Update: See my post, Christ and the Systematics, for further thoughts.
I made a passing comment in a recent post that I had planned a criticism of Calvinism along the lines of it not being “Christ-centered.” (Relax…I’m still a “Calvinist;” I’m just not a very good one, seeing as I’m no fan the the “five points” construct, and I find the questions most Calvinists are most concerned about to be rather silly). Ben Witherington III has continued his critique of Reformed God’s-glory theology with the post, Did Christ Come to Please Himself? Here’s the key element for me, from which I want to jump into a discussion:
If Christ is the very exegesis of the Father and the Father’s character, what these sorts of stories make clear is that not only does God not want us to be self-centered beings, God is also relational, other directed and loving and not a self-centered being.
Here’s the dilemma I’ve been sort of subconsciously wrestling with for years, ever since a certain conversation I had with a friend who advocated for Christ-as-center rather than a God’s-glory-as-center for theology - if Piper’s God’s-glory-centered theology is correct, it seems to make Christ’s role of revealing the Father subservient to what we already know of the Father in the first place, as if Christ were the Grandest Illustration of God, rather than the very definition of God. Christ in his incarnation is indeed “the very exegesis of the Father,” and as that is the case, the greatest definition of God we can possibly imagine is not the God who seeks His own glory above all other things, but the God who willingly gives up His glory for those who don’t deserve Him, out of self-sacrificial love. This, of course, results in His glory, but it changes the prime motivation and central aspect of God from “glory” to “love.”
And this seems thoroughly biblical to me.
Is it a false dichotomy? Whatever the case, this is a necessary conversation, and I’m glad BWIII is initiating it.
14 responses so far ↓
1 chris holdridge // Dec 6, 2007 at 12:01 pm
Not a lot of time to comment, but I do think that’s a false dichotomy. There’s no reason why we must choose to view God’s glory over and against his love or vice versa. You can’t understand one without the other in God’s economy. I think without setting up Piper straw men (which seems to be what’s going on), that Piper is very clear on these things. Part and parcel of what makes God’s glory so great, so attractive, so…glorious, is it’s self-sacrificing nature. Piper would never argue that.
2 Travis Prinzi // Dec 6, 2007 at 6:58 pm
I’ve always been a big Piper fan (less so perhaps in the last year than I previously was)…this is still a bit of a sticking point for me. It may be a false dichotomy, but it still seems to me that Glory, not Love, is the dominating theme, and that God’s self-sacrificial love is subservient to the whole glory paradigm.
I hardly have the time to think in depth about it at the moment.
3 The Boar’s Head Tavern » // Dec 8, 2007 at 10:51 am
[…] if you haven’t read it, I’d recommend thinking about Travis P’s insight that Piper’s way of describing the… - as exegesis no less!!- makes the Son simply a subservient […]
4 internetmonk.com » Blog Archive » The Weekend File 12:08:07: A Must Read Interview with Frank Schaefer + More // Dec 8, 2007 at 12:20 pm
[…] fellow Travis Prinzi raises a fascinating issue regarding John Piper’s way of describing the relationship of the Father and the Son. Travis’s blog, Restless Reformer, is always good. Make it an RSS […]
5 Jenny // Dec 8, 2007 at 1:00 pm
Thanks Travis for this reflection.
I am beginning a study on the manifestation of Christ’s glory on Mt. Tabor forty days prior to His passion. Amidst observation of the discussion of Piper’s theology, I’ve pondered how one is to define “God’s glory”.
I believe Christ’s transifiguration IS it’s substance. It has immensely beautiful implications for us, as Christ’s body! And what was the substance of dialogue on Mt. Tabor between He and His companions, His approaching suffering and death. This is the center of the universe, the exhaltation of the Lamb of God.
Gloria in Excelsis Deo
A Blessed Advent!
6 Molly // Dec 9, 2007 at 5:59 am
FASCINATING post. I’ve been studying a lot about atonement theories after ruminating on a related topic: the atonement being primarily for satiating the wrath of God.
