Linked to this idea, Jonathan recently pointed to a post, Are We Worthy of God's Love?, by Rachel Held Evans. Jonathan agrees with Evans that creation (no distinction between pre or post redemption and the context indicates pre) is worthy of God's love. Although Jonathan tells us that Doug Pagitt agrees, I do not see that Scripture agrees. The logic of the post feels a bit like an attempt to force fit the world into the aforementioned starting assumption. Nicole seems to share the concern.
Evans begins by celebrating that God loves creation. So far so good.
Evans then quotes the following from Doug Pagitt's A Christianity Worth Believing:
God loves this world and all who are in it. God not only loves humanity but created humanity as the ideal partner for bringing about all that God desires for the world. We are not working against our lesser nature when we seek to live with God; on the contrary, we are living as we were created. The joy of this proper understanding is that we no longer have to feel ashamed of our humanity. It is not a sin to be alive.
This is true but the "we seek to live with God" and "we are living as we were created" are only possible post-redemption.
Then Evans mistakenly describes the "T" part of TULIP, total depravity, as meaning we are totally evil. She doesn't understand that this is not the message of the Doctrine of Election. R.C. Sproul coined the phrase “Radical Corruption” to better articulate the “T” in TULIP. To quote Sproul:
The Bible teaches the total depravity of the human race. Total depravity means radical corruption. We must be careful to note the difference between total depravity and "utter" depravity. To be utterly depraved is to be as wicked as one could possibly be. Hitler was extremely depraved, but he could have been worse than he was. I am sinner. Yet I could sin more often and more severely than I actually do. I am not utterly depraved, but I am totally depraved. For total depravity means that I and everyone else are depraved or corrupt in the totality of our being. There is no part of us that is left untouched by sin. Our minds, our wills, and our bodies are affected by evil. We speak sinful words, do sinful deeds, have impure thoughts. Our very bodies suffer from the ravages of sin.
Perhaps "radical corruption" is a better term to describe our fallen condition than "total depravity." I am using the word "radical" not so much to mean "extreme," but to lean more heavily on its original meaning. "Radical" comes from the Latin word for "root" or "core." Our problem with sin is that it is rooted in the core of our being. It permeates our hearts. It is because sin is at our core and not merely at the exterior of our lives that the Bible says: "There is none righteous, no not one; there is none who understands; there is none who seeks after God. They have all turned aside; they have together become unprofitable; there is none who does good, no, not one." Romans 3:10-12
Evans then states, "I’ve always found it curious that Christians so passionately defend the sanctity of life, when so many seem to think that human beings are, by their very nature, an affront to God." Well actually, by our very fallen nature we are enemies of God. But GOOD NEWS, He redeems us. So Evans seems a bit confused here. God is really not pleased with rebellious man.
She furthers her error with. "we honor and revere new life because we know all people are created in the image of God and are…dare I say…worthy of being loved by Him and by us." Had she stopped with "we honor and revere new life because we know all people are created in the image of God" she would have been ok. But somehow, because we are created in God's image, she thinks we are worthy of love - apparently missing the Biblical fact that we are broken image-bearers and worthy of wrath. It's marvelous that God loves us in spite of that.
Evans closes with:
What do you think? Are humans inherently good (but in need of a repaired relationship with God) or inherently evil (and incapable of doing any good on their own)? I honestly don’t know the answer to this question. … But I’ve got this nagging and relentless hope that God indeed "adores His creation."
God does love His creation. We are not worthy. We are not inherently good. As she said, we are in need of repair and until then, we are slaves to sin.
I do not know Evans. I sense she is asking honest questions. My concern is the conclusion she and others may (or have drawn). To quote one commenter, "in the end, we must be worthy of God's love, because that love is lavished upon us often." Wrong. How about referencing the Bible instead of this feel-good, humanistic philosophy?
Unorthodoxy thinks, "Humans aren't inherently good or inherently evil. We inherently are. ... No one is worthy of love. It is not earned. It is only given." Of course the Bible tells us a bit different than that. We are unworthy of love but we are loved. And even better, once redeemed, we are really worthy of love - in Christ.
12 comments:
I can only imagine that the reason one would want to think that we are worthy of love is because it's icky to think we're not worthy of love. After all, we have so many positive attributes; how could God not love us?
But love that is earned ("worthy") isn't love; it isn't a gift - it is a response.
The essence of God's love is, I think, that He first loved us. Without reference to our worthiness; indeed, the love stems from the "lamb slain before the foundations of the world," as if He knew all along that creation would require redemption.
That love is a love which decides to love not just in spite of who we are, but beyond who we are: it stems from the person who decides to love.
In the end, it is almost irrelevant that we are worthy of love, except that to think we are worthy of love is to then give great despair to those of us who as individuals know, deep down, just how much we are not worthy of that love.
To declare that God loves us unworthy or not is to put the focus on God and not on ourselves or our precious feelings and self-esteem.
Well, my opinion anyway.
