Tagged: theology.

How is God’s passion for his glory not a form of narcissism?

For me this question has been somewhat of a recurring theme in last couple of months, popping up in conversations, in people’s questions, and in interviews with celebrities and writers… so, I thought this post might be helpful (I hope it is).

In the The End for Which God Created the World Jonathan Edwards wrote,

The emanation or communication of the divine fullness, consisting in the knowledge of God, love to him, and joy in him, has relation indeed both to God and the creature: but it has relation to God as its fountain, as the thing communicated is something of its internal fullness. The water in the stream is something of the fountain; and the beams of the sun are something of the sun. And again, they have relation to God as their object: for the knowledge communicated is the knowledge of God; and the love communicated, is the love of God; and the happiness communicated, is joy in God. In the creature’s knowing, esteeming, loving, rejoicing in, and praising God, the glory of God is both exhibited and acknowledged, his fullness is received and returned. Here is both an emanation and remanation. The refulgence shines upon and into the creature, and is reflected back to the luminary. The beams of glory come from God, are something of God, and are refunded back again to their original. So that the whole is of God, and in God, and to God; and he is the beginning, and the middle, and the end.

The answer is: God’s passion for his glory is the essence of his love to us (For just as Edwards proclaimed throughout his work: God’s ultimate end is the manifestation of his glory in the highest joy of his creatures).

But narcissism and megalomania are not love.

God’s love for us is not mainly his making much of us, but in him enabling us to enjoy making much of him forever. In other words, God’s love for us keeps God at the center. God’s love for us necessarily exalts his value and our satisfaction in it. If God’s love made us central and focused on our value, it would distract us from what is most precious, namely, himself. Love labors and suffers to enthrall us with what is infinitely and eternally satisfying: God. Thus, God’s love works to break our slavery to the idol of self and focus our affections on the truly worthy treasure of God.

The God-centeredness of God’s love demonstrated in Christ is seen in John 11:1-6 (the story of Lazarus’ sickness and death).

Now a certain man was ill, Lazarus of Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister Martha. 2 It was Mary who anointed the Lord with ointment and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was ill. 3 So the sisters sent to him, saying, “Lord, he whom you love is ill.” 4 But when Jesus heard it he said, “This illness does not lead to death. It is for the glory of God, so that the Son of God may be glorified through it.” 5 Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus. 6 So, when he heard that Lazarus was ill, he stayed two days longer in the place where he was.

Three observations:

1.     Jesus chose to let Lazarus die. Verse 6: “When He heard he was sick, He then stayed two days longer in the place where he was.” There was no hurry. His intention was not to spare the family grief, but to raise Lazarus from the dead.

2.     His motivation was a passion for the glory of God displayed in his own glorious power. Verse 4: “This sickness is not to end in death, but for the glory of God, so that the Son of God may be glorified by it.”

3.     Nonetheless both the choice to let Lazarus die and the motivation to magnify God were expressions of love for Mary and Martha and Lazarus. Verse 5: “Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus … so he stayed … where he was.”

Many people today – even Christians – would mutter at Jesus for heartlessly letting Lazarus die and putting Him and Mary and Martha and others through the pain of this event. And if they saw that this was motivated by Jesus’ desire to magnify the glory of God many would call this harsh or unloving. What this shows is how far above the glory of God most people value pain-free lives. For most people love is whatever puts human value and human well being at the center, so Jesus’ behavior is unintelligible. Additionally, they view their system of values as bringing about the greatest level of personal satisfaction.

But, we should pause a moment to learn from Jesus concerning what love is and what our true well being looks like. Love is doing whatever you need to do even to the point of dying on the cross to help people see and savor the glory of God forever and ever. Love keeps God central. Why? Because the soul was made for God.

Jesus confirms that we are on the right track here by the way he prays for us in John 17. I assume that he is praying for us (v. 20) and that this prayer is a loving prayer (John 13:1). Consider how Jesus prays here:

When Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you, 2 since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him. 3 And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. 4 I glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work that you gave me to do. 5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.

This is the way God prays when he is being loving to his people. He prays that his glory be upheld and displayed.

The connection with us comes in verse 24, “Father, I desire that they also, whom You have given Me, be with Me where I am, so that they may see My glory which You have given Me, for You loved Me before the foundation of the world.” The love of Jesus drives him to pray for us and then die for us, NOT that our value may be central, but that his glory may be central, and we may see it and savor it for all eternity. “That they may see My glory!” – for that he let Lazarus died, and for that he went to the cross.

