Thoughts on Reconciliation: Knowing God
March 29th, 2007 | by Scott |There are certain things about God that I believe are clear throughout Scripture. They are:
1. God created us to be in relationship with Him
2. God is love
3. God is knowable
From the very beginning God desired to have intimacy and fellowship with His creation. He did not create us so that we might be separated from Him, nor did He create us simply to ultimately condemn most of us.
No, Scripture is clear that we have a God who loves us passionately and completely. As the late Rich Mullins once sang the love of God is a “reckless raging fury.”
Few people would argue with either of those points. But, for some reason or another, many have arrived at the conclusion that God is, ultimately, unknowable to us. That there is just too much to His character and nature that escape our finite minds.
As a result, it is easy to gloss over seeming inconsistencies with slogans such as “He’s God and I’m not” or “God moves in mysterious ways” or even “who can know the mind of God?”
Prooftexts about “his ways are higher than our ways” are trotted out to make the claim that God does what God does and, even if it seems diametrically opposed to what we are to understand of God, we can’t question it.
That’s a bunch of hooey. I believe that God can be known and wants to be known. If we believe that Jesus was Immanuel, God in the flesh, then we must believe that we can draw nearer to the heart of God and understand who He is, up to and including His character and nature.
Through the person of Jesus is how we come to know God more clearly and more fully. This Jesus who loved the oppressed and cared for the marginalized is the knowledge of God. Through His kenosis, His humility, His sacrifice, His teachings, His love and His example we are able to know God.
And any view of God that does not align with the person of Christ must be re-addressed.
Because this same Jesus is the one who said:
“I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me. Just as the Father knows me and I know the Father…I and the Father are one.”
and:
“…believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.”
and:
“You know neither me nor my Father. If you knew me, you would know my Father also.”
“and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
“If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him.”
I could go on, but you get the point. God is knowable and He is knowable through the person, example and live of Jesus Christ.
So when we bump up against traditions, interpretations and understandings that conflict with the person of Christ then it behooves us to explore, wrestle and ask these questions anew. And the way to do that is to dig deeper into the heart of Christ.
He is the avenue through which we can greater understand the character and nature of God which is so bound up in His Love.
As a side note: I often hear people proof-text Isaiah 55:9 where God tells us that “my ways (are)higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts” as proof that God can act contrary to what our perception of His character and nature is. However, it is important to note that the context of Isaiah 55 is the compassion of God. If we are faithful to that passage we can understand that God is far more capable of realizing what is consistent within Himself than we are. That is the mystery: How God can love and be so compassionate.
Next I want us to look at what Christ Himself has to say about issues of salvation. For He is the only way for us to truly know God.
24 Responses to “Thoughts on Reconciliation: Knowing God”
By Mike the Eyeguy on Mar 29, 2007 | Reply
“And any view of God that does not align with the person of Christ must be re-addressed.”
Then maybe Marcion was right?
By Scott on Mar 29, 2007 | Reply
Wow, Mike, that’s quite a jump from me saying that views need to be re-addressed to me advocating throwing out the whole OT.
By Mike the Eyeguy on Mar 29, 2007 | Reply
(sigh) Just trying to be provocative. My bad, I guess.
By Scott on Mar 29, 2007 | Reply
Well, okay, I’ll take the bait, then. Yeah, toss out the whole thing
By Mike the Eyeguy on Mar 29, 2007 | Reply
That’s more like it!
My point is that the portrait of God contained in the Ancient Near East idiom of the OT is frankly confusing at times and difficult (though perhaps not impossible) to reconcile with the portrait of him incarnated in Christ.
Put me down as someone who is a bit bearish on the prospect of knowing God fully through the person of Christ as portrayed in the NT. Despite flashes of clarity, the looking glass is still pretty smudgy from my vantage point.
By Scott on Mar 29, 2007 | Reply
I think there is a way of looking at the Hebrew Scripture that is more progressive that makes things a little less problematic. Of course, all the problems don’t disappear but I like the direction.
By krister on Mar 29, 2007 | Reply
Maybe I’m just a heretic, but even as revealed in the person of Jesus I think that God’s knowability is still somewhat compromised by the very fact of the incarnation. I don’t disagree with the idea that through Christ we have the fullest representation of God’s nature, but I do not necessarily believe it is complete mainly because the finite cannot completely hold the infinite. There is still mystery to who God is that is not cleared up by Jesus Christ, and it is this mystery that I think creates much needed epistemic humility in terms of what it is we claim to know about God. So I’m with you on 1 and 2, but number 3 is a little hazy in my opinion.
