Is God Self-Centered?

In a recent blog post, Asbury Seminary professor Ben Witherington questions the basic thesis of a forthcoming book he was reading: that the most basic theme of NT theology is “God magnifying himself through Jesus Christ by means of the Holy Spirit.” Witherington calls this a mistake in the “basic understanding of God’s essential and moral character.”

Because I’m already late in addressing this and others have responded better than I could, I just want to point out a couple of problems in Witherington’s article. Of course, I think his thesis is dead wrong; I think God is the most God-centered being in the universe, but that’s another post. For now, a couple of issues with how he makes his argument.

First, he distorts the view he’s arguing against by flattening and simplifying it. That’s what he’s doing in quoting John 3:16 and asking if it shouldn’t say “God so loved himself.” Reformed Christians (that’s who he’s criticizing) don’t believe God doesn’t love the world, or that his love for the world isn’t one of the things that move him to action. When we say that God’s chief concern is his own glory, we’re not saying it’s the only thing he cares about, to the exclusion of everything else. We believe, in fact, that God’s love for the world is one way in which his regard for his own glory is shown.

Second, he distorts the view he’s arguing against by mocking it. That’s what he’s doing here:

[T]he Bible says it is our obligation to love, praise, and worship God, but this is a very different matter from the suggestion that God worships himself, is deeply worried about whether he has enough glory or not, and his deepest motivation for doing anything on earth is so that he can up his own glory quotient, or magnify and praise himself.

When we say that God’s chief concern is his own glory, we don’t mean that he is “deeply worried” about anything. We mean that his purpose is to glorify himself, to display to the world how magnificent he is. He is not concerned about “whether he has enough glory or not”– he is infinitely glorious. Witherington isn’t even attempting to treat his opponents’ view with care or respect here; he is simply making fun of it. That’s a far cry from a reasoned, biblical response.

Third, Witherington’s conclusion is exactly backwards. He believes that the idea of God being God-centered is the projection of a narcissistic age. In other words, we’re self-centered, and therefore we like to think of God as being self-centered too. But here’s my take: we are indeed self-centered, and therefore we like to think of God as being us-centered too. That’s Witherington’s view of God: his character is, at the core, “other directed self-sacrificial love.”* In other words, God is man-centered. Unfortunately, I think a lot of evangelicals would agree. As John Piper has said, we’re all about being God-centered, as long as we think God is man-centered. This is exactly the mistake Witherington makes, and it’s why he recoils at the God-centered God I believe the Bible presents.

*Of course, no one denies that God does love in an outward-facing, self-sacrificial way. This is another error in Witherington’s thinking: he places God’s zeal for his own glory and his love for humans at odds. The two are not mutually exclusive; in fact, they are the basis for the atonement (for example, Rom 3:26).

That Whole "Posting Every Day in November" Thing

That didn’t include holidays, right, Annie?

Sorry it’s been so quiet around here this week. I’m still doing family stuff though, and that seems more important. I’m sure my many, many readers understand. Although we’re still out of town, I should be back in the saddle some tomorrow. Thanks for your patience!

Vacation Reading

Engaging the right side of the brain some:

But also, because I’m me:

And for the lady of the house: A high school flashback.

The Historical Metzger

This is mostly for other wannabe theologians, but if you’ve read anything about the “search for the historical Jesus,” it might be of interest to you too. Dan Wallace has a story today about an urban legend that circulated for years about Bruce Metzger, a very famous scholar.* Wallace relates the story to the claims that we need to look behind the Gospel accounts to find the “historical” or “real” Jesus. It’s a quick read.

* “Very famous scholar,” of course, being a relative term.

Nailed it.

