A love story
There’s just so much that needs saying, but I don’t want to a 100-part series on the Trinity. So this will be altogether too short, but it should be enough to introduce the hero of the story, the protagonist: God in three persons.
Now, it’s critically important that we understand that God is the hero, and not us. We want to read the Bible as all about us and our fight to overcome obstacles and solve riddles to eventually win the battle against Satan and so gain the prize: heaven. But that’s not really the story. The real story is about God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. God is the hero.
We humans are like the damsel in distress whom the hero is valiantly trying to rescue. It’s not that she does nothing, but that she is helpless without the hero’s intervention — otherwise, there’d be no story!
Now, our hero has some huge advantages — omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence — all the omni- words we had to invent just to describe him! Our hero is a superhero!
Superheroes, however, are boring unless they have an opponent that challenges their super-powers. Superman has kryptonite. Spiderman has Dr. Octopus. God has us, ordinary people. God could crush us like bugs, of course, but his challenge isn’t to defeat us but to win us.
You see, the Story is a love story, and so our part is more like Lois Lane and Mary Jane Watson (the love interests of Superman and Spiderman) rather than kryptonite and Dr. Octopus. And as all comic book readers know, winning the girl is always harder than defeating the bad guys. God can beat Satan one-on-one, but can God win our hearts?
And our problem is that we don’t want to be wooed. We don’t want to fall in love with the Hero. And even superheroes with omni-powers can’t make someone fall in love with them.
Indeed, it’s standard fairytale fare to say that magic can’t make someone fall in love with the hero, and that’s not just a plot device. The reality is that love isn’t love if it’s not freely chosen. It’s definition. Love that is coerced is not love. It’s what bad guys do — and it never works for them — because that’s the nature of the human heart. All the story tellers know it, and it’s true — even if philosophers and professors (and some theologians) are too far removed from the human condition to understand.
Trinity
Now, our hero is not like other heroes. God is both three and one. God has singularity and plurality. And this makes for some surprising plot points. You see, God exists and has always existed in community. Therefore, God did not create man because he was lonely. God cannot be alone.
And there’s neither space nor, on my part, interest is asking questions God hasn’t bothered to answer. Rather, to truly grasp the Story itself, we need to see what God says about himself/themselves at the very beginning.
(Gen 1:1-2 ESV) In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
God is revealed at the beginning of the Story as a person with will. God created because God chose to create. God thus has a personality with certain characteristics. And the first part of his character to be revealed is his creativity — which the reader should note is also a human characteristic. In some sense, our omni-hero is like us, but better.
We next read that the “Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters” — and this is a very mysterious thing to say. It does suggest that God is more complex than the three-lettered word indicates. God has a Spirit that is somehow not identical with God. His plural nature is hinted at at the very beginning.
(Gen 1:3-4 ESV) 3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness.
“The light was good” tells us that God is purposeful, and his purposes are good.
(Gen 1:26-27 ESV) 26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
Days later, God creates man — and for the first time in scripture, God is referred to in the plural: “let us.” Why is the plural nature of God relevant here? Because man is to be made in God’s image — and that means, among other things, being made as a plural being. And so, “male and female he created them.”
Moreover, God gave man “dominion” over the rest of his creation. “Dominion” translates radah, meaning “to rule.” It’s a word used of kings’ rule over their kingdoms. In effect, God made mankind kings over the creation.
This is another aspect of being in the image of God — who is king over all. He made mankind plural and gave them kingship over the earth.
(Gen 1:28 ESV) 28 And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
God commanded mankind to be fruitful, that is, to have children. This is a part of mankind’s creative nature, taken from the image of God. Man creates life. The process differs, but like God, in love, man is truest to his plural nature when the two become one and yet still two — and man creates by making new life in the image of God.
I’ll bet you never thought of sex as Godlike, but it is. Indeed, sex for the purpose of having children is a re-enactment of Genesis 1.
Hi Jay,
As Ronald Reagan was fond of saying “There you go again.”
Please allow me a brief but hopefully substantial comment on your characterization of our choosing to love God.
