I dig my church, but every year the first sermon of the year goes something like this: “What is God’s number one concern, his overarching purpose and motivation for all he does? God’s glory. The unifying thread through scripture? God’s glory. What should our primary concern in life be? God’s glory. What will bring us unending delight and fulfillment? God’s glory. In short, God’s passion is his glory.” The text for the sermon was Isaiah 48:9-11:
For my name’s sake I defer my anger,
for the sake of my praise I restrain it for you,
so that I may not cut you off.
See, I have refined you, but not like silver;
I have tested you in the furnace of adversity.
For my own sake, for my own sake, I do it,
for why should my name be profaned?
My glory I will not give to another.
The main theolgians quoted in support of this “glory theology” are Jonathan Edwards and John Piper (not surprising since they are favorites of our church). There are some good points to the sermon which I’ll enumerate below, but to be honest, it’s a sermon that I find unpersuasive Biblically and disturbing theologically.
First, the points with which I agree. Glory was defined as “the intrinsic reality and outward manifestation of God’s beauty and character.” This accords quite well with John’s description of Jesus’ glory: “And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth.” (Jn. 1:14). To behold God’s glory is to behold God as God is. It is to perceive God’s character and beauty directly, without distortion or mediation. That is what we get in Jesus, the clearest picture of who God is.
For God to be concerned about his glory, then, is for God to be concerned about his good name not being sullied or distorted by our poor representation of him in word or deed. This makes sense of Isaiah 48:9-11. Israel’s world was an honor-driven culture, where a person’s name and ancestry established their credentials. And once one’s name was shamed by losing face (e.g. by losing a battle or dishonorable conduct) it was not soon forgotten (e.g. a father’s sins are passed down to his children and children’s children). Their world was also one where there was a very real contest between YHWH, the God of Israel, and the other gods of the surrounding nations. If Israel was defeated in battle, the assumption by the surrounding nations was that Israel’s god was defeated as well. The Isaiah passage, in fact, says just that! Why is God not willing to wipe out Israel despite her sin and stubborn idolatry? For “my own sake,” says God. God is not saving Israel because of any merit she possesses. But why is God so concerned about his “name’s sake”? Because he refuses to give his glory to another (i.e. give the pagan gods any sort of beauty, reality, or power). The NLT makes this even clearer: “I will rescue you for my sake—yes, for my own sake! That way, the pagan nations will not be able to claim that their gods have conquered me. I will not let them have my glory!”
Yet, there’s still a question to be answered, and it’s here that I start to disagree with “glory theology,” and that is: Why is God concerned about not giving his glory to another? Glory theology answers that it is because God’s chief concern is himself. God’s glory is the sole motivation for all he does. God’s primary purpose is the pursuit of his glory (how’s that for alliteration!). Here’s why that answer bothers me:
- It’s not supported by the text. The text doesn’t say anything about why God is concerned not to give his glory to another. And the other similar texts cited in support of this idea also do not tell us God’s motives (c.f. Isa. 42:5-8). We can only make an informed guess based on other Scriptures. My surmise is that God wants the other nations to one day join in fellowship with him, and being seen as a defeated god makes that difficult.
- Second, I think it’s presumptous and a bit modernist to try and boil down the motivation of the infinite God of the universe to one thing: glory. Scripture describes God as doing things for a plethora of reasons: compassion (e.g. clothing Adam & Eve), anger (e.g. Babylonian exile), to show his power (e.g. sending thunderclouds), the sheer delight of it (e.g. creating Leviathan to play in the sea), love (e.g. Jesus’ humbling himself for us), etc. To say that what’s really motivating God in all these things is a concern for his glory is an unnecessary “simplification” not supported by the text.
- It is one thing to say God is concerned about emanating or making known his glory (i.e. beauty and character), it is another to say God is primarily concerned with absorbing it or enjoying it (the conclusion of glory theology). Not only is the latter idea Platonic (i.e. the most perfect being would only contemplate the most perfect thing, itself), it also defies the whole point of God’s concern for his glory by sullying God’s name. In Isa. 48 God is concerned that his name and character may not be shamed or defeated, but the God of this “glory theology” makes God into a self-absorbed navel gazer who engages in the weird act of showing forth glory only in order to multiply it and take it back again.