By Scott on Mar 29, 2007 | Reply
I guess I failed in making my point ably. I don’t believe that we can know God completely. But I do believe that we can know him more fully. I think that Jesus shows us more fully who God is.
What I’m trying to say is that when a scripture is interpreted that goes against what the common understanding of the person of Christ is, it bear re-examination.
Don’t mistake me for saying that we can have all the answers.
By Jeff_R on Mar 29, 2007 | Reply
Scott -
I thought you were saying God is intelligible and by that meaning not that we can know God exhaustively or comprehensively, but that we can understand God in a limited way and to a certain degree and that while there will always be elements and aspects of his nature and character that are beyond our comprehension or kin, he will not appear to us as self-contradictory, illogical or non-sensical.
For example, we don’t believe he can create a rock so heavy even he can’t lift it. Or a slice of bread so thin it only has one side. Etc.
Right?
By Scott on Mar 29, 2007 | Reply
much better said.
By krister on Mar 29, 2007 | Reply
Thanks for the clarification; I may have read your original post too quickly!
I agree that Jesus as the Christ is the norm for all other norms and should provide a helpful corrective to scriptures that seem to go against his life ethic and perspective. However, you do know that such an approach to scripture will not win you many friends, especially within the CofC which often puts Paul on a pedestal to the detriment of the core of the gospel.
I wish that we were more like our Jewish siblings who never rest when it comes to scriptural interpretation; all scripture worth arguing about is part of an ongoing conversation that goes on forever. I remember a story a rabbi told me about two rabbis who were arguing over a text when God opens the heavens to tell them the correct interpretation. The rabbis basically tell God to go back to heaven since God had already given them the law; in essence the dialogue was more important than the outcome. Another story that was somewhat similar depicted God as answering, “Well, Rabbi Eleazar says…, and Rabbi so and so says…, and then there’s Rabbi so and so who says…” There’s something in all of this that critiques our understanding of faith and certainty so that our faith is not located in our capacity to be certain but in learning to lean on faith in the midst of uncertainty.
By Jeff B. on Mar 29, 2007 | Reply
I don’t believe God ever indicated that he wanted us to know Him exhaustively and comprehensively. In fact, some of the statements that Scott mentioned in his post seem to indicate that God intended just the opposite. Rather, I think His intention is for us to struggle through things! He WANTS us to wrestle with these things. He gave us the light of Christ, but there are some corners that the Light just didn’t illuminate. That is why I believe that KNOWLEDGE shouldn’t be our primary end, but PROGRESS. An ever-growing, ever-refining understanding of God is an end that is achievable and biblical. This may sound somewhat Zen of me but with many ultimate questions, I believe the journey is the destination.
By Jonathan on Mar 29, 2007 | Reply
I’m glad to play the straight man/foil with my comment in the intro post.
I agree that God desires us to know him, but I won’t be surprised if I fail to understand him fully because I am finite and he is not. I’m not saying that it’s a given that in some way the aspects of God’s nature will seem contradictory to me, but I’d guess the chances aren’t all that bad. I’m pretty dumb…in the grand scheme of things I think.
By scott on Mar 29, 2007 | Reply
Krister, I find myself more and more in the minority on a lot of things. Such is life I guess.
Again, let me try to clarify, I don’t believe that we can know God comprehensively. But I believe we can know what His character and nature are. We know that God cannot act inconsistently or contradictorily. We know that God is perfect therefore He cannot fail. We know that God is love therefore He cannot act outside of that.
As a result we can know who He is, again not comprehensively, but according to His nature.
As a result, if someone were to offer up a theology that posits that God willfully harms others and brings them unnecessary pain, I would reject it because it falls contrary to the God I know. That God would fall outside of worthy worship.
By Jonathan on Mar 30, 2007 | Reply
I think we’re on the same page…but I’ll belabor the point anyway.
I’m not just saying that we can’t know him comprehensively. I’m also saying there is also a finite chance that God could act in a way that appears to me to be inconsistent/contradictory because of my finiteness/ignorance in a way that I’ll never be able to overcome no matter how much I study…when in reality he is acting consistently and without contradiction.
