Contrary to the opinion of many who postulate a doctrine of God, the fact that God grieves is not something that exposes weakness on the part of God and neither is it something that detracts at all from His glory, omnipotence, or absolute self-sufficiency. A grieving God may not be the God of the philosophers or many theologians, but it certainly is the God revealed by the voice of our guide. Some would even postulate that it is more comforting to believe in a God who always exerts absolute sovereignty to the degree that the free will of the beloved is compromised. As for me, I contest that it is far more comforting to believing in a God who grieves in spite of my abuse of the free will ‘He’ has bestowed on me as part of ‘His’ vow of unconditionally love for me, whether I remain faithful or forfeit my covenant with ‘Him’ for another lover. I find it far more moving to my soul and a sweeter melody to my ears to hear the voice of our guide revealing to us that our God has created us to be beloved who can only enter and remain in a covenantal relationship with ‘Him’ by an authentically free self-giving reciprocation of ‘His’ unconditional self-giving, which is a self-giving on the part of the Loving One that is potentially received by all, even though such a story involves the contingency that the beloved stubbornly continues in being hardhearted towards this unconditional gift of God. This is the absolute paradox I saw when I looked upon the cross with the eyes. It was the absurdity of a God who risks being grieved all for the sake of having an intimate relationship grounded in mutual self-giving that stirs within the soul the composition of loving adoration as I pour out my thanksgiving at the foot of the cross.
I find it sweeter and more moving than if I were to believe that I can never fall away from my covenant with God because of the absolute compulsivity irresistible grace that necessitates absolute perseverance on my part in ‘committing’ myself to the infinite-finite dialogue that is in actuality God ruling out the contingency that the gift is rejected in spite of ‘His’ desire and will for it to be received. If this were true reciprocal self-giving would in actuality be impossible which would render the dialectical circle of love not truly authentic to the love made manifest in scripture. The dialectical circle of love between God and the single individual only exists where the absolute paradox is presupposed, only then is the drawing of the beloved to the place of repentance is not merely a decree of the mind of God but a wooing of the heart of God. A marriage covenant build upon anything less ceases to be a covenant grounded upon mutual commitment that is authentically exchanged by a self-giving commitment to unconditional faithfulness that becomes a covenant based on love because it is built on the risk of unfaithfulness that comes with the possibility for departure from the koinonia of the marriage covenant. Therefore, the Koinonia of Agape presupposes the existence of such a risk when it involves a finite entity, who is himself or herself not essentially self-giving. Only with such an enigmatic equation of mutual self-giving inter-course does the infinite-finite dialogue take on its distinctive theme as essentially a love story, though such a theme of this is not build around a melody of sanctified ‘hedonism’ but rather a melody of self-emptying agape.
No one can come to God in self-giving unless they believe, and consequently this is why Jesus testified that “there are some of you who do not believe. Because of this I told you that no one can come to me unless such an occasion had been made available to him by the Father” (Jn. 6:64-65). Such a passage can seem to be a contradiction to our guide’s repeated testimony that it is God’s will for all to come to the Son in order to be reconciled to the God-relationship, especially since it is only in doing so that a person receives eternal life and does not perish. Therefore, this passage if its voice is to remain on pitch with the voices proclaimed elsewhere in our guide, it must be intending to reveal to us that the occasion for coming to the Son and being reconciled to the God-relationship is therefore dependent upon what prepares the beloved to receive the gift of faith and the grace necessary for reciprocating the self-giving of God that underlies the covenantal koinonia of the God-relationship. This is because we have heard our guide testify of the revelation that God does not coerce or force the beloved to have an occasion for coming by faith to receive the work of salvific and sanctifying grace, instead, God has predetermined that such an occasion be contingent upon the heart of the beloved, whether it will maintain or surrender its unrepentant, stubborn, hard, and prideful disposition. Such stubbornness prevents this occasion from being made available to the ‘beloved,’ so consequently it is not a matter of earning or doing something to receive salvific grace received by participation the God-relationship but rather a matter of letting go, of surrender, of humility, of prostration, of un-doing. The seed of faith that is the first marriage gift given by the Spirit as ‘He’ sheds love abroad in our heart by giving the beloved the Revelation of God being love (Jesus Christ) that in turn enables us to be truly loving as God is loving, can only germinate when the soil of the beloved’s heart has been prepared for the covenantal infinite-finite koinonia of Agape that is the God-relationship (Rm. 5:5; I Cor. 5:5; I Cor. 12:3).