- Finally, such a view of God distorts the good acts of God. God’s profession of love for us, of knowing even the hairs on our head, his willingness to go to all lengths to redeem us from our sin and shame become just a means of manipulating us so that we will give him more glory (Their response is that this works out nicely since our greatest pleasure comes from giving God glory. Regardless of whether or not that’s true, it doesn’t somehow make distorting God’s character right).
Like I said before, there are some good things brought out by glory theology. It reminds us that no idol we construct will satisfy; only God in his beauty and goodness will fulfill. It curbs any pelagian leanings we might have by reminding us that God does not save us because of our merit. But it goes too far in asserting that God’s primary and ultimate concern is pursuing his glory. It doesn’t do justice to the God described in the parable of the prodigal son who embraces us despite the shame we bring to his name. It neglects the tri-une nature of God in whom there can be no narcissim because this one God is also three person who are forever delighting in giving glory to the others. It fails to remember that favorite of evangelistic verses, John 3:16:
For God so loved the world that he gave is one and only son…
14 responses so far ↓
1 Eric Lee // Jan 2, 2006 at 7:36 pm
As I was reading this, the whole time I was thinking, “this is why one’s theology needs to be Trinitarian,” and then you said it there right in that last bit as to why!
Not only does the Father give the Son out of Love which is the Holy Spirit, the Father also creates our world out of love and gives us the Son for Salvation and Jesus also gives us the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. It’s for this reason why I tend to agree with Karl Rahner’s notion that the economic Trinity (the Trinity that we experience) and Immanent Trinity (the Trinity as experienced within itself) are the same thing. Because God is indeed so defined by love, that God can’t help but give out of this same love. God gives the gift of the Son, as well as the gift of all that is creation. John 1:1-5 tends to also blow my mind here.
Peace,
Eric
2 Jason // Jan 2, 2006 at 8:04 pm
Absolutely Eric. The ide of perichoresis, that the the Trinity can be conceived of as an unending circular dance where Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are continually pointing to and reciprocally containing one another, has profoundly shaped my view of God. This is but one example where one’s doctrine of the Trinity has a very real practical outworking.
3 Eric Lee // Jan 2, 2006 at 8:21 pm
Have you read David Bentley Hart’s The Beauty of the Infinite? Although I haven’t read it yet, I sat in on a class taught by my pastor where it was assigned. I didn’t have time to read it (although I hope to get to it soon), but I learned a lot of this stuff from Hart’s Trinitarian theology. He writes well for an academic from what little I’ve read anyway, and I’m sure people might disagree with me, but compared to Milbank’s swampiness, he writes well!
The reason I ask if you’d read Hart is because the very first time I heard the word perichoresis is in reading some sections from the aforementioned book. I know like a million other people have used said word before him, but I’m really new to all this.
Peace,
Eric
4 Jason // Jan 2, 2006 at 9:34 pm
I haven’t read that book. However, Isaac gave me The Doors of the Sea for Christmas, also by Hart. And Isaac also recommended The Beauty of the Infinite as a great book on the Trinity. I’m eager to check it out.
It seems fitting that a Greek Orthodox theologian should introduce you to periochoresis since Rublev’s icon of the Trinity captures a glimpse of what is meant by periochoresis.
5 isaac // Jan 3, 2006 at 5:06 pm
This is a tangential comment. Hey Eric, why the turn to Rahner? From what I’ve been taught about trinitarian theology, Rahner’s innovative move of saying the history of God’s salvific activity for us (i.e., the “economic trinity”) is the same as the inner-reality of God in God’s self (i.e., the “immanent trinity,” or God “in se”) caused more problems than it solved. One problem is that this reduction makes God’s love “necessary” in that history is “necessary” for the development of the triune nature of God. So, God’s activity for us is not really love since it is required—to be Barthian, Rahner does violence to the freedom of God. From what I know of Augustine (and Aquinas), the “interval” between “processions” (immanant trinity) and “missions” (economic trinity) gives us a conceptual framework for articulating the reality of God’s triune nature which is the overflow of love. Erasing the “interval” diminishes the sheer gratuity of God’s love for us. Anyhow, so why Rahner?
