Something to Think About

It's funny how the image of God is the image of the Greek god, Zeus. Interesting. Here's a sermon to read and think about as it gives valid points on Christian theology.

"In discussions of Christian theology, people most often frame their concept of God with Greek philosophical categories such as omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent. Such verbiage is understandable and many Biblical passages prompt one to describe God in such terms. Nonetheless it is helpful to maintain a distinction between the classical Greek philosophical tradition(s) and Biblical theology. Classical Greek philosophical language help to capture attributes of God; however, I would suggest that the God of the Biblical text is much more dynamic and complex than what it reflected in what I would regard as static or absolute terms. I am always surprised by the God I encounter in the Biblical text and this God is portrayed as acting in the world in unexpected ways. The notion of a messiah who lives as a servant and then suffers a humiliating death on the cross was and continues to be a shocking understanding (I fear that our familiarity with the story diminishes our appreciation for this dynamic). the notion of resurrection was and continues to be a shocking understanding (in this regard, it is important to understand the Biblical notion of resurrection rather than collapsing it into the Greek notion of immortality of the soul). While Biblical theology clearly interfaces with Greco-Roman philosophical traditions/worldviews, they are not the same. Each admittedly influences the other ; however, in the Biblical text, it is primarily a Hebraic worldview that is being given expression in language systems distinct from the origination source (i.e. Hebrew). This naturally created and continues to create confusion in theological understandings. It is helpful to delineate as best as possible the process by which the originating conceptual framework is re-appropriated into secondary worldviews (i.e. the Greco-Roman worldview). There is admittedly ambiguity in this sort of analysis and I would suggest application of the critical rule. The critical rule assumes that the most difficult understanding is likely the most original. It is based on the assumption that people typical attempt to make things easier to understand rather than more difficult.

While it is helpful to describe God as omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent, it is nevertheless insufficient. While God can be described as "all knowing," it would limit the very nature of God to conclude that God already knows every detail of present and future reality as it will unfold. The claim that God is "all knowing" in a Biblical conceptual framework does not claim that all history is already known to God and is simply following the script. In the Biblical text, God is portrayed as changing the way God relates to the creation based on events as well as human response(s). God is "all knowing " in terms of knowing what God has resolved will ultimately be (teleology in Greek traditions!) and the Biblical text reveals a God determined to see that the intentions of creation come to fruition despite the rebellion and sin of the created order( primarily humanity although there could be some conversation regarding natural disaster). The concern that the Greek philosophical categories denote a perfect reality which cannot be expanded is addressed in the Biblical injunction against idolatry. All language is limited, even as it seeks to express the infinite, and thus cannot be employed as restrictive descriptors. At its best, language can only partially describe the infinite if the infinite is truly infinite ( assuming that infinite has attributes beyond knowing and thus description). This is the very reason we need revelation to better comprehend and understand God. I personally would never conjecture the God of the Biblical text. Such a God would have to be revealed to me. I continue to struggle with such an understanding of God, but my experience continue to confirm the God revealed in the Biblical text and therefore becomes the most compelling source for shaping my life.

The concern articulated as "open theism" is that such a conceptual understanding of God suggests that God is less than "all knowing" if God does not know the present and the future in every detail. How can God be God if God does not possess such knowledge? The Biblical text places emphasis on the love of God in its primary attribute of God (God as omni-loving: it is instructive to note that the Greeks did not have such a term; it is a peculiar contribution of Biblical theology). The very nature of agape love allows for an open undetermined future while at the same time assuring us an ultimate outcome (i.e., redemptive) which will find fulfillment at a point in the future. It may also be instructive here to note that the Greek language of the New Testament had distinct future tenses characterized as future active, future middle, and future passive. Ancient languages are much more nuanced than modern languages. Remember the critical rule observes how people tend to make explanation simpler rather than more complex and the same observation applies to the history of language. A comparison of King James English with modern English suffices as a more familiar example. We use a depleted modern language to understand a much more complex tradition. While the concern of "open theism" claims to safeguard against limiting God, my concern with such theological understandings (admittedly offered with genuine sincerity) is that they do the very thing they seek to avoid. They limit an understanding of God."- Pastor Reggie Tuck