See one illustration of Paul’s experience of this way of being loved. 2 Corinthians 12:7-10:

So to keep me from being too elated by the surpassing greatness of the revelations, a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to harass me, to keep me from being too elated. 8 Three times I pleaded with the Lord about this, that it should leave me. 9 But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me. 10 For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities. For when I am weak, then I am strong.

Many man-centered Americans who have defined the love of Christ as his making much of them, not his helping them to enjoy make much of him, would cry out to Jesus in this situation: I don’t care about your power being made perfect, I care about not hurting with this thorn!

But, when we carefully read the Scriptures we come to see that Christ, not comfort, is the true all-satisfying and everlasting treasure. Magnifying the supremacy of God in all things, and being willing to suffer patiently to help see and savor this supremacy is the essence of love. It’s the essence of God’s love. And it’s the essence of your love. Because the supremacy of God’s glory is the source and sum of all full and lasting joy. Therefore, the God of the universe making much of his glory and instructing creation to do the same is an act of the greatest love, which aims at bringing about ultimate and lasting satisfaction.

*If this sounds more than a bit John Piper-ish that’s because it pretty much is. This post is my adaptation of his original blog post, which can be found here: http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/articles/how-is-gods-passion-for-his-own-glory-not-selfishness

01:13 pm, by davidlindell 7

For background, go to the Christianity Today article on the matter here. For Mike Licona’s 2011 ETS paper in which he addresses this controversy, go here. (An mp3 of his November 17, 2011 presentation of his paper can be found here.)  Best blog post on the controversy can be found here.

Originally posted by francisbeckwith

04:00 pm, by davidlindell 6
Steadfast in Prayer

Steadfast in Prayer

01:16 pm, by davidlindell 3

What is antinomy? The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines it as ‘a contradiction between conclusions which seem equally logical, reasonable or necessary.’ For our purposes, however, this definition is not quite accurate; the opening words should read ‘an appearance of contradiction.’ For the whole point of an antinomy—in theology, at any rate—is that it is not a real contradiction, though it looks like one. It is an apparent incompatibility between two apparent truths. An antinomy exists when a pair of principles stand side by side, seemingly irreconcilable, yet both undeniable. There are cogent reasons for believing each of them; each rests on clear and solid evidence; but it’s a mystery to you how they can be squared to each other. You see that each must be true on its own, but you do not see how they can both be true together. Let me give an example. Modern physics faces an antinomy, in this sense, in its study of light. There is cogent evidence to show that light consists of waves, and equally cogent evidence to show that it consists of particles. It is not apparent how light can be both waves and particles, but the evidence is there, and so neither view can be ruled out in favor of the other. Neither, however, can be reduced to the other or explained in terms of the other; the two seemingly incompatible positions must be held together, and both must be treated as true. Such a necessity scandalizes our tidy minds, no doubt, but there is no help for it if we are to be loyal to the facts.

It appears, therefore, that an antinomy is not the same thing as a paradox. A paradox is a figure of speech, a play on words. It is a form of statement that seems to unite two opposite ideas, or to deny something by the very terms in which it is asserted.

J. I. Packer

10:49 pm, by davidlindell

Erasing Hell: What God Said About Eternity and the Things We’ve Made Up

thoughts?

08:12 pm, by davidlindell 5

Well, one thing is certain, Bell knows how to stir the pot. Today he lit up the twittersphere with all kinds of speculation concerning his forthcoming book on the afterlife, Love Wins. In his blog post (http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2011/02/26/rob-bell-universalist/) Justin Taylor pretty much drew a direct line from Bell to 2 Corinthians 11:14-15, which is bold (and perhaps unwarranted) given that all he had to go on was this video and the publisher’s description. If Bell’s track record indicates anything it is that he doesn’t mind a little controversy if it provokes thought and discussion. Personally, I like that about Bell. I am not defending him or condemning him, because I haven’t read the book. But, I plan to… and I hope all those so eager to label Bell will take the time to read it as well. I, for one, would be deeply troubled and very sad to find Bell had adopted a universalist postion, but in order to find out whether he has or hasn’t I have some reading to do.

*Please note that Taylor has revised his original blog post and has deleted the reference to 2 Cor. 11:14-15. I am thankful.

09:48 pm, by davidlindell 1