This post contains my response to the information in the books, blog posts, podcasts, and the conference.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/redeeminggod.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/reknew-banner-greg-boyd-alley-570x208.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
I apologize for the unprofessional, unpolished nature of this post. It is likely filled with incoherent thoughts, typos, grammatical mistakes, and lots of repetition. The ideas below are basically a hastily-typed compilation of notes that I have scribbled in about 15 different places over the last several months.<\/p>\n
Let me begin with a few areas of agreement<\/h2>\n
Ultimately, I agree with almost everything in Volume 1 of CWG. I am in absolute agreement that it is most important to interpret the text as we have it, rather than what historical event might (or might not) exist behind the text. It is the text that is inspired, not the historical event. God gave the text to us as it is for a reason \u2013 because it points us to Jesus Christ, just as it is written.<\/p>\n
I agree with Boyd\u2019s Conservative Hermeneutic Principle, that it is best to be more conservative than liberal when it comes to thinking about inspiration and the authority of Scripture. I agree that the Bible is inspired and infallible. That it is God-breathed in all its words and ideas. I agree that it is primarily when we begin with this framework that we work hard to understand why a troubling text was included in the Bible. I believe many scholars miss out on some of the most important truths of Scripture because they are too willing and ready to write something off as \u201cerror.\u201d To write off various portions of Scripture as error is to miss out on some of what God wants to teach us about Himself, when viewed through the lens of Jesus Christ and Him crucified. Boyd calls this the \u201ccross vision;\u201d I call it \u201ccrucivision.\u201d<\/p>\n
Speaking of the crucivision lens, I agree that God looks like Jesus. That Jesus most fully reveals God to us. That we must read Scripture and think about God through the lens of Jesus Christ and Him crucified. I have written about this in The Atonement of God<\/em><\/a>, and Nothing but the Blood of Jesus<\/em><\/a>. <\/em><\/p>\n With these agreements (and many more I did not mention), I do have some areas of disagreement. And while many of these might appear to be merely semantic on the surface, there might not be any field of study where the meaning and use of words is more important than with theology. Word matters, and when it comes to theology, it is the precise words that matter most.<\/p>\n There were numerous times I cringed at some of Boyd\u2019s terminology and ideas, such as his way of describing unregenerate people as \u201cunrepentant\u201d (p. 787), and his acceptance of annihilation (p. 787), but in regard to the overall purpose and goal of the book, I am most concerned with three of Boyd\u2019s four Principles of the Cruciform Hermeneutic.<\/p>\n The first principle is the Principle of Cruciform Accommodation. In my view, I would change this to the Principle of Cruciform Incarnation.<\/p>\n Boyd says that out of self-sacrificial love, as seen in Jesus on the cross, God stooped or accommodated to human sin and failures. I am not a huge fan of the terms \u201cstooped\u201d or \u201caccommodated.\u201d While I agree that the image of parent stooping to look a child in the eye and talk to a child on his or her level is helpful when some people think of how God interacts with us, I also think that this image or idea does some damage to how it is that we humans actually think of God.<\/p>\n When we think of God stooping, we think of a God who is so far above us, He is almost beyond reach. And while God is, in many ways, superior to us, the incarnation of Jesus shows that God is not \u201cup there,\u201d but is already \u201cdown here,\u201d in our midst, at our level. The incarnation reveals what God has always been doing with humanity. He has not gone from up there down to here, but has always been with us in a humble and quiet way.<\/p>\n But when it comes down to it, I don\u2019t mind \u201caccommodation\u201d too much. It is probably not worth quibbling over. The terminology of the second principle, however, I do think is worth some quibbling\u2026<\/p>\n The second key idea of Boyd\u2019s cruciform Hermeneutic is the Principle of Redemptive Withdrawal. In my view, I would call this the Principle of Redemptive With-us, or Redemptive Following. Neither is as catchy as Greg\u2019s term, but is in this area where I take most exception with Boyd\u2019s terminology, so something else is needed other than \u201cwithdrawal.