Calvin on John 6:2, where the multitude follows Jesus away from town:

Here we see, in the first place, how eager was the desire of the people to hear Christ, since all of them, forgetting themselves, take no concern about spending the night in a desert place. So much the less excusable is our indifference, or rather our sloth, when we are so far from preferring the heavenly doctrine to the gnawings of hunger, that the slightest interruptions immediately lead us away from meditation on the heavenly life. Very rarely does it happen that Christ finds us free and disengaged from the entanglements of the world. So far is every one of us from being ready to follow him to a desert mountain, that scarcely one in ten can endure to receive him, when he presents himself at home in the midst of comforts. And though this disease prevails nearly throughout the whole world, yet it is certain that no man will be fit for the kingdom of God until, laying aside such delicacy, he learn to desire the food of the soul so earnestly that his belly shall not hinder him.

The Trouble with Deep Belief

But the trouble with deep belief is that it costs something. And there is something inside me, some selfish beast of a subtle thing that doesn’t like the truth at all because it carries responsibility, and if I actually believe these things I have to do something about them. It is so, so cumbersome to believe anything. And it isn’t cool. I mean it’s cool in a Reality Bites, Welcome to Sarajevo, Amnesty International sense, but that is only as good as dreadlocks. Chicks dig it to a point, but you can’t be all about it; you also have to want a big house and expensive clothes because in the end, our beliefs are about as enduring as seasonal fashion. In the end, we like Ethan Hawke even though we don’t know what he believes. Even our beliefs have become trend statements. We don’t even believe things because we believe them anymore. We only believe things because they are cool things to believe.

Donald Miller, Blue Like Jazz, 107

Calvin on Patience

Commenting on the paralytic Jesus heals in John 5:

Besides, this example ought to teach us patience. Thirty-eight years were a long period, during which God had delayed to render to this poor man that favour which, from the beginning, He had determined to confer upon him. However long, therefore, we may be held in suspense, though we groan under our distresses, let us never be discouraged by the tediousness of the lengthened period; for, when our afflictions are long continued, though we discover no termination of them, still we ought always to believe that God is a wonderful deliverer, who, by his power, easily removes every obstacle out of the way.

–Commentary on the Gospel According to John, 190.

You know who gets a bad rap?

John Calvin.

Here’s how it works: If you’re not a Calvinist, or especially if you’re an anti-Calvinist, then you usually think Calvin is the Dark Prince of Theology– someone who thought God hated little babies or some such. If you are a Calvinist, it makes you a little nervous that it will you look like you follow Calvin instead of Jesus, so you get used to saying things like this: “I’m not a Calvinist because of Calvin. I could care less what John Calvin says; I care what the Bible says.”

Fair enough; Calvin would want you to care more about what the Bible says. But I discovered something in seminary: Calvin is absolutely amazing. Here’s a man who wrote the first draft of his systematic theology at 27. That’s around my age. You would not want to read whatever systematic theology I wrote; his is easily one of the 10 most influential books in Christian history. He essentially invented the modern commentary with his philosophy of pursuing “clarity and brevity.” Expelled from his native France, he led Geneva in becoming a haven for Protestantism, and from there he sent missionaries and church planters throughout Europe. Calvinism didn’t kill missions, it spawned revival all over a continent.

His writing is amazing, something I rediscovered this week when I picked up his commentary on John to read in the mornings. He clearly explains what the text means, correcting common misunderstandings and locating each passage in its context. Then he effortlessly slips into devotional writing, showing how our hearts should respond to the text. He was certainly human and imperfect, but he is a near-ideal model of the pastor-scholar. His intellect was second to none, but it was employed in the service of God, with the goal that God’s people offer him the worship he deserves.

Over the next few days I’ll try to offer some especially insightful and convicting comments from Calvin. If you haven’t heard much specific about him, hopefully I can leave you wanting more.

I’m a Crowes fan.

But not like this guy. A blog’s one thing, but…

Driscoll on Blog Warriors

Some Christians need to give their employer half their salary back because they spend half their day posting comments on Christian web sites to argue with other Christians while getting paid which is a great witness to their non-Christian boss and non-Christian co-workers.

–Mark Driscoll (on a blog, ironically enough)