Finding the God who is Love
|
by Fr Alvin Kimel The love of God for human beings is unconditional. This fundamental truth of the gospel bears repeating. It bears repeating because we Christians, clergy and laity, seem to forget it so easily. Yes, we know all the words--"God is love," "Christ died for the ungodly," "This is my body which will be given up for you," "Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed"--and we can recite from heart the parables of the prodigal son, the shepherd and the lost sheep, the woman and the lost coin, as well as the story of Jesus and the woman caught in adultery--yet for whatever reasons we seem to prefer a different narrative. This narrative goes something like this: God is angry with us, and he's been angry with us since the day we were born. But if we repent of our sins, he will change his mind, forgive us, and give us eternal life, as long as we continue to believe in him and avoid mortal sins. But we need to be careful, because if we trip up, God will turn on us at a moment's notice. Catholics and Protestants tell different versions of the story (Catholics will insert the sacraments of baptism and penance, and Protestants will downplay mortal sin and emphasize faith), but the essential narrative remains constant: God is a God of conditional love. If we fulfill the conditions he specifies, he will be to us loving and merciful; if we do not, he will be to us wrathful and punishing. God is Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. Which one we meet depends on our performance. And so I repeat the fundamental truth of the gospel: the love of God for human beings is unconditional. God does not love us because of anything we have done. He does not love us because we are virtuous or obedient or kind, nor does he cease to love us when we fail to love as we should or when we disobey his commandments. He does not cease to love us even when we commit evil. God's love for us is unconditional, unmerited, unqualified, unreserved, absolute, immutable. We cannot earn it, no matter how hard we try; we cannot lose it, no matter how hard we try. God does not change his mind. He is eternally and hopelessly in love with the creatures he made in his image. The Dominican theologian, Fr Herbert McCabe, rejoiced in the unconditional love of God and loved to preach and write on it. "It is very odd," McCabe writes, "that people should think that when we do good God will reward us and when we do evil he will punish us. I mean it is very odd that Christians should think this, that God deals out to us what we deserve. ... I don't believe in God if that's what he is, and it is very odd that any Christian should, since there is so much in the gospels to tell us differently. You could say that the main theme of the preaching of Jesus is that God isn't like that at all" (God, Christ and Us, p. 11). Look at the parable of the prodigal son. The younger son takes his inheritance and squanders it in a far country. Eventually he finds himself impoverished and hungry. In despair he acknowledges how his sin has altered his relationship to his father: "I am no longer worthy to be called your son; treat me as one of your hired servants." But what precisely has changed? Has the father ceased to love his son? Has he become the angry patriarch the son now fears him to be? On the contrary, the father has been waiting for his son to return, and upon seeing him in the distance, he jubilantly rushes to greet and welcome him home. No, what has changed is the son. Because of his sin, the prodigal is no longer capable of seeing the father as he really is. As McCabe explains: "Sin is something that changes God into a projection of our guilt, so that we don't see the real God at all; all we see is some kind of judge. God (the whole meaning and purpose and point of our existence) has become a condemnation of us. God has been turned into Satan, the accuser of man, the paymaster, the one who weighs our deeds and condemns us" (Faith Within Reason, pp. 155-156). The father does not need to be persuaded to forgive and welcome his son. He does not need to change his mind. He loves his son. That is his truth. All the son needs to do is to see his sin for what it is. He recognizes himself as a sinner, and at that moment he ceases to be one. His contrition is forgiveness. All the rest is celebration and feasting: "This is all the real God ever does, because God, the real God, is just helplessly and hopelessly in love with us. He is unconditionally in love with us" ( p. 156). God doesn't change his mind about us, McCabe declares; God changes our mind about him--again and again and again. McCabe is direct and pointed: His love for us doesn't depend on what we do or what we are like. He doesn't care whether we are sinners or not. It makes no difference to him. He is just waiting to welcome us with joy and love. Sin doesn't alter God's attitude to us; it alters our attitude to him, so that we change him from the God who is simply love and nothing else, into this punitive ogre, this Satan. Sin matters enormously to us if we are sinners; it doesn't matter at all to God. In a fairly literal sense he doesn't give a damn about our sin. It is we who give the damns. We damn ourselves because we would rather justify ourselves, than be taken out of ourselves by the infinite love of God. (p. 157)I was a tad shocked when I first read these words. How can our sin not make a difference to God? If we could ask Fr Herbert this question, I think he would remind us precisely who and what God is. God is not a being within the universe; he is not a part of the world. He is the infinite mystery who utterly transcends the world he has made. The world makes no literal difference to God. This is what we mean when we say that God created the world ex nihilo, out of nothing. He did not have to create the universe, and if he had chosen not to, his glory and being would not have been diminished one whit. God plus the world is not greater than God alone. The world does not add anything to God; it does not change or affect God. Ultimately it does not make a difference to God. God is God, in infinite glory, majesty, and love. Robert Sokolowski describes this as the "Christian distinction": In the distinctions that occur normally within the setting of the world, each term distinguished is what it is precisely by not being that which it is distinguishable from. Its being is established partially by its otherness, and therefore its being depends on its distinction from others. But in the Christian distinction God is understood as "being" God entirely apart from any relation of otherness to the world or to the whole. God could and would be God even if there were no world. Thus the Christian distinction is appreciated as a distinction that did not have to be, even though it in fact is. The most fundamental thing we come to in Christianity, the distinction between the world and God, is appreciated as not being the most fundamental thing after all, because one of the terms of the distinction, God, is more fundamental than the distinction itself. (The God of Faith and Reason, pp. 32-33).Pagan philosophers did not and could not envision deity as utterly transcendent of a radically contingent creation. The creatio ex nihilo was incomprehensible to them. This understanding was forced upon the Church by divine revelation. Once we understand the Christian distinction between God and the world, we are then positioned to discern the limitations and anthropomorphism of the stories we tell about God and his people. Stories we must tell if we are to proclaim the gospel, for God presents himself to us by story, as story; yet the metaphorical nature of these stories must be recognized, if the Christian distinction is to be respected. Christians proclaim the forgiveness of God; but what precisely do we mean when we say that God forgives us? In human relations we forgive someone who has offended us. Offense is something deeper than injury. If someone injures us accidentally, we may deserve compensation but we do not require an apology. But if someone offends us, if someone attacks and harms us, then apology, and perhaps much much more than apology, is needed. Only forgiveness will suffice, if both parties are to be healed and relationship restored. It is necessary for the offender to abase himself and offer atonement; it is necessary for the offended to surrender his right to vengeance and to forgive. Only thus can both offender and offended be healed and recreated. The language of offense, atonement, and forgiveness has been rightly transferred to the relations between God and man. "O my God, I am heartily sorry for having offended Thee, and I detest all my sins, because I dread the loss of heaven, and the pains of hell; but most of all because they offend Thee, my God, Who are all good and deserving of all my love"--so begins a traditional form of the act of contrition. It is important for us to speak words like this to God; but it is also important to recognize the figurative nature of this language. McCabe elaborates: God, of course, is not injured or insulted or threatened by our sin. So, when we speak of him forgiving, we are using the word "forgiving" in a rather stretched way, a rather far-fetched way. We speak of God forgiving not because he is really offended but accepts our apology or agrees to overlook the insult. What God is doing is like forgiveness not because of anything that happens in God, but because of what happens in us, because of the re-creative and redemptive side of forgiveness. All the insult and injury we do in sinning is to ourselves alone, not to God. We speak of God forgiving us because he comes to us to save us from ourselves, to restore us after we have injured ourselves, to redeem and re-create us.The language of faith is filled with conflicting images of God--the image of the wrathful God who hates our sin, who requires propitiation and appeasement; the image of the God who endures our sins, who is long-suffering and abounding in mercy; the God who punishes the wicked, the God who forgives the penitent. These conflicting images are helpful, necessary, and unavoidable. But it is also necessary, says McCabe, for us to think clearly: The initiative is always with God. When God forgives our sin, he is not changing his mind about us; he is changing our mind about him. He does not change; his mind is never anything but loving; he is love. The forgiveness of God is God's creative and re-creative love making the desert bloom again, bringing us back from dry sterility to the rich luxuriant life bursting out all over the place. When God changes your mind in this way, when he pours out on you his Spirit of new life, it is exhilarating, but it is also fairly painful. There is a trauma of rebirth as perhaps there is of birth. The exhilaration and the pain that belong to being reborn is what we call contrition, and this is the forgiveness of sin. Contrition is not anxious guilt about sin; it is the continual recognition in hope that the Spirit has come to me as healing my sin.The God of the gospel is not the Jekyll and Hyde of our nightmares. He is not a God we need to appease. He is not a God we need to persuade to forgive. He is not a God who puts conditions on his mercy and care. He is, rather, the God who comes to us in love, only in love, relentlessly and passionately in love. |

























Comments on "Finding the God who is Love"
-
Anonymous said ... (17 January 2008 14:25) :
-
Anonymous said ... (17 January 2008 14:41) :
-
Anonymous said ... (17 January 2008 17:09) :
-
driver8 said ... (18 January 2008 00:21) :
-
Alice C. Linsley said ... (18 January 2008 01:32) :
-
Anonymous said ... (18 January 2008 17:27) :
-
Anonymous said ... (19 January 2008 16:20) :
-
The Inquisitor said ... (19 January 2008 21:08) :
-
Fr. Glenn said ... (19 January 2008 21:21) :
-
The Inquisitor said ... (19 January 2008 21:39) :
-
Pontificator said ... (19 January 2008 23:20) :
-
Pontificator said ... (19 January 2008 23:54) :
-
Pontificator said ... (20 January 2008 00:09) :
-
Fr. Glenn said ... (20 January 2008 00:20) :
-
Alexander R Pruss said ... (05 March 2008 21:53) :
-
Pontificator said ... (05 March 2008 23:30) :
post a commentFr. Kimel:
Evangelicals do not "downplay" mortal sin. Very simply, we believe that every sin is mortal apart from the saving grace and mercy of God in Jesus Christ.