\u201d<\/p>\n Boyd frequently writes that God withdraws from us, and he uses numerous synonyms to help explain this view. He writes that God abandons (p. 769, 778, 782), leaves us alone (p.741, 874), withdraws his presence (p.889) to \u201clet sin have its way\u201d so that we receive the punishment \u201cwe deserve\u201d (p. 903). These sorts of statements in in the books reminded me of Job\u2019s friends.<\/p>\n While I agree that the Bible does use such terminology, I think this is a perfect case where what we see occurring on the cross reveals that \u201csomething else must be going on.\u201d I do not believe that God ever leaves or forsakes us. He never abandons us or leaves us alone. He never withdraws His presence. Yes, sin bears its own punishments, and yes, the consequences of sin fall upon us, but this is not because God backed away to let us receive the punishment we deserve.<\/p>\n This way of thinking can cause horrible psychological and spiritual damage to people who have already been abandoned by loved ones, or feel that they have sinned so bad, God has withdrawn from them and has left them alone to face the fallout from their sin. It is far better to provide hope and healing to such people, and remind them that God will never withdraw, but is always with us. It is no help whatsoever to say, \u201cThis hurts God more than it hurts you\u201d (cf. p. 904).<\/p>\n What happens when we experience the suffering from sin is that God warned us about the pain and destruction that can come through sin (though we often don\u2019t hear it), and we go our own way anyway. In such situations, God does not let us go without coming along as well. He lets us choose our own destructive routes, and He chooses to join us in the mess and pain of sin. This is what we see in the incarnation and on the cross. He walks with us into the suffering and shame, and bears it along with us, protecting us from what He can. This is what we see in Jesus.<\/p>\n I found it strange that he did not address this objection in his chapter on common objections (chapter 18). I am not sure what this means. But let me move on.<\/p>\n Third, Boyd argues for the Principle of Cosmic Conflict. I prefer to think of the Principle of Creation Chaos.<\/p>\n Yes, there are forces and powers that cause evil in this world. But I think that most of these forces were initially supposed to be subject to the will and mind of humankind, and due to going our own way, they have spun out of control. Just as a car is not evil when it kills someone after spinning out of control of the driver, so also, creation is in chaos because the human drivers have lost control.<\/p>\n Satan, as the accuser, is one of these powers. So also are the \u201cfallen\u201d angels. I owe much of my thinking in this area to Walter Wink, but I go further than he does, and give the powers a bit of will, though it would be by the subconscious will of a human collective.<\/p>\n Finally, Boyd writes about the Principle of Semiautonomous Power. This is the idea that God gives humans free will and power (even power-filled items) with which to carry out His will, and sometimes people misuse and abuse this power in evil ways. I agree with this. I think this principle here helps explain most of what goes wrong in this world, and much of the evil human violence we see in Scripture. No complaints from me here!<\/p>\n With these four initial criticisms in mind, let us step a bit deeper into the book and discuss some of the questions that arose for me as I read.<\/p>\n I know that the idea of Progressive Revelation is a \u201cgiven\u201d in most of modern theology, but I have never been convinced. The more I study Scripture in light of culture and history, the more convinced I become that we today might know less about God than most of the generations in Biblical history. The assumption that we know better today because we are more technologically advanced, are further along in time, or have more books is what C. S. Lewis called \u201cchronological snobbery.\u201d We look down out modern noses at the people of the past and think that they were ignorant fools who knew nothing of God and His ways, but we, with all our research and writing, we now know better.<\/p>\n But do we? I am not so sure.<\/p>\n Yes, I know Paul writes about seeing in a mirror dimly (1 Cor 13:12), that the prophets longed to see our day (Matt 13:17; Luke 10:24; 1 Pet 1:10), and similar verses. I also agree that Jesus Christ is the supreme revelation of God and that He most fully explains God as no other generation has ever known. But does this mean there was a progression in thinking from the time of Abraham up to the time of Jesus, and that this progression has been marching forward ever since?