Notes from the book:
God is love. God even loves sinners. However,
the fact that God loves sinners is usually followed with, “But God still hates
sin.”[1]
Today, many people have abandoned the “angry God” narratives: you are just as likely
to hear a person tell you that their god is a cosmic, benevolent spirit who
never judges, does not punish sin, and sends no one to hell. This “teddy bear”
god has become a very fashionable alternative to the wrathful god of days gone
by. The narrative of a god who does not care about sin naturally undermines the
entire Christian story. God demonstrates wrath toward sin: there is judgment in
God’s kingdom, and there is a need for Jesus to die on a cross. The teddy-bear
god seems inviting at first. But when you look at our world or look deeply into
your own heart, you see a darkness that is unmistakable[2].
The nonwrathful god is powerless against this darkness[3].
Words like condemnation and wrath are not often associated with Jesus, but we
cannot overlook the fact that he spoke so often about these things (John 5:28;
Matthew 12:36-37; Matthew 16:27; Luke 21:23; John 3:36)[4].
When we think of love we think of an
emotion or a feeling that is often irrational. Most of the love songs we hear
on the radio describe a torrent of emotions a person feels about their beloved,
so much so that they would climb every mountain and swim every sea just to be
with him or her. In actuality, they wouldn’t. So we hear that “God is love” and
make the assumption that God is crazy in love with us. But love, particularly
the Greek word agape, has a different definition. To love is, in the words of
Dallas Willard, “to will the good of another”; it’s not primarily an emotion. Love
is a desire for the well-being of another, so much so that personal sacrifice
would not stand in its way. It is not that God’s love is dispassionate, it’s
just that God’s love is a lot more like a parent’s love toward a child than the
“love” between infatuated teens[5].
The same is true of the word wrath. When we
hear this word we imagine someone in a fit of rage who has lost all reason and
control. So when we speak of the wrath of God, we imagine that God is
irrationally full of rage, ready to “make heads roll” because he is so livid. In
the same way that God’s love is not a silly, sappy feeling but rather a
consistent desire for the good of his people, so also the wrath of God is not a
crazed rage but rather a consistent opposition to sin and evil. The solution to
the problem is in understanding that in the Bible the wrath of God is “pathos”,
and not “passion”. “Passion” can be understood as an emotional convulsion, and
a loss of self-control. “Pathos” on the other hand, is an act formed with care
and intention, the result of determination and decision[6].
God’s wrath is a mindful, objective, rational response. It is actually an act
of love. God is not indecisive when it comes to evil. God is fiercely and
forcefully opposed to the things that destroy his precious people. Wrath is not
a permanent attribute of God. Whereas love and holiness are part of his
essential nature, wrath is contingent upon human sin; if there were no sin
there would be no wrath[7].
Holiness is an essential part of God’s
nature. God cannot not be holy in the same way that God cannot not be love. This
is not true of God’s wrath, which is not an attribute of God. Wrath is not
something that God is but something that God does. While it is correct to say
God is holy, it is not correct to say God is wrathful. Wrath is the just act of
a holy God toward sin[8].
In reality, we don’t want the teddy-bear god because that god is not holy. J.I.
Packer asks an insightful question: “Would a God who did not care about the
difference between right and wrong be a good and admirable Being? Moral
indifference would be an imperfection in God, not a perfection.” The teddy-bear
god is like permissive parents who let their kids drink and do drugs and have
sex without guilt. Young kids might think these types of parents were cool, but
they weren’t: they were lazy and did not really love their kids. Many of their
kids went on to do hard drugs which wrecked their lives[9].
Being soft on sin is not loving, because sin destroys[10].
Because God is love, hell, a place of
separation from God, is necessary. Love does not demand love in return it is
not coercive. God does everything he can to reach out to us, and yet people are
free to reject that love. Hell is simply isolation from God. A person, even a
person others think of as decent and upright, who rejects God is experiencing
hell on earth. There is a part of human life that resists relinquishing control
to God. If unchecked, this resistance can lead to ruin. C.S. Lewis writes, “It
is not a question of God ‘sending’ us to Hell. In each of us there is something
growing up which will of itself be Hell unless it’s nipped in the bud. The
matter is serious: let us put ourselves in His hands at once, this very day,
this hour.”[11]
Reflections:
To love is “to will the good of another,”
according to Dallas Willard[12].
When this understanding of love comes in contact with our sin, the result is
God’s wrath, because “God is fiercely and forcefully opposed to the things that
destroy his precious people”[13].
If a friend wanted to understand how a
loving God could be wrathful, I would explain to my friend that we need to make
a few definitions first in order to get a clearer picture. When we think of
love we think of an emotion or a feeling that is often irrational, like the love
songs we hear on the radio. But love, particularly the Greek word agape, has a
different definition. To love is, in the words of Dallas Willard, “to will the
good of another”; it’s not primarily an emotion, but a desire for the
well-being of another. It is not that God’s love is dispassionate, it’s just
that God’s love is a lot more like a parent’s love toward a child than the “love”
between infatuated teens[14].
The same is true of the word wrath. When we
hear this word we imagine someone in a fit of rage who has lost all reason and
control. In the same way that God’s love is not a silly, sappy feeling but
rather a consistent desire for the good of his people, so also the wrath of God
is not a crazed rage but rather a consistent opposition to sin and evil[15].
Holiness is an essential part of God’s nature. God cannot not be holy in the
same way that God cannot not be love. This is not true of God’s wrath, which is
not an attribute of God. Wrath is not something that God is but something that
God does. While it is correct to say God is holy, it is not correct to say God
is wrathful. Wrath is the just act of a holy God toward sin[16].
Being soft on sin is not loving, because sin destroys[17].
Bibliography:
Smith, James Bryan. The Good and Beautiful God. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 2010.
Wang, Ying-fan Yvonne. Dr Yvonne Wang’s
Blabberings. Last modified April 25, 2015. http://dryvonnewang.blogspot.com.au.
[1] James Bryan Smith, The Good
and Beautiful God, (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 2010): 115.
[2] Smith, The Good and Beautiful
God, 116.
[3] Smith, The Good and Beautiful
God, 117.
[4] Smith, The Good and Beautiful
God, 117-118.
[5] Smith, The Good and Beautiful
God, 119.
[6] Smith, The Good and Beautiful
God, 120.
[7] Smith, The Good and Beautiful
God, 121.
[8] Smith, The Good and Beautiful
God, 122-123.
[9] Smith, The Good and Beautiful
God, 124.
[10] Smith, The Good and Beautiful
God, 125.
[11] Smith, The Good and Beautiful
God, 125.
[12] James Bryan Smith, The Good
and Beautiful God, (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 2010): 119.
[13] Smith, The Good and Beautiful
God, 121.
[14] Smith, The Good and Beautiful
God, 119.
[16] Smith, The Good and Beautiful
God, 122-123.
[17] Smith, The Good and Beautiful
God, 125.
No comments:
Post a Comment