In your post you said the following: “Indeed, it’s standard fairytale fare to say that magic can’t make someone fall in love with the hero, and that’s not just a plot device. The reality is that love isn’t love if it’s not freely chosen. It’s definition. Love that is coerced is not love. It’s what bad guys do — and it never works for them — because that’s the nature of the human heart. All the story tellers know it, and it’s true — even if philosophers and professors (and some theologians) are too far removed from the human condition to understand.”
I suspect that you had freewill and Calvinism in mind (at least partially) when you wrote that paragraph. I feel that it is mis-characterization of Calvinism, at least the Calvinism I hold to. I don’t claim to speak for all Calvinists that ever lived, nor even those alive today. I am sure you don’t claim to speak for everyone in the CofC nor even your home congregation. But let me continue anyway. If nothing else it may help you or a reader of your blog understand how at least one Calvinist understands Calvinism, or the sovereignty of God when it comes to our choice to love Him.
When I attended college there were many young women on campus. I knew some and not others. I had different types of relationships with different women. Eventually I set my heart upon one of them, and did it long before she set her heart upon me. I wooed her and I did so successfully. (Being merely human I could have failed in my objective. Had I been God and omni-everything I could not have failed.)
As a result of my wooing this young lady she yes she would marry me when I asked. She willingly made the choice to forsake all others and love me. It was her choice. I did not make it for her but it was the end that I desired and we have now been married 40 years.
I believe that God wooed me (and her and others) and he did it successfully. He could not have been thwarted or frustrated in this endeavor. He regenerated us and gave us faith. He drew us unto himself. But my faith is MY faith. My love for God is MY love for God. It was not coerced or forced upon me. I was not brought kicking and screaming against my will into the family of God. He made me willing.
I am certain that when people talk about freewill and making a free choice they means different things, depending on who is doing the talking. I suspect everyone would acknowledge there is a limit upon what they can accomplish by willing it. I do not personally know even one Calvinist that would say his love of God was coerced or not freely given.
Hesed,
Randall
Hi Jay,
As Ronald Reagan was fond of saying "There you go again."
Please allow me a brief but hopefully substantial comment on your characterization of our choosing to love God.
In your post you said the following: "Indeed, it’s standard fairytale fare to say that magic can’t make someone fall in love with the hero, and that’s not just a plot device. The reality is that love isn’t love if it’s not freely chosen. It’s definition. Love that is coerced is not love. It’s what bad guys do — and it never works for them — because that’s the nature of the human heart. All the story tellers know it, and it’s true — even if philosophers and professors (and some theologians) are too far removed from the human condition to understand."
I suspect that you had freewill and Calvinism in mind (at least partially) when you wrote that paragraph. I feel that it is mis-characterization of Calvinism, at least the Calvinism I hold to. I don't claim to speak for all Calvinists that ever lived, nor even those alive today. I am sure you don't claim to speak for everyone in the CofC nor even your home congregation. But let me continue anyway. If nothing else it may help you or a reader of your blog understand how at least one Calvinist understands Calvinism, or the sovereignty of God when it comes to our choice to love Him.
When I attended college there were many young women on campus. I knew some and not others. I had different types of relationships with different women. Eventually I set my heart upon one of them, and did it long before she set her heart upon me. I wooed her and I did so successfully. (Being merely human I could have failed in my objective. Had I been God and omni-everything I could not have failed.)
As a result of my wooing this young lady she yes she would marry me when I asked. She willingly made the choice to forsake all others and love me. It was her choice. I did not make it for her but it was the end that I desired and we have now been married 40 years.
I believe that God wooed me (and her and others) and he did it successfully. He could not have been thwarted or frustrated in this endeavor. He regenerated us and gave us faith. He drew us unto himself. But my faith is MY faith. My love for God is MY love for God. It was not coerced or forced upon me. I was not brought kicking and screaming against my will into the family of God. He made me willing.
I am certain that when people talk about freewill and making a free choice they means different things, depending on who is doing the talking. I suspect everyone would acknowledge there is a limit upon what they can accomplish by willing it. I do not personally know even one Calvinist that would say his love of God was coerced or not freely given.
