The Doctrine of God

Leaven Volume 8 Issue 3 Theology and Ministry Article 5 1-1-2000 The Doctrine of God John Mark Hicks Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/leaven Part of the Biblical Studies Commons, Christianity Commons, and the Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons Recommended Citation Hicks, John Mark (2000) "The Doctrine of God," Leaven: Vol. 8 : Iss. 3 , Article 5. Available at: https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/leaven/vol8/iss3/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Religion at Pepperdine Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Leaven by an authorized editor of Pepperdine Digital Commons. For more information, please contact Katrina.Gallardo@pepperdine.edu, anna.speth@pepperdine.edu, linhgavin.do@pepperdine.edu. Hicks: The Doctrine of God 118 L e a v e n , F a ll 2 0 0 0 The Doctrine of God ihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA BY JOHN M A R K H IC K S T h is p a p e r w a s p r e p a r e d fo r th e " T h e o lo g y th e C h u r c h " s e m in a r th e 1996 C h r is tia n w ith in S e r v ic e o f h e ld o n J u ly 17-18 in c o n ju n c tio n sion in a form ula, structures S c h o la r s C o n fe r e n c e , N a s h v ille , T ennessee. reduced piety of the true church, to the form s and relegated the fringes of hum an experience. part in both creation and redem ption, and G od to G od has done his it reasoned, and now w e m ust do ours. Where Are We Today? Secularized O ne of the m ost significant vision of G od com m only influences held am ong Christ has been the secularization secularization upon the Churches of our culture. By I m ean the desacralization tions, the transposition of institu- of religious functions secular dom ain, and the differentiation into the of sacred and secular so that the sacred loses its overarching This secularization scendence of his w orld, through spiritual and providential only rem em ber the view s w as deeply of Jam es A . H arding on rule keeping takes precedence. of Christianity to religious is equated Further, w ith it entails w ithin the activity of G od is restricted the regularity w ords like "accident" It or- of nature. to Consequently, and "luck" are m ore a part of than is the biblical phrase "Lord w ill- are w ell know n, rather cluding religion, as an ideological tive, characterized Churches of Christ tw entieth century. Secularization, particular form in our m ovem ent. perspec- of the m id- how ever, took a believed the divine to of the Stonite perspecdynam ics w hose Stonite and roots that G od had a dynam ic, static, relationship nation. A ccording ordering w ith his w orld, through" in- of civil w ar w ithin a to Lipscom b, G od" tolerat[ ed] and ordain[ ed]" the evil of slavery in order to punish South G od's battle-axe," the the N orthern arm y.' The Cam pbell w ing of our heritage in a solidly Reform ed G od's ing." than influence D avid involved activity. O ne need Lipscom b, cosm os; the perceived Secularized but view s of spiritual or dog- and lives. G od w as not on the fringes providence. and its institutions. our vocabulary of hum an of the conversion tive on subsequent the loss of a sense of divine im m anence m aintaining transform ation view entails the loss of a sense of tran- Christianity ecclesiology heritage. The Stone w ing of our m ove- had a dynam ic note the pow erful entails the reduction ganizations; our authentic m ent claim .' in the life of faith; a pragm atic m atic em phasis of religion, how ever, does not represent cussed involvem ent perspective in the w orld.' today, Cam pbell's the w orld w as dynam ic: about his kingdom . w as rooted on providence and W hile rarely dis- view of G od's activity G od acts in history H is ow n m ovem ent, in to bring he believed, It focused conver- Published by Pepperdine Digital Commons, 2000 1 Leaven, Vol. 8 [2000], Iss. 3, Art. 5 T h e o lo g y a n d M in is tr y w as a w ork of G od that w ould usher in the m illennial has been w ritten out of our hym nbooks kingdom . H oly, H oly"). I have no vested But as the Churches centrated of Christ increasingly on the plan of salvation and church order, w here the concerns w ere prim arily m an activity, our ow n vision ingly influenced con- centered on hu- of G od w as increas- by the cultural dynam ic of secular- 119 (as in "H oly, interest in the term m yself. W here m y interest lies is