<\/p>\n No, I would say that there was a regression from the time of Adam to the time of Jesus, when He burst on the scene as a ray of light in the darkest of nights, and we have been trying to make sense of that light ever since. If there has been any progression since the incarnation of Jesus, I do not think we have progressed (or retraced the path of regression) much past the later prophets. We have definitely not returned to what Moses and Abraham and Adam knew about God (John 8:56; Exod 33:11).<\/p>\n So I am not a fan of progressive revelation. Instead, let us humbly admit that we know nothing, and return to sitting at the feet of our Master while He reveals Himself to our spirits and through the pages of Scripture.<\/p>\n I think we can all agree that Jesus is the perfect and fullest revelation of God. Yet the emphasis seems to be on the revelation of God in the crucifixion, that it is on the cross where God is most fully manifested.<\/p>\n I tentatively agree with this, but primarily in reference to violence. The cross is an extremely violent event, and so when it comes to understanding God\u2019s involvement with violence, the cross is the best revelation of this truth.<\/p>\n Yet the crucifixion is only one event in the life of Jesus. We must not overemphasize the crucifixion, as if it were the only event in the life of Jesus, or as if everything else in His three-year ministry was just prologue. No, the entire life of Jesus, from conception (which precedes birth) to ascension (which follows the crucifixion and resurrection) is essential for understanding what God is truly like.<\/p>\n Once we recognize that the entire life of Jesus reveals God to us, this then raises other questions.<\/p>\n Over and over we are told that God stooped, accommodated, or allowed certain things to happen because the people were not ready for something better, different, or more godly. But I am very uncomfortable with all such language, because it seems to deny the truth of the incarnation. It seems at times that while Boyd places a wonderful (and often neglected) emphasis on the crucifixion, he has somewhat neglected the incarnation. Even the word \u201cstooping\u201d seems to imply that God is \u201cup there\u201d above us, and He \u201cstoops\u201d down to our level. But this is not the truth of the incarnation. The truth of the incarnation is that God is always with us.<\/p>\n If Jesus, in His entire life, reveals to us what God is like, then we cannot say that God \u201cstooped\u201d to become human, but rather that since the incarnation reveals what God has always been like, then God has never stooped, but has always been with us. In Jesus, we don\u2019t see a God who has come down to us, but rather, we see God with us. He did become this way; He has always been this way.<\/p>\n Let me put it another way. John writes that God is love (1 John 4:8). We could say that love is of the essence of God, that love is a central and defining characteristic of God. But does love exist in a vacuum? No. For there to be love, there must be an object of love. This, I believe, is one way of proving the truth of the Trinity, but that\u2019s another topic.<\/p>\n One essential characteristic of love is give and take. Love requires interaction, collaboration, listening, following, caring, freedom, flexibility, and risk. Love involves looking out for the interests and needs of others.<\/p>\n It is sometimes taught that God limited Himself in creating other beings with free will. But did He? In giving some genuine \u201csay-so\u201d to created beings, is this actually a self-limitation of God, or is it rather the definition of love? In giving freedom to His creatures, God did not limit His own freedom, and therefore \u201cstoop\u201d to our level, but rather, was true to the character of love.<\/p>\n And this is exactly what we see in Jesus. As God incarnate, He did not stoop to join humanity, but continued in His loving relationship with humanity in a way that we could more fully grasp and understand. The incarnation of God is not the stooping of God; it is the relating of God, which He has always done.<\/p>\n Some might wonder about Philippians 2 and kenosis<\/em>. Did Jesus \u201cempty Himself\u201d of his divine attributes? Several things can be pointed out which will move us in the right direction. First, Paul brings Jesus up as the perfect example of love that seeks the good of others over oneself. This is not \u201cstooping\u201d to the other person\u2019s level (such an idea is actually quite proud), but is just what love does (Php 2:1-4). Since Jesus does this with us, we know that this is what God has always done this with us as well. He has not stooped; He has loved.