Second. To uphold the concept of God's wrath toward sin and sinners is not to suggest a Jekyl and Hyde sort of character. God is eternally wrathful toward sin. His just anger toward sinners does not change. Moreover his perfect love for righteousness is also an eternal constant. Thus, if your life is one characterised by your adamic nature, a life of rebellion you will recieve the wrath of God despite his love for you as his creature.
If you are found in Christ, covered by his righteousness, then, in and through Christ you are a recipient of the benefits that flow to those who do what is right and, by grace, you recieve the forgiveness of sins and the Holy Spirit...all those blessings that come through him.
In either case, God has been consistent. His charater has not changed. What changes is our position relative to his wrath at sin and pleasure in his Son.
Matt Kennedy
This speaks to me in relation to what I read in St. Francis de Sales' "Treatise on the Love of God Last" last night with regard to resignation to God's will versus holy indifference to God's will. Resignation implies preferring God's will over one's own. Indifference goes one step beyond by being so totally in love with God's will that one has no preference of their own. A person who is indifferent in this way has a love of God that makes sin, forgiveness and guilt meaningless.
Off the subject... do you plan on taking advantage of the Popes get out of purgatory free offer?
http://www.cathnews.com/news/801/30.php
My first reaction:
It's one thing to say the language of Scripture is metaphorical. It is another to say that it is untrue. McCabe moves deftly from literal truth to metaphorical truth to literal error. It is thought provoking and I think questionable.
How lovely to read something written by the Pontificator, Father Kimel.
God's unconditional love is tied to God's transendence and immutable nature. If "God is love: as the Scriptures teach, then God's love, like God's nature, is transcendent and immutable. I have no problem with that.
The implications are huge for Christology! Jesus said, "He who sees me, see the Father." When we see Jesus, we will recognize Him by this love that characterizes only the Personality of the Godhead. Until we encounter Jesus, this love is only an idea.
One of my theology professors at Gordon-Conwell (and also JI Packer & John Stott, so the idea has been around for a while) said that God’s justice and wrath are a part of his love. If a sinner clings to his sin, he experiences, at the last, the wrath of God—God’s hatred of all that sullies his creation and impugns his character. If a sinner repents and clings to Christ as the perfect offering for his sins, then the sinner is credited with all the righteousness of Christ—and over time is transformed into one who is righteous. One of the glories of heaven is that we shall not be able to sin.
One of the most important and least talked about elements of the argument between reasserters and reappraisers is the nature of sin itself. In popular views, even in Evangelical circles, sin is often viewed as being a breach of God’s law. God’s law is holy and just. Reappraisers often see sin in much the same way, except most reappraisers see “God’s law” as an arbitrary list, made up as much by fallible human beings as by God himself. Viewing sin simply as a violation of God’s law (some of which we may, for any number of reasons, regard as silly or stupid) is what leads to a view of God as temperamental, even cranky.
