We generally tend to like things clear cut. We like things in categories. We like words to mean something and don't like them to be nuanced. We tend to see people in types and don't like to consider them in shades. We like "twelve step" programs and "how to love your wife in 5 easy steps" and that sort of thing. Of course, the biggest version of this concept is in how we view God. We like to see Him in clear cut terms and please don't give us shades of meaning.
Now, by His very nature (you know ... infinite, holy, omnipotent, omniscient, lots of things we aren't), God, in the final analysis, will still be mysterious to us. That is, by definition God will continue to be something other than clear cut to us. That's a given, and that's fine. But we like to think that in certain cases He should be quite clear to us. Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure this isn't the way it is.
Consider a couple of attributes that we know about God. We know, for instance, that God is love. I mean, that's as clear a statement in Scripture as you can get. So ... how do we understand that statement? Well, we know that love and hate are opposites, so when we say God is love, that means that He doesn't hate. Oh, wait, now we're in trouble. God Himself said, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." Hmmm, that's odd. But there is more. David writes of God, "You hate all evildoers" (Psa 5:5). I'm sure if we think about it only for a moment we'll find a whole bunch of Scriptures that depict God as hating sinners (or pouring out His wrath on them or ...). It appears, then, in the economy of God that He has the ability to both love and hate sinners simultaneously. Do you want to see a jarring image? Look at the Cross. At the Cross we find the clearest picture of both the love of God and the wrath of God in one image. Of course, it only takes a parent of a wayward child to see how this works. It is possible even in human terms to both love and hate a child, so why wouldn't it be so with God?
In English, the term "love" has a wide variety of meanings. We "love" our food and we "love" our pets and we "love" our kids and we "love" our spouses ... but (hopefully) none of those have exactly the same meaning. Similar, to be sure, but not identical. "Oh," we might reply with assurance, "the New Testament doesn't suffer from that. You see, they use philos and agape to differentiate different kinds of love so we don't get confused." You know, the classic "Look at the exchange between Peter and Jesus in John 21. You'll see it there." Well, okay ... but even Greek isn't so clear cut. For instance, we know that agape means "unconditional love", right? Does it? Jude references "love feasts" using agape. How does that quite fit? John writes, "This is love, that we walk according to his commandments". Is that "unconditional"? Maybe. What about when Jesus said, "If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love"? Is that "unconditional"? There appears, despite our best wishes, to be nuances and shades of meaning to the simple statement, "God is love."
In fact, you'll find that it's difficult to nail down most of the attributes of God to simple black and white. When we say, for instance, that He is holy, we don't mean the same thing as when we say that utensils in the tabernacle were "holy". And we are to be holy as He is holy, but we know that's not quite the same thing either. Or how about His omnipotence? We like to think, "That means God can do anything at all." No, that's not accurate. There are lots of things He cannot do. He cannot change. He cannot fail. He cannot sin. And He cannot make a round square, an unstoppable ball headed toward an immovable wall, or a rock He cannot pick up. So "omnipotent" has gradations, shades, a depth of meaning that isn't simple or clear cut. You'll find this to be the case with most of His attributes. His love doesn't negate His justice, wrath, or holiness. How do those work out? His wrath against sin doesn't negate His grace or mercy. He is immutable -- unchanging -- but does change direction. How does "eternal" (meaning always was and always will be) work out when God is outside of time? We know that God is good, but we also have Him claiming that He creates well-being and calamity. How does that figure in your understanding of "good"? And that's the point. It is highly likely that when you think you've figured out "love" or "good" or "omnipotent", you'll find there are some nuances you didn't consider.
All this is intended to serve as a caution. When you think, "I've pretty well figured out ____ about God", you'll probably find that you haven't. When you think that certain words describing God are obvious and narrowly defined, be careful. They probably aren't. In the Chronicles of Narnia, Aslan represents Christ. C.S. Lewis says of Aslan that he isn't a tame lion. God is not a tame God. He isn't narrowly defined, clearly understood, clear cut. He has shades, senses, variations. No, He doesn't vary from Himself. These are simply gradations that occur in the finite understanding of the human being when contemplating the infinite God. And, oh, by the way, I have a serious suspicion that this whole concept of shades and gradations works itself out in most of life. I doubt you'll find a one-size-fits-all "12-step program" that teaches you to love your wife, an unchanging step-by-step process to become sanctified, or a clear and accurate "how to" book on being a godly mother or father to your children. Most of life, it turns out, is nuanced. So much for our preference for "simple and clear cut", eh?
No comments:
Post a Comment