in a com m unitarian understanding of G od. W hat I m ean by "Trinity" the divine com m unity that created is the cosm os and redeem ed a fallen people. redeem ed a people for him self through The Father created and the Son by ization. Failing to reflect specifically on the doctrine the H oly Spirit. Ever since Barth's C h u r c h D o g m a tic s of G od as the transcendent and Rahners O ne, w e unconsciously and subtly rem ade our doctrine of G od in the im age revival of our ecclesiology and culture. O ur polem ics against decades, the direct trinitarianism operation of the H oly Spirit, against W hat there has been a I s th e T r in ity ? of trinitarian theology, and in the last tw o there has been a revival over against of Eastern W estern social trinitarianism , m iracles, and against the special and specific provi- w hich em phasizes dential w ork of G od had the tendency of social trinitarian ism is one of the m ost significant transcendence of G od ecclesiological secularized, to our to reduce the hum an-focused issues. W e tended, developm ents then, to adopt a deistic vision of G od. Currently, trem endous characterizes about w hether to believe G od sovereign prem odern thought, the deistic w atchm aker ern thought, enthroned or the divine ferer that characterizes W e are uncertain partner theology.' how our doctrine ought to im pact our lives-w hether pect to experience of m od- and fellow suf- som e postm odern about of G od w e should G od in the daily m om ents or only in the pages of scripture. of W e are uncertain about how to reflect upon the life and character G od-w hether w e should etistic, or pluralistic ex- of life, follow m etaphysical, m odels. W e are uncertain of pi- about ship betw een theology." It fosters understanding of G od over against understanding of the relation- the Father, Son, and Spirit. Social trinitarianism created of G od. This revival in contem porary a com m unitarian a m ore individualistic confusion our doctrine of G od. W e are uncertain is the the m onarchy a com m unity. affirm s that a com m unity The Father through the Son and by the Spirit created m ale and fem ale as a com m unity that w as to reproduce ation. The hum an itself through com m unity w as to m odel the cre- ative act of the divine com m unity. created procre- Just as the Trinity in order to share the love of their com m u- nity, so parents have children in order to share their love w ithin com m unity. fellow ship k o in o n ia - a nity of G od to envelop W hen the hum an G od is interested in that flow s out of the com m uthe hum an com m unity com m unity. fell, the divine how the love and holiness of G od ought to m old our com m unity lives. W e are uncertain tends to have a people for him self, am ong w hom he institutional, or m ystical about w hether experience to be expected. W e are uncertain trine of G od should a personal, of G od ought about how the doc- m old our vision of the church, w hen w e have for so long perm itted our ecclesiology took the initiative can dw ell-a com m unity w here nity intends k o in o n ia . A holy com m unity to redeem of the offer three directions for thinking about G od in our fellow ship. w hat has fallen. The created and redeem ed called to im age the trinitarian of G od. H um anity Directions for the FutureZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA w as redeem ed T h e T r in ita r ia n takes the initiative com m unities com m unity The m odel for hum an com m unity C o m m u n ity o f H o ly L o v e Trinity has not been a popular term in our fel- low ship. Cam pbell and Stone both rejected it, and it https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/leaven/vol8/iss3/5 it intends w as created, but it fell, profound thinking, dialogue, and application can be his to dw ell w ith a com m unity; and now the H oly Com m unity of G od in the life of the church. I w ish to they G od in- people and he can be their G od. The H oly Com m u- to m old our vision of G od. Clearly, w e need som e doctrine to redeem . are of G od. is the com m unity w as created to im age G od. Israel as a people of G od w ho w ould repre- sent G od in the w orld. The church is called to em ulate the com m unity and unity of the Father and the Son. Jesus offers the relationship betw een him self 2 Hicks: The Doctrine of God 120 Leaven, Fall 2000 heaven. The church holy com m unity ought to be the im age of God