But sin, at its heart, is not simply a violation of God’s standards. Sin begins as an attitude toward God, an attitude that God does not truly love us, because things are not the way we want them to be. If God were truly intelligent and caring, we think, then he would do things the way we think are best. Acts of sin come when we put that attitude into action – we take what is not ours because it should be ours in a perfect world, we allow someone to be injured because it is too much of a drain on our time or effort to do something about the situation, we engage in sexual activity without regard to marriage because sex ought to be about our feeling good, etc., etc. When we believe that we know better than God, we do what God forbids and fail to do what God commands because, deep down, we do not believe that he is worthy to be God. My sinful heart says, “If all were properly arranged, then I would be god.”
Such an attitude is utterly foolish when stated so baldly, but that attitude is what lies at the heart of sin, and it is what makes sin so dreadful. Left to ourselves, we want to take God’s place. It is no wonder that when billions of people have this as their primary attitude that we fight, scramble for power, dissemble, steal, gorge ourselves on food, possessions, or sensuality, enslave one another, malign each other, fear one another, and all the rest – for we are in competition with one another for the role of god.
The natural consequence of such an attitude is that we are rejected by God. We want to be in charge, and he lets us go to where we might be “in charge,” to hell. There, separated from the One for whom we were created, we would continue to bite and devour one another, and we recognize (by our loss of God) that we were made for God, and we would, if we got what our rebellion deserves, spend an eternity of mingled defiance and regret.
God rescues us from this madness when he sends us repentance and faith, so that we turn to him, acknowledge that he alone is God, and that we have offended both his person and his office in our striving to take on his role in the universe. As Father, God is delighted to have us recognize that we are his children, not his replacements, and as Ruler, God’s divine justice is satisfied, not by our misery, but by Christ enduring the rejection that our rebellion deserves. We come home, and we are accepted as a child of God, because we now delight that God is God and we know his wisdom as he gives us his commands.
If sins are but acts of commission or omission, then God can seem arbitrary or capricious in the commands he gives and the judgment he renders. But if sin, at its heart, is an attitude of rebellion, then God’s punishment makes sense, and the death of Jesus on the Cross makes sense as both God’s judgment and God’s love.
Pontificator,
This is really great.
I just have a few questions. Is Herbert McCabe able to explain hell? Is he a universalist? It seems that he is right in saying that whatever is good in us--our contrition, for instance--is a result of God's love, not a cause. That makes perfect sense. But isn't the implication that those who are not contrite have not been touched in the same way by God's love? If so, doesn't God seem to love people differently? If not, does the response to God's love determine the result?
Yup, I was pondering the same question too. How would McCabe explain Hell then? Does God still love those who are eternally damned, forever pining for their repentance, but yet never able to fulfill the object of His love? Imagine that in the Parable of the Prodigal Son that instead of the son returning in repentance, he never returns at all. What would we think of the father of the prodigal son? Would he not appear to be a tragic figure? Is it the same for God? Is Hell a tragedy which even God's love cannot overcome?
It seems to me that Mccabe exchanges the efficacy of God's love for its unconditionality. As a Presbyterian, I naturally do think that God's love is efficacious, those whom God loves, He predestines, and they will persevere to the end because God lovingly continues to preserve them in the faith, regardless of their many sins, faults, slips and falls in life. God's love for the elect that they might love Him and know Him cannot fail to be realized, because God's love is also omnipotent, and will surely overcome all odds, even the rebellion and sin of man.
Of course, under this understanding, God's love would be "conditional", in the sense that it is "conditioned" on God's election and Sovereign Will to save those whom He pleases. But then again, this form of sovereign election is not inconsistent with certain schools of catholic theology, i.e. the Thomists who affirms unconditional election against the molinist.
Do you honesty think that the inhabitants of hell actually “pine” after repentance? I seriously doubt it. It seems far more likely that the damned turn more and more in upon themselves as they more and more descend to the depths of self-justification.
Fr. Glenn Spencer
Opps, there's a slight ambiguity in my sentence, when I said, "forever pining for their repentance", I meant to refer to God forever pining for the repentance of the damned, not the damned pining for repentance.
Sorry for not making that clear
Is Herbert McCabe able to explain hell? Is he a universalist?
I do not recall McCabe addressing the question of hell, at least in the articles and sermons I have read; but I'm confident he is not a universalist, precisely because of human freedom.
But isn't the implication that those who are not contrite have not been touched in the same way by God's love? If so, doesn't God seem to love people differently? If not, does the response to God's love determine the result?
Good questions. They draw us into the heart of the mystery of grace. I wish McCabe were alive to address them. But one thing we can say: all depends on grace. We cannot take one step toward God apart from grace.