Taking your example about causing unnecessary pain. God is in control. Terrible pain is suffered by many. If it was God’s will to prevent that pain, he could. He doesn’t, therefore God willfully harms others. Maybe all of this is true except the “therefore” conclusion but I come to the wrong conclusion because I don’t sufficiently understand the nature of God, of his interaction with his creation, of suffering, etc.
I agree that the appearance of a contradiction between two points is a good reason to reevaluate the truthiness of those two points. Maybe one of them is wrong. On the other hand, maybe both are right and I am just wrong in by belief that they are contradictory.
By JTB on Mar 31, 2007 | Reply
I would put it this way. If we say “God is good,” but play the divine-sovereignty-human-finitude trump card at the same time to explain evil, then we end up affirming not that God is good but simply that God is powerful. Why? Because for God to be “good” in any meaningful sense, God must be good in a way appreciable and intelligible to us. Otherwise “good” as a concept loses content, and the statement “God is good” can mean absolutely anything at all.
And now, my sick baby has been woken rudely from a too-short nap by loud neighbors, and I must go.
By Jonathan on Mar 31, 2007 | Reply
JTB,
There are obviously many ways that I can clearly understand that God is good. I’m suggesting that there may be other ways that God is good that don’t seem good to me because I lack understanding/knowledge. I’m unconvinced that by leaving that door open I’m somehow effectively denying that God is good. When God destroyed everyone but Noah and seven others in the flood, was he was being good? I can see how that act demonstrates his justice but not so much his goodness. I can either claim that he is sometimes just and sometimes good, or I can claim that he is always both but sometimes only one of the other is clear to me. I claim the latter.
By Jonathan on Mar 31, 2007 | Reply
The option I left out of my previous comment is that God didn’t actually destroy the world’s population - 8 with a flood. I’m sure there are people who believe in the God of the Bible but don’t believe he did that. I’d be interested to hear their reasoning. Maybe I would be convinced or maybe not.
By JTB on Mar 31, 2007 | Reply
Well, is God good all the time, or does He get a vacation from it occasionally?
By Jeff_R on Mar 31, 2007 | Reply
“I can see how that act demonstrates his justice but not so much his goodness. I can either claim that he is sometimes just and sometimes good, or I can claim that he is always both but sometimes only one of the other is clear to me. I claim the latter.”
Can’t you also consider the possibility that the records of the OT are human narratives used by God to reveal eternal truths - and that sometimes the narratives contain human interpretations of events that may or may not be accurate? Thus, maybe the “blame” for the destruction by the flood is a human interjection - maybe God didn’t deliberately wipe out innocent children and cause immeasurable death and destruction because he wanted a “do over” on creation? Maybe floods just happen in an imperfect world - but God always comes around to make sense of it?
That’s at least one other way to understand it. I think you were presenting a false dichotomy.
By Jonathan on Apr 1, 2007 | Reply
JTB,
When I said “I claim the latter” I was affirming that I believe that God is always good and always just but that sometimes I don’t understand how.
Jeff_R,
I realized that I had left off that option and added it in the next comment. The very low view of OT scripture that you’re describing is not one that plays well with me (nor with the NT writers, for that matter). I’m definitely in favor of a more sophisticated hermeneutic than I was taught growing up…one that tries to take into account the limitations of language, the limitations of the original authors and audience, one that doesn’t try turn the NT into a law code equivalent in intent to that found in the OT, etc. But we’re kind of back where I started…I would rather accept my limited (and perhaps apparently contradictory understanding) than to start dismissing the parts of scripture that bother me being God-breathed but somehow wildly off the mark in terms of what actually has happened and what will happen in the end.
By JTB on Apr 1, 2007 | Reply
If you’re willing to accept a sense of your own limitedness in understanding God, why not apply the same standard to the humans who wrote scripture? What’s the difference?
By Jonathan on Apr 1, 2007 | Reply
My suspicion that this (debating the reliability of scripture) is not the direction Scott intends to take this discussion. Simply put, my belief is that the authors of scripture were inspired by God in a way that I am not. That is the difference.
By Scott on Apr 2, 2007 | Reply
Great discussion. I’m intrigued greatly by the discussion of inspiration, inerrancy and infallibility and think that it is a discussion that is much warranted. Not sure how much more impolitic this blog can become though
I wrestle with a lot of these same questions.