I enjoyed reading this application of Kruger thought. I enjoyed it because I agreed with it's conclusions. The parenthetical remark concerning JudyT caused some concern, however.
John
In a message dated 7/23/2004 8:23:13 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Not offended in the least, Chris, just a bit slow. Thanks for the clarification -- it makes great sense now. The Trinitarian doctrine of God does not, as I see it, exclude from the Faith once delivered people as yourself who do not ascribe to it, not as long as you are not denying the full deity of Jesus in the process. The concern I have about your view of God is a relational one and not one that necessarily throws you out of Christian fellowship (and I hope that is not offensive to you either).
I once heard a sermon, the theme being "Everything God does, he does for himself." I would be glad to go into the details if you wish but that should not be necessary to make my point. When we as people do things only for ourselves, we think of it in terms of psychosis, a unhealthy self-preoccupation: selfish, self-centered, self-serving, egotistical, the list is long. We are not whole and complete and healthy unless we are other-centered in our thoughts and service. In other words, Christians believe we (humans) must be relational in our activities or we cannot love God with all our being and our neighbors as ourselves.
When we say that everything God does he does for himself, we must interject into that statement some sort of relational element within the Godhead or, it seems to me, we have projected onto God what we consider sick about ourselves; either that, or we have no basis to think poorly of those around us who do live for and love only themselves. Having been created in the image of God, they are the healthy ones. We call the excessive love and admiration of oneself narcissism and hardly think of it as a godly attribute. How wrong we are! It is we who sadly suffer low self-esteem. The empathy we feel for others is but a symptom of our own deep psychosis.
I know you have never thought of it in these terms (or at least I suspect you have not). But it seems to me we cannot call God a relational being unless he is relational within the properties of his own being (I would say essence but Judy wouldn't understand). If he is one in terms of a singularity instead of unity (as I understand the Hebrew to mean) then he had to create in order to relate; for with whom was there to relate when all there was was God? Yet we are taught in Scripture that God's desire is for relationship with us.
On the other hand, the heart of God, as I see it, is the other-centered love the Father has for the Son and the Son for the Father both in and through the Holy Spirit. The early church called this relationship perichoresis, likening the give and take between the Three to a dance. Here we have a God whose heart it is to share his love with others and to bring his creation into that dance. This does not change the nature of God or make him dependant upon his creation; for he is relational in his own essence (I know, I know, but I just couldn't help myself) and the nature of love, being healthy, is always and still other-preoccupied.
Anyway, I didn't mean to ramble, but thought you may be interested in any thoughts sparked by your comments.
Blessings,
Bill