Growing up, I learned that the primary reason Jesus died was to appease the wrath of the Father. I began questioning that this year when I thought about the implications: all sin must be punished, punishment must be meted before forgiveness can be granted, etc.
This seems to go square in the face with the concept of grace, or at least lower it to a position UNDER that of wrath (because wrath must have it’s way in order for grace to have it’s way).
It is much like the dilemna you present here, another thing I’ve wondered about and find so refreshing to see in print. You said,
the greatest definition of God we can possibly imagine is not the God who seeks His own glory above all other things, but the God who willingly gives up His glory for those who don’t deserve Him, out of self-sacrificial love. This, of course, results in His glory, but it changes the prime motivation and central aspect of God from “glory” to “love.”
Now THAT resonates with the Jesus who walked on earth. THAT makes sense with what we see in the Gospels and what we see written in the epistles (and what we see in the OT), MUCH more than a God who’s final goal is grander self-glorification.
7 chris holdridge // Dec 9, 2007 at 2:15 pm
OK…I’m tracking here; but I do want to note that nothing said here so far would be anything that Piper would disagree with. I don’t want to turn into a Piper apologist; but I don’t understand what the big deal is.
I don’t know of a doctrine of, as Travis puts it, a “God who seeks His own glory.” God doesn’t seek anything as if it took effort to find it. God seeks to reveal it to us; and he does this in the nature of Christ, who is fully God. Hebrews 1:3 is the NT way to go on exegeting that, I think. Why is it that we must say, “He is love” or “He is self-sacrifice” or “He is generous” to the exclusion of saying he is glorious? “Glory” is a word that encompasses all that. Why would we NOT focus on it? This argument sounds reactionary to me.
As an RP friend of mine might say, “Where’s the reformed magistrate when you need him?”
Joking, of course…
8 Travis Prinzi // Dec 9, 2007 at 3:38 pm
It is reactionary, to a very strong over-reaction to some really good questions by BWIII. I don’t think it’s an either/or question for me; it’s just one of perspectives and starting points.
Piper says, “God’s chief end is to glorify God and enjoy Himself forever.” It seems that Piper starts with God’s glory, and Jesus accomplishes for the Father the end he always intended - his own glory. I think we start with Love, with Christ’s self-emptying, glory-emptying activity, and then say that THAT results in God’s glory - but that the POINT actually was to save us, with God’s glory as a result (not the “chief end”). Is that too human-centered?
9 chris holdridge // Dec 9, 2007 at 3:55 pm
Real quick, I would say God’s glory is the core, the energy, and the pre-existing essence and triumphant result of our being saved. It’s the sum total of his wrath, love, sacrifice, generosity, etc.
10 Travis Prinzi // Dec 9, 2007 at 8:45 pm
That’s an important missing piece of the conversation so far - how should we define God’s glory? I’ll have to give that one some more thought.
11 Ali // Dec 10, 2007 at 11:11 pm
G’day Travis. I’ve given this some thought, but written only a little on it. When it comes to the definition of glory, I’ve got a short piece at my blog called “Love and Glory: Different or the same?” (http://kiwiandanemu.org/?p=205). Seems to be an error message at the top at the moment, but the post proper begins with “The answer to the above question is, of course, both”. I’m really interested in the whole relationship between love and glory and the consequences of that, so I’d be interested in your feedback if you had any.
12 chris holdridge // Dec 11, 2007 at 9:08 am
Ali, Can you try reposting that link? I looked quickly on your blog, but couldn’t find it. Sounds interesting.
13 Ali // Dec 11, 2007 at 7:20 pm
That’s strange, Chris. Maybe you were looking while I was trying to tidy up. (Embarassing when people come to your blog and it’s a big mess). If the above link still doesn’t work, go to http://www.kiwiandanemu.org and go down the side bar and click on “Love and Glory” (note, not “Love” - it’s further down than that). You’ll see the post titled, “Love and glory: different or the same?” near the bottom of the page.
Hope that helps.
14 Love and Blunder · Travis nails it. // Dec 11, 2007 at 9:02 pm
[…] Prinzi gets it right. This is exactly what I was trying to get at in my last […]
Leave a Comment