Part two of a great guest post by my good friend, Michael Wiltshire.
Check out part one if haven't had a chance to yet.
Part Two:
An outstanding example of this may
be philosophical theism—a system of thought which popular Calvinist theologian
Loraine Boettner (among Calvin, John Piper, and others) uses to assert that God
purposefully predetermined every single event that would happen—including all
acts of sin and evil—and continues to guide those events in order to maintain
the fullest extent of his greatness. To many, such a God cannot truly be good whatsoever—and his greatness, in this light, becomes
distorted as well. Panentheism, on the other hand—which sees God in
totally interdependent on the world—is another danger if the pendulum swings
too far the in the opposite direction. Maybe more recent evidence a
misunderstanding of this paradox is the evangelical uproar started over the
release of Love
Wins by Rob Bell—a
book which in many ways suggests that God’s divine greatness eventually may be overshadowed by his goodness which will win every human
soul. So how does one keep from overemphasizing one aspect of God? Again, there is a critical distinction to be made. God is equally Great and Good—but we cannot let those terms become fused to the point where they are totally interdependent on each other. In my opinion, we must begin to construct theology which allows both aspects to operate simultaneously and harmoniously. This then requires letting God’s greatness and goodness remain in their paradoxical framework. And while such a paradox may seem like sloppy theology to some, it is important to remember that speculation outside of what God has clearly revealed to us often may better lead to mysticism than poorly developed doctrine. We must also consider God as being capable of self-limitation, if he chooses to do so. It’s also worth remembering that while humanity can explore true things about God, we are fallen, and can only work with the truth capable of human comprehension. At the end of the day, our monotheism still requires distinction.
Michael, I really like what you're saying. I think we can really benefit from weighing within ourselves the aspect of God that we most identify with and emphasize, whether Greatness or Goodness (or an alternative?). I can't remember who it is--maybe Barth--that has said we're always in danger of making God like ourselves. I think that's what happens when we're not willing to let the Word rock our paradigms--whether we tend to fall on the Greatness or the Goodness side--and introduce paradox into our stiff interpretations.
ReplyDeleteI have a couple questions:
1. I agree that making distinctions is important insofar as many of us are unaware that we are even emphasizing one aspect of God over against another that we find more repellent. But I think what you're arguing has more to do with our need to embrace complexity--which I think is what you meant by paradox--rather than the need to see distinctions. We can see the distinction and still choose to emphasize one side over another. Good theology teaches us to see the distinction and embrace both with the credence due from Scripture.
2. I don't understand the connection between Love Wins and panentheism. I can see the connection between Love Wins and those who emphasize Goodness at the expense of Greatness. Can you help me here?
3. In your last paragraph, are you arguing that we should reach a point where we don't try to put seemingly paradoxical aspects of God together? Does it help us to see distinction if we don't try to put it together? It seems then we would be even more confused. Better, it seems, to try to put them together than to rest with seemingly contradictory beliefs. At the end of the day, of course we have to throw up our hands on some issues and say, "I don't know," but how far should we go in trying to construct a theology in regards to these things before we throw in the towel?
Thanks for your post! I look forward to hearing your response.
Thanks for the interaction Will!
ReplyDeleteLet me try to clarify my thoughts in light of those questions--which are really good ones.
I'll start with #2. This, honestly, is somewhat of an editing mistake on my part. I originally posted this on another friends blog as one piece in his series on overlooked distinctions. I tried to split this whole thing into two parts for this blog and moved that section from the intro to the middle for the sake of showing examples in the second post. I can see now how I unintentionally I connected Love wins with Panentheism less clearly than then I meant to.
When I said, "Maybe more recent evidence a misunderstanding of this paradox is the evangelical uproar started over the release of Love Wins" I was noting that when the pendulum swings opposite of the Calvinist/NeoCalvinist movement, it produces theology that looks similar to Robs. Which, many would say places too much emphasis of God’s immanence and neglects God’s self sufficient transcendence--similarly to Panentheism (the opposite of pantheism). I don't think Rob's theology is in any way taping into Panentheism, but it sill seems to emphases Goodness over greatness to some extent.
Now to Question #3.
We should put them together, however, we should attempt to do so in a framework capable of supporting both sides equally without constructing a hierarchy of the two categories. I'm not sure how to construct such a theological system. However, I think a start is by noticing (1)The two sides are never opposed, they are harmonious (2)that there is real danger in overvaluing one side over the other and (3) noticing that our theological conclusions in this area cannot be fully realized because they untimely lay in an area unrevealed in scripture. Because of this, saying that God is primarily one side is at best speculation. (Then again saying God is equally both is also speculation?)
Anyway, I hope that brings some calcification.
#2 - okay, that makes sense.
ReplyDelete#3 - agreed
did you mean to say "calcification." If you did--that's awesome. If you didn't--that's even awesomer.