Hesed,
Randall
Both the need for love and the ability to choose to love dwell within the same human soul. That God is love, that love is the greatest of all things, shows itself in the most obvious way; that of parent and child. Thus, the trinity; parent, child, loving inner guide.
The child's need for love is unmistakable. But most of us have to confess that at times, usually in our teens, we went looking for love elsewhere. It was when we found ourselves at a crossroads that we knew a choice had to be made; to either keep selling ourselves to others for promises, or to rest ourselves within the love that was there all along.
The same is true in regard to God's love. Paul said that what can be known about God is plain, because God has shown it, and when we look around us we see first, always first, the love of parent and child. Yes, indeed, we often get swept off our feet by the fairy tale from another voice; the passion, the poety and the song of the human heart makes that a common occurance. But when the voices fade, as they always do, the voice of the one who lives in us, the voice we hear in all of creation, says "I'm still here".
Where's Laymond? This post has been up for hours! I hope he's okay.
Like a father to his children explaining things way beyond their understanding and imagination God had to put the creation and universe in terms we could understand.
To think we, here on earth, are all there is and ever was created by God is to me being very egotistical.
Can you imagine man as we know him ruling all creation with the mess we make here on this small planet?
No wonder at one time written, God grieved that he made man.
On the other hand, the more man messes up, the more God has to forgive and we of all people know how God loves to forgive. The stories we teach our children give more of an insight into God than all our debates, about trivial matters through the ages.
Randall,
Actually, I wasn't thinking of Calvinism or any other -ism. I was just trying to exegete the text. And the point is that man's love for God has to be wooed, not forced.
The reason this is important in this part of the Story is it explains God's motivation. He's God — why not just MAKE everyone love him? Why pursue man in such an inefficient manner? I mean, it took God THOUSANDS of years to finally get to Jesus — and he could have wired mankind to love him from birth.
If that's consistent with Calvinism, good. You'll notice that I generally only discuss Calvinism when asked about — or goaded into — the topic. Lately, I've tried to discipline myself to read the text through First Century (and earlier) eyes, the best I can and so avoid the temptation to argue from the perspective of 16th Century theology.
That's not to dismiss the validity of those questions — just to say I'm not presently interested in pursuing them myself.
Understanding God's desire to woo mankind immediately takes us far away from 20th Century Church of Christ exegesis — which focuses on the fear of a God who makes it intentionally difficult to be saved — so hard that nearly all believers will be damned for having failed to read the silences correctly. (And many other denominations make this same mistake — including some Calvinist fellowships who damn all who don't believe the right version of Calvinism.)
You see, good exegesis starts with knowing who God is. And he is a lover seeking to win the hearts of mankind so that he can complete what he began at the beginning — making mankind in his image and likeness so they can rule the world with him. And for that to happen, man — like God — must voluntarily choose to love and pursue the love of others.
Keith, you were close to being right, I was so shaken by this version (which I haven't heard before) that I couldn't make up my mind as how to comment about it.
"Days later, God creates man — and for the first time in scripture, God is referred to in the plural: “let us.” Why is the plural nature of God relevant here? Because man is to be made in God’s image — and that means, among other things, being made as a plural being. And so, “male and female he created them.” "
(does that mean that all animals are plural beings)
"and for the first time in scripture, God is referred to in the plural: “let us.” "
A Psalm of David.
Psa 8:4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?
Psa 8:5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.
Psa 8:6 Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all [things] under his feet:
It seems right to me, that David thought that "the angels" were made before man, and man was made a little lower. Could it be that God was speaking to— well I don't know for sure , but it could be.
I don't think he was talking to himself.
Hi Jay,
I took the part about "some theologians" who believe God coerces love to be a reference to Calvinism. I wonder what theologians are accused of believing God coerces love? I apologize and hope you will forgive my mistake in thinking that might have been a mis-characterization of Calvinism.
Hesed,
Randall
Randall,
Many preachers preach a gospel of fear, demanding that their members love God on threat of eternal torture. The idea that God is a lover in pursuit of us is foreign to many.