In regards to the protest by many theologians and other intellectuals that if God is portrayed like a wounded lover, as one becoming grieved and distressed in response to the stubbornly unrepentant heart of the faithless ‘beloved,’ then this inevitably results in God being dishonored, as this scenario detracts from ‘His’ glory, such a logical misgiving is based on finite limitations of the human rationale as it attempts to explain away the absolute paradox and rid it of its absurdity. Such an attempt to apologetically vindicate by holding the depiction of God as a wounded lover as a misleading figurative illustration that has been taken too seriously to the point that those portraying a grieving and weeping God conceive of the infinite-finite dialogue and the God-relationship in such a way that infringes upon the majesty and glory of God’s sovereignty. Following this line of thinking some postulate that in reality God according to God’s good pleasure ‘He’ has decreed that such a stubbornly unrepentant person has been predestined for eternal destruction. Such a conviction seeks to magnify God’s absolute sovereignty over the oikonomia of finitude, even as it relates to ‘His’ most beloved creation, such that this conviction leads to the necessary belief that some are predestined for salvation and some are predestined for damnation, and that these results of the final destination of each individual is always pleasing to God, seeing as this outcome has unfolded exactly as what God has willed, desired, and decreed. Even though such convictions are God fearing errors that are held with good intentions that one would rightly be sympathetic to, they are rooted in misconceived presuppositions that have been imposed upon the voice of our guide, thereby changing its pitch at certain places in such a way that causes the composition of the self-disclosure of God to itself be off pitch. This is because such presuppositions are rooted in a misconception of who God is, what the glory of God is, and what it means to glorify God, such misconceptions have already been addressed to an extent and will continue to be addressed in the remainder of this detour, as well as throughout our journey as a whole.
According to the self-authenticating witness of our Guide, the grief of God evoked by the unfolding of the narrative of finitude is primarily prompted by the hardheartedness, stubbornness, and unfaithfulness of mankind. This act of grieving is shown to be a work of agape-love. According to the eyes of faith of the Psalmist this grieving on the part of God actually manifests the glory of God’s character by contextually proving that ‘He’ is love and ‘His’ loyal love remains absolutely faithful. This is because by the grieving heart of God in response to hard-heartedness on the part of mankind ‘His’ position as the Loving One is contextually revealed to be immutably fixed, even in the face of the beloved’s stubborn acts of unfaithful betrayal, prideful contempt, and blind hatred. Such scenes of a grieving God during the course of the Narrative of Finitude finitely reveals that God’s works of love are passionately, unconditionally, and immutably displayed towards ‘His’ most beloved creation all-throughout this narrative, even during the chapter of temporality that contains so much unfaithfulness and sedition on the part of God’s beloved.
Even unto the very conclusion of this chapter of temporality it will be firmly confirmed that God always remained unconditionally the Loving One in relation to each of those He created in His own image for the principal purpose of participating in an eternal covenantal relationship with. When this conclusion comes it will be contextually manifested that God’s rejoicing over the beloved’s presence at the wedding feast and His grieving over the beloved’s absence at the wedding feast manifests that He is Love and unconditionally the Loving One. This grief is in accordance with His immutable desire that not one individual perishes, even the individuals who ever remain unfaithful to Him (Ez. 18:23, 31; I Tim. 2:4; II Pt. 3:9). Glory is brought to God both when He is grieving and we He is rejoicing over the eternal fate of each of His most beloved creation, because both of these affectionate responses by God in this infinite-finite dialogue make manifest His character as one who is Agape, whose immutable desire to intimately commune with each of them is proven to have ever remained an unconditional reality. Both of these sentiments give contextual expression to the affectionate movements in the heart of God that equally bring glory to God as being ever true to who He is. This is because both of these seemingly diverse affectionate movements are united together by the singular movement of Agape-Phosnoumenos, and therefore the melody of God’s grief and the melody of God’s joy are a united composition manifesting that God was, is, and ever will be true to who He is, the Loving One, all-throughout His every engagement in the infinite-finite dialogue. God is unconditionally and absolutely the self-sacrificial Loving One with whom there is no iota of fickleness or partiality. Therefore, both seemingly contrasting melodies jointly prove that He is indeed one who ever remains one who is not merely loving in an attributive sense, but one who is Love (Agape) in an ontological sense.
No comments:
Post a Comment