis's conversion account. In it, he speaks of his childhood fascination with the Norse myths, and in particular their account of the end of the world. Unlike our more upbeat notions, the Norse were depressingly morose, believing that in the end Odin (their king of the gods) would fall, and al creation be plunged into darkness. But rather instilling a need for psychotherapy, Lewis claimed that thid story taught him about the Goodness of God, for he realized as he read it that even if the darkness won, it was still right (in that context at least) to follow Odin to the end of the world. In short, he was good even if he wasn't all powerful. Thankfully this won't be an issue with us, as God is certainly Omnipotent, but even if he weren't, even if the adversary would win in the end, it is still right, still just, to follow Him. His Goodness does not depend on his power. It just is. With that prelude, I can begin.
To get back to the plaque. As I pondered it the other night, a question that I had never dreamed of floated through my mind. The question was this, Can Goodness exist in a vacuum? Or, in other words, is it possible to be truly Good without anyone or anything to be truly good to or with? And so I looked for what Goodness meant in the Bible, to see what light it could shed on this question.
The Ten Commandments are often regarded as a keystone of morality, and if each one is looked at, it is easy to see that each involves two persons, the one committing the infraction and the one infracted, so to speak. Now, that other person isn't always human. In fact, the first tablet is largely about our actions toward God. Either way, it seems clear that the Goodness they describe (or closer to the mark, the badness they prohibit) always involves a relationship.
The New Testament drives this point further home, for when Christ is asked about what the centerpoint of the Law is, he replies "Thou shalt love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul and mind, and love your neighbor as yourself." I can add nothing to this.
It should be obvious now where I am going, for if Goodness is, in the final analysis, relational, then a God of intrinsic Goodness must contain relationship as a fundamental part of his being. In short, He must be Triune. God is Good because within Himself he fully defines the statement made by Christ. He in fact loves the Lord with all his Heart, Soul and Mind, for the Father ever loved the Son, and the Son likewise the Father, with that Love ever manifest in the person of the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, he loves his neighbor as himself, for his Neighbor is Himself. In fact, if this is a true idea, then it may be that all the personal attributes of God proceed from his triune nature. This has far reaching apologetic implications. Think about it. If this idea bears scrutiny and turns out to be correct, then it is not possible to speak of a Unitarian God who is intrinsically Love and Light, you might as well speak of a square circle or claim that two plus two equals eight.
If, as I said, the idea bears scrutiny. As I look back voer this pos, I realize that I have been writing in a very definitive tone. The truth is, these ideas have greatly advanced my appreciation of who God is and what He has done. They have only served to increase my desire to worship the One who made all things, and in whom perfect Love and Righteousness meet and embrace. But I could be wrong. And so I invite comment and discussion. Read this, think about it, tell me if you agree or disagree and why. My desire in this, as in all things, is to be sharpened by the words of other believers as iron sharpens iron.
5 Comments:
Addendum: evidently the early church had a word for the relational interchange of the Trinity; Perichoresis. Translation; To Dance, as if in a circle (or something close). Just some more data.
You make a good point here.
Looking at things in this light just seems to make the most sense to me. This way, rather than just discussing a series of opaque attributes when we talk about God, all out consideration is drawn into a medidaive look at the Father, the Son, and the Love between them, which is just where I think He wants us to look
So, since we're open to all kinds of discussion here, I figured I throw out something that has always bothered me about trinitarian doctrine. First, off, lets start out with the disclaimer, that while there are illusions to trinitarian thought in the scriptures "baptising in the name of the Father, son, and holy Ghost", etc..., most of the theological precision of the trinitarian doctrine was supplied by the church fathers and the councils, leading to the exact, credal statments of Nicene, etc... (eternally begotten of the father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God), etc...
In a way, the process is almost scientific. Given the "evidence" of God's saving activity through scripture, what can we infer about Him? Well, He has appeared in three forms, revealed to us in three names, with three functions. Hence, a theoretical framework that explains the evidence - trinitarian theology, with all of its precision, etc... This makes perfect sense, and is exactly what we should be doing with the "evidence" - any theory that would attempt to overturn such a theory must provide a superior framework, or show evidence to be faulty (which is what a lot of liberal theology tries to do with more or less rigor).
Now, what this post is doing is the next step of science - taking the framework and using it to extrapolate a "second level" of predictive framework that will explain even more about the world in which we live - relationship, etc... Again, this is perfectly right and natural.
However, it also leads me to wonder. Our revelation is not full by any means - just as the Israelites needed Emmanual, "God with us" before they could fully make sense of YHWH, I think we also need a further set of data ("knowing as we are known") before our framework can be complete. Might God not be triune, but quarune, with a third part of his nature yet to be revealed? Might there be vistas which would cause a revolution in our thelogy greater than the Quantum revolution to Newtonian mechanics?
In fact that analogy might be close...for the deeper we peer into these mysteries, the less sense things seem to make, the more paradoxes abound, and the more we feel the call to sit and wonder and worship...
You definintely make a good point. On the logical side, I think that a stong argument can be made that, since a triune structure encompasses all necessary relationships, a Quadrune+ structure would automatically plop you straight into polytheism. Although one could, and some have, made the argument that the Church, the Bride of Christ is in the end meant to be fully brought into the life of the Trinity, a created thing receving the full light of GOd's love by pure gift. (I believe that a lot of Catholicism's Marian beliefs spring from an attempt to see this process forshadowed in Mary, that then splinters off on all manner of less than obvious {to me} tangents.) However, this is merely human reasoning.
Biblically, to me it is fairly clear that Christ is the complete revelation of the Father in human form. Because it is through his life and spirit that the Trinity was made clear by reason and faith to the Church fathers, I think it likely that the series of syllogisms that gave rise to Nicene doctrine is about the best we will get on earth, i.e., barring the second coming, I doubt that there will be any more actual new data points to reason with and meditate upon. Though we have not been told that the Bible is exhaustive (A mistake many make), we have been told that it is sufficient, and this also supports this reasoning.
There is, however, within the direction of trinitarian doctrine as it now stands, a near infinite depth of wisdom that is yet to be delineated. Taking what we have as, as you put it, an ideal foundational theory, we can then use it to understand more fully the being of God. Strangely enough, the deeper I peer, the more intrinsic sense it seems to make, even as it remains ungraspable to the human mind. This too is cause for worship.
Post a Comment
<< Home