It mocks grace! It breaks my heart... There is so much irony in talking about the greater, the harder thing for us to do is to love our enemies, to love the "unlovable" - and then to assume that the good Lord has done anything different! What makes His love so profound is how much I did not, do not deserve it! I have no part in my own redemption, in my own restoration - oh, that they could but see the beauty and the glory of a God who looks on a creature who has mocked everything beautiful about Him and to not only stand us on our feet, but make us Holy! I said it last week - there is no elevating man that does not also create the equal and opposite reaction of diminishing God.....
Keep posting away brother! Your sincere heart for the Word and the Lord are such an encouragement!
I'm trying to understand if you think I am agreeing that we are worthy because we think so or because He thinks so. I think it is the latter.
Jonathan - I think you think what I said (tell me if I got it wrong), i.e., "God's dominant characteristic is love. Based on this, Jonathan defines God's other attributes."
I also think you think as you said in your "interesting stuff" post that you think we are worthy of God's love. What you didn't say is why you think that and if you think that of fallen or redeemed man ... or both.
Said that Pagitt and Rachel agree with you. Yes they do. But like your post, I'm not clear what Pagitt is saying in the details. I am however clear what Rachel and some of the other commenters are saying and they are wrong according to Scripture.
I'm going to now assume based on the way you phrased the question, that you think we are worthy because God thinks we are worthy and that this is applied to fallen man. If that's the wrong assumption, correct me.
With that however, I will say you also then are wrong. God loves us because He wants to be glorified in us. I linked to a number of Scriptures indicating our status as rebellious sinners.
The false notion that we are worthy is artificially created by the insistence the God's primary attribute is love and all of this from my perspective is a result of that false premise. It robs God of His greatness and elevates man to more than he is.
As noted earlier, I thought at first this was a small issue regarding the language we are choosing to use but I am now realizing this has huge ramifications - I grow more and more concerned.
Yes we disagree. No worries.
You said, "It robs God of His greatness and elevates man to more than he is."
I guess I just don't understand how I'm robbing God of his greatness to agree that the cross was a profound act of love.
Jonathan - "I guess I just don't understand how I'm robbing God of his greatness to agree that the cross was a profound act of love."
Do you mean that this is all that you have been saying? I have strived to properly represent your viewpoint. Have I missed the mark and taken my earlier quotes out of context?
If all you are saying is that the cross was a profound act of love, then we are aligned. But you said and meant more than that right?
Funny how talking about the love of God brings such strong reaction. "I must correct you on your apprehension of the love of God. Immediately!"
I guess I don't understand the psychological or spiritual need to be "worthy" of God's love. Why bring myself into it? It's irrelevant.
If Jesus' death on the cross was simply (and I mean no disrepect) an act of love - then what does that mean, exactly? I should be impressed? I believe this attribution of the cross of Christ has been discussed before in church history, so it's not a new thing.
My own understanding of the cross of Christ is that he died a savior's death, not a martyr's death. Christ's death saves me from something more than self-absorption. Again, no disrespect, but it doesn't seem to be the faith that turned the world upsidedown.
One of the things that church history is helpful for is to remember some of the former explorations into orthodoxy and orthopraxis. It doesn't mean that everything old is right and everything new is wrong - but it's a good way to see if what we think is new and better was perhaps already discussed and put aside as secondary.
But, of course, I'm not a theologian. I don't play one on TV. In fact, I don't even have a TV, I'm that removed from popular culture.
The more that I engage the more that I realize these are severe adventures in misunderstanding.
Jonathan - that's why I think the internet is not a good vehicle for debate ... it's for sharing an idea and moving on.
However, it's helpful if we can form and answer some simple clarifying questions. I was hoping I achieved the forming part but I missed the answer from your side.
In reference to your statement that you "agree that the cross was a profound act of love", I asked if that was all that you have been saying because I have been quoting you saying more. I do not want to misrepresent you.
I have not heard your answer. If you answer that is all you are saying, then I'm not sure why I have these other statements from you. If you say you are saying more, then you have the answer to the question you are asking me. That is you are not robbing God of his greatness to agree that the cross was a profound act of love. You are robbing God by all those other things we talked about.
And it's ok that we disagree on that. You made your statement that I disagree with and I've made mine that you disagree with. But it seems you are saying something different now and I was seeking clarity on that.
I don't see how anything can be accomplished if we don't want to understand.
Thanks for the mention. I think I see where we disagree when I say that we inherently are. I think our core is a complex mixture of good and evil. Still, I think we are both talking to a certain degree about grace, although I'm not exactly clear if you quibble with me not saying we have a radically corrupt nature or with the idea that love cannot be earned, only given.
But, I found your defining characteristic of God -- unity -- intriguing. Certainly, that prevents making a mushy mush of God. I suppose, I might add a few letters to that and offer that the defining characteristic is community.
That's an interesting take - community.
I don't know if that's the best word or description based on a general reading of scripture, but perhaps if we step back and think about a defining word, that might be useful. The sense I get from reading scripture is that God is personal - or at least, an acutely defined personality.
Community seems like a gloss added to that. "You know, with the triune God, there has to be some sort of relationship, which leads to the way they dwell together, which leads to community."
I'm no theologian, of course, and may completely misunderstand the point.
Post a Comment