The theology in which I grew up was all about fear that we might miss a rule that God had hidden somewhere in the silences. We said God loved us, but we preached a God trying to trick us by hiding commands necessary for salvation in silences.
As a result, 98% of all devout believers were damned because they hadn't found the "truth" — just Jesus. And even among our own "Lord's church," most were damned for their error.
We didn't feel loved. We felt damned but thought perhaps, maybe, if we got lucky, God would save us.
As a "comic enthusiast" (which sounds more grown-up than "funny book reader"), I'm more interested in the implications of the comic book parallel.
Everybody that recognizes the S-shield is probably familiar with the "broad strokes" story of Superman and Lois Lane. But to put a finer point on it, Lois spent YEARS chasing after Superman. She even had her own comic for a time that seemed to contain a new scheme each month to trick Superman into marrying her. Of course, Superman would have nothing to do with it, but for the first 50 years or so, the damsel was clearly trying to woo the hero, not the other way around.
Clark Kent, on the other hand, was completely smitten by Lois. Of course, readers know that Clark and Superman are one and the same, but Lois never deemed him worthy of her attention — even to the point of occasionally treating him with contempt! She failed to see the Super in the Man.
That changed in the 90s. Clark's persistence finally paid off, and he and Lois started dating. He proposed, she accepted, and after nearly 60 years, he revealed his secret identity to her. She received the Super when she accepted the Man.
We see this sometimes in the church, too. People focus so intently on the "God Experience" that they don't see God standing right there in front of them.
It has been said that Clark Kent is how Superman sees humanity. Weak, timid, ineffectual sacks of flesh in constant need of rescue. I would argue that Clark Kent reflects the best that humanity has to offer — generosity, loyalty, compassion — and that his "civilian" identity is a tribute to humanity rather than a condemnation of it. Superman doesn't demand to be loved for what he does, he does it because 1) he's the only one that can and 2) it's who his father taught him to be.
Jesus — an aspect of God — took on human flesh. He could have come as a powerful ruler, demanding loyalty from his subjects, but he didn't. He chose parents that exemplified the "human condition" — not as something to be overcome, but as something to embrace. Jesus is how God sees us. Not for what we are, necessarily, but for what we can choose to be. It's almost like God is showing us the blueprint and telling us not to look so hard at the mystical that we miss the man.
If Superman is a Christ metaphor, then Spider-Man is a metaphor for Christianity. In the Superman comics, Clark Kent is the mask that Superman uses to walk among the people that he has dedicated his life to serve. In Spider-Man comics, Peter Parker was just a weak, nerdy kid until he got bitten by a radioactive spider and received fantastic powers. Peter Parker, otherwise completely human, misused his Spider-Man persona and his uncle died for his mistake. From that point forward, his life would be defined by something his uncle told him, "With great power comes great responsibility." He was running around in a garish red-and-blue costume — it was obvious that he was different — but he chose to look the other way as a criminal ran past, taking the stance that it wasn't his problem to deal with. That criminal later broke into his house and killed his uncle.
Christians, even well meaning ones, often do the same thing. We drive our fancy cars with our shiny fish emblems on the back to our fancy church buildings, driving past stranded motorists or homeless people looking for a handout because they don't yet know how to look for a hand up. "Sorry, I'd love to stop and help," they might say, "but I fell asleep taking a nice warm bath this morning and I'm running late for church!" I'm not saying that a stranded motorist or homeless person will kill your uncle as a result of your behavior, but how damaging is that attitude to Christianity? Spider-Man knows that no amount of good deeds can undo the mistakes he has made, but that doesn't stop him from trying to help people — trying to do what's right — even though he's often hated or reviled.
Since this isn't "Jay's Comix Corner", I'll stop here. But if anyone is interested in the Fantastic Four's ties to Jewish mysticism or the implications of Green Lantern's oath with respect to "walking in the light", look me up. I love talking about this stuff…
Posted on March 11, 2011 by Jay Guin
Jay said, “The real story is about God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. God is the hero.”