6 Eric Lee // Jan 4, 2006 at 10:50 am
Isaac, I dunno. I’ve never studied Rahner, only heard him articulated to me like that and it made sense to me without any violence toward God. I’ve never really read how that works itself out, so maybe I should just stop being a poseur!
7 isaac // Jan 5, 2006 at 6:04 am
Eric, I didnt’ mean to come across as the ortho-nazi. I just thought maybe you read something somewhere about how Rahner actaully was on to something. I know Bruce Marshall wonders about the problems caused when we start talking about the distinction between “immanent” and “economic” Trinity (see “The Trinity” in The Blackwell Companion to Modern Theology). So, I thought maybe somebody somewhere was defending Rahner from the onslaught. That’s all.
8 Lee // Jan 5, 2006 at 8:37 am
Robert Jenson’s theology is probably one of the more rigorous attempts to work out the implications of Rahner’s maxim, but I think David Hart correctly points out some of the serious problems this leads to in his Beauty of the Infinite.
9 isaac // Jan 7, 2006 at 5:17 am
Lee, thanks for the reference to Jenson and Hart. I’ve dabbled in both of their major works, but haven’t persued any consistent engagement. I guess I’ll have to work through them soon. Thanks again.
10 Lee // Jan 9, 2006 at 11:12 am
If you haven’t already seen it, you might find this article worthwhile: http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0510/articles/hart.html
Cheers,
Lee
11 scott // Jan 9, 2006 at 11:28 am
Just to re-recommend Hart’s section on the Trinity, it is worth looking at not only for its criticisms of Jenson, but for its lengthy discussion of the necessity and problems with Rahner’s maxim.
Peace,
Scott
12 scott // Jan 9, 2006 at 11:41 am
Just to re-recommend Hart’s section on the Trinity in Beauty of the Infinite, it is worthwhile not just for its critique of Jenson (which is a critique I think amenable to a kind of Barthian position) but more importantly for its lengthy exposition of both the necessity and problems with Rahner’s maxim. The maxim, as Hart cites it, is simply “the economic Trinity is the immanent Trinity,” which Hart takes simply to mean that the activities of God do indeed reveal certain things about the character of the Triune life.
To say that the same God revealed in Israel and Jesus is the Triune God is not, I take it, the same as saying that God-in-God’s-self is reducible to salvation-history, which is what your comment above, Isaac, seemed to me to imply.
Does that distinction make sense?
Peace,
(By the way – to self-promote for the sake of conversation – if anyone is interested in a paper I wrote in which I conclude with Hart on God’s “being” as love, you can access it here.)
13 isaac // Jan 10, 2007 at 6:12 pm
Jason,
I stumbled across this quote today from Rowan Williams and remember this conversation you started a long time ago. I think you’ll dig it:
“the absolute difference between God and the world presupposed by the doctrine of creation from nothing becomes also a way of asserting the continuity between the being of God and the act of creation as the utterance and ‘overflow’ of the divine life. Belief in creation from nothing is one reflective path towards understanding God as trinity; and belief in God as trinity, intrinsic self-love and self-gift, establishes creation, while not ‘needed’ by God, is wholly in accord with the divine being as being-for-another. To put it provacatively: God creates ‘in God’s interest’ (there could be no other motive for divine action); but that ‘interest’ is not the building-up of the divine life, which simply is what it is, but its giving away. For God to act for God’s sake is for God to act for our sake.”
This is from On Christian Theology (Blackwell, 2000), p. 74.
I think this gets to what you were wondering about why matter and creation cannot be eternal. Of course it also shows how and why the “glory theologians” don’t understand the trinity—that’s too bad.
14 Jason // Jan 11, 2007 at 10:53 am
Isaac, great quote. I think I’ll need to write that one out.
Leave a Comment