Does God still love those who are eternally damned, forever pining for their repentance, but yet never able to fulfill the object of His love? Imagine that in the Parable of the Prodigal Son that instead of the son returning in repentance, he never returns at all. What would we think of the father of the prodigal son? Would he not appear to be a tragic figure? Is it the same for God? Is Hell a tragedy which even God's love cannot overcome?
A couple of quick thoughts.
First, hell may be a tragedy for the damned, but it's not a tragedy for God. The divine glory and beatitude are not diminished by our rejection of him. God is God.
Second, by permitting hell God gives humanity the highest compliment, the compliment of freedom.
It seems to me that Mccabe exchanges the efficacy of God's love for its unconditionality. As a Presbyterian, I naturally do think that God's love is efficacious, those whom God loves, He predestines, and they will persevere to the end because God lovingly continues to preserve them in the faith, regardless of their many sins, faults, slips and falls in life. God's love for the elect that they might love Him and know Him cannot fail to be realized, because God's love is also omnipotent, and will surely overcome all odds, even the rebellion and sin of man.
McCabe is a Thomist, not an Arminian, which means that he believes in efficacious grace. Unfortunately, I have not found a discussion by him of efficacious and sufficient grace. He does have an interesting essay on predestination in God Still Matters.
The problem in all of this is that we inevitabliy think of God and creatures as existing on the same plane, with the effect that we end up with a competition between the divine will and the human free. But God is not a being within the universe; hence it is quite impossible for us to conceptualize the interaction of divine agency and human agency. For a Thomistic discussion, see chapter two of Cardinal Journet's book The Meaning of Grace.
Does God still love those who are eternally damned?
Yes, absolutely. This is the suffering of the damned--to be so loved and to hate it.
But God is not hurt or diminished by our rejection of him. That is an anthropomorphism.
Does God still love those who are eternally damned, forever pining for their repentance, but yet never able to fulfill the object of His love?
I think the problem was as much or more with my hasty reading. Sorry about that. See your point. I agree with Fr. Kimel's comment about human freedom: in the end God doesn't send anyone to hell, we make that decision ourselves. But that isn't entirely true, because hell exists and that is true only because God wills it to be. But I wonder if in some sense even hell is a loving dispensation from God the Blessed Trinity for the ones who would find his gracious Presence to be unbearable? In a sense our participation in the Holy Communion is our God-given way to grow in love with that Presence?
gms+
Certainly God loves those who are in hell. But I would not say that God doesn't care about whether we sin or not. God is not directly affected by our sin. But God loves us--and loving us entails a negative attitude towards our sin, for our own sake.
Aquinas' account of charity is relevant here. In discussing charity, St Thomas faces the following problem. There are two kinds of love: concupiscent love, where one loves x for the sake of what x can do for y (often, but not always, y is oneself) and friendship love where one loves and benefits x for x's own sake. St Thomas insists that friendship love is the higher form of love, but he also wants to say that our love for God is the higher form of love.
So, St Thomas has a problem: How can we have a friendship love for God, since God is immutable and we cannot benefit him?
St Thomas solves this problem by invoking the thesis that a friend is another self. What happens (whether good or bad) to our friends in some sense happens to us--we care about our friends. He then notes that God loves everybody. Consequently, what happens to anybody in some sense happens to God. What we do to anybody, we do unto God. Therefore, we can exhibit a friendship love for God, since even though we cannot benefit God as such, we can indirectly benefit God by fulfilling his plan, i.e., benefiting those whom he loves.
This story implies that there is a non-metaphysical, but nonetheless real, sense in which what we do to people we do to God. Consequently, it seems right to say that God cares whether we sin. He cares about the victim of our sin, and he cares about the damage to the sinner's soul.
And I think all this is fully compatible with God's punishing one eternally in hell. Just punishment, as much as just reward, is good for the person receiving it.
Dr Pruss, thank you for your comment. I am confident that McCabe would agree with you. He is clear that when he says that our sin does not "make a difference" to God he does not mean that God is indifferent to our sin or to the damage it does to ourselves and others. I think, rather, that he intends to challenge the popular view that our repentance changes God's mind about us. Hence his provocative assertion that God's forgiveness is synonymous with the gift of contrition that he gives us. I say "provocative" because my experience as a pastor suggests that most folks are taken aback by this identification of divine forgiveness with the divine gift of contrition. We really "want" to believe that we need to persuade God to forgive and love us.
How does McCabe's construal of divine forgiveness fit in with your thoughts on imputed righteousness?