<\/p>\n Beyond this, however, it does not seem best to understand kenosis <\/em>in 2:7 as a reference to Jesus emptying Himself of His divine nature. Such an idea becomes very dangerous to our Christology, and hence, to our Theology Proper. If Jesus perfectly reveals to us what God is like, and Jesus emptied Himself of His divine nature, then this would mean that God also emptied Himself of His divine nature. But what does that mean? How can God have less than the full divine nature? It seems best, therefore, to understand Paul\u2019s reference here (which is probably an early Christian hymn) in light of the Platonic philosophical idea of \u201cforms.\u201d But contrary to some scholars who have noted this connection, I do not believe that Paul is agreeing with Platonic thought, but rather disagreeing. I believe Paul is saying that although Greek philosophy uses the concept of \u201cform\u201d to think of god as this perfect, unchanging, unfeeling deity, this is not what we see in Jesus Christ. Instead, though Jesus was perfectly equal with God, we see a God who becomes a nobody, a servant, and joins humanity in life. He humbles Himself, even to the point of death on a cross. God, in Jesus, did not stoop to become this, but revealed to us in Jesus that this is what He has always been like. Jesus did not seek to be equal to the form of God, that is, to the perfect, unfeeling, uncaring, unchanging ideal of god that human philosophy presents us, but instead, through the incarnation, revealed to us what God is really like.<\/p>\n I am not saying God is physical. That God is human. We know that God is Spirit. We also know that there are aspects of God that could not be fully represented in human form, such as His omnipresence. But I think this helps explain why Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit.<\/p>\n Anyway, I don\u2019t believe God stoops or accommodates as people usually understand those words. I believe that, out of perfect love for humanity, He has joined us in our journey through life. This is not Him acting as \u201cless than God\u201d but is instead Him acting as the \u201cperfectly loving God\u201d that He truly is, as revealed in the incarnation of Jesus. God does not accommodate His creation, but is, in fact, somewhat accountable to His creation. He is a suffering God, who willingly takes our pain upon Himself out of love. To explain God\u2019s actions in Scripture as \u201caccommodation\u201d is just as much an evasion of what is really happening as it is to call some uncomfortable description of God as an \u201canthropomorphism.\u201d We cannot explain things away so easily.<\/p>\n No. There is no withdrawal. There is only God with us. He never leaves us nor forsakes us. He never abandons us or lets us go our own way without Him.<\/p>\n Yes, He pleads with us and warns us and instructs us to not go down certain paths in life, but when we ignore His pleading and rebel against His instructions, and go in the way He has warned us not go, God does not throw up His hands and say, \u201cWell, I\u2019ll be waiting here when you come crawling back to me in pain and agony from how you messed up your life.\u201d No, when we choose to go our own way, God, out of His great love for us, does not withdraw from us, but goes with us. He does not abandon us to our sin, but dives headlong into the mess of sin with us.<\/p>\n This is what we see in the incarnation and the crucifixion, and is also what we see everywhere in Scripture. The priesthood, the law, the sacrificial system, and the monarchy were not what God wanted and not God\u2019s plan or idea. But when we humans turned our back on what God desired and wanted (a loving relationship with each and every person), God did not accommodate us, or stoop down to let us have our own way, or even withdraw from us so that we were abandoned in our rebellion. No, God, out of His great love for us, said, \u201cWell, it\u2019s not my way, but if that is what you want, we will go down that road together for a while. Are you ready?\u201d<\/p>\n Though God tells us the direction in which we should go, and warns us of the dangers down other roads, when we persist in going our own way, God does indeed let us go, but He does not let us go alone. Instead, He goes with us, so that He might do all He can to protect us from the evils of our own choices. Due to genuine freedom, of course, He cannot protect us from all harm.<\/p>\n The great problem, of course, is that while God goes with us wherever we go, we humans rarely sense or see His presence with us. Though He is always with us, we feel as if He has abandoned and forsaken us. We feel His has left us to our own devices out of disgust and anger at our sin. We regularly cry out to God, \u201cWhy have you left me? Why have you allowed this to happen? Where are you, God? Why have you forsaken me?\u201d<\/p>\nSummary of my areas of disagreement<\/h2>\n
Is Progressive Revelation Real?<\/h2>\n
Is the Cross the Supreme Revelation of God?<\/h2>\n
Is God Stooping?<\/h2>\n
So Does God Withdraw?<\/h2>\n