(Gen 1:1-2 ESV) In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
Jay writes, “We next read that the “Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters” — and this is a very mysterious thing to say. It does suggest that God is more complex than the three-lettered word indicates. God has a Spirit that is somehow not identical with God. His plural nature is hinted at at the very beginning.”
So right off the bat, Jay proves that God cannot be a single god.
He has to be at least two. a person and a spirit.
Jay writes “Days later, God creates man — and for the first time in scripture, God is referred to in the plural: “let us.” Why is the plural nature of God relevant here? Because man is to be made in God’s image — and that means, among other things, being made as a plural being. And so, “male and female he created them.”
So is Jay saying the “holy ghost” is female. could it be?
“Christians, even well meaning ones, often do the same thing. We drive our fancy cars with our shiny fish emblems on the back to our fancy church buildings, driving past stranded motorists or homeless people looking for a handout because they don’t yet know how to look for a hand up. “Sorry, I’d love to stop and help,” they might say, “but I fell asleep taking a nice warm bath this morning and I’m running late for church!” I’m not saying that a stranded motorist or homeless person will kill your uncle as a result of your behavior, but how damaging is that attitude to Christianity?”
Good point, Jay. But, having some experience helping others in need, I would say on the other hand that a certain amount of discretion should be used. I get the impression from the gospels that Jesus was always sizing people up who asked for His help. I have tried to help some homeless people asking for money only to find they didn’t really want my help. I never give them money, because many of them are alcoholics and will often spend whatever money you give them on wine or beer. Instead, I offer to go with them somewhere and buy them a meal (because they are usually hungry and food is what they need). Such an offer has been turned down more than once.
Then you have to be prepared in advance to help them with their spiritual need for God – you know, have a tract of something the can read and provide them with directions to a shelter that might be able to help them (or, if you are rich, start your own shelter).
And finally, we shouldn’t be naive: many of the people you will try to help are hardened in their hearts. I remember once, when I was a young Christian living with some brothers, I invited a homeless man home on a brutally cold night. Three of us spent over 30 minutes trying to persuade him to take a shower. We fed him and set him up to sleep on one of our couches. As he was going to sleep, I heard him say “Damn. I’ve never had it this good.” But the next day, after the other guys had gone to work (I worked the second shift) and while I was making him breakfast, he started accusing me of being lazy for not working and being obnoxiously critical of me. I couldn’t believe it. So, I offered to drop him off where he wanted and that was the end of that. I didn’t think I had the wisdom or resources to help him more.
Cristopher, I never got the impression Jesus was sizing up people for their help. Jesus considered all around him as sinners in need, thus they were relatively in the same ocean drowning. Jesus helped 10 lepers and only one came back and thanked Jesus. He could have denied the nine of his help as he probably knew they were going to be ungrateful, but he didn’t. Jesus gave himself for the world “while we still in our sins.”
It is possible that the help we give today, even though not realized or accepted well, will gain some ground in the future. We plant seeds, not plants. And we are supposed to give, whether we get anything back or not.
But I also realize that if the person will not help themselves, then we should divert our attention to those that will. We are to be productive and good stewards and not keep trying to seed ground that will not accept it.
“But I also realize that if the person will not help themselves, then we should divert our attention to those that will. We are to be productive and good stewards and not keep trying to seed ground that will not accept it.”
Dwight,
I think that was the main point – more succinctly put – I was trying to make. Well said. Unlike Jesus, unfortunately, we do not have unlimted resources (in terms of the power to heal, feed and counsel the needy). So we need to be circumspect. But I do think Jesus was always sizing people up – asking them questions, gauging their responses (like that of the Phonecian woman with a demon possessed daughter), prompting exchanges to see where they led (like with the woman at the well living with a man) and do on. Look at what John the Baptist said to some who came to be baptized by him, calling them vipers. Yet I agree that Jesus gave unconditionally to people whenever He gave.
Laymond,
The Holy Spirit is feminine in Hebrew. Neuter in Greek, although the NT occasionally breaks the rules of grammar to use a masculine pronoun for the Spirit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_of_the_Holy_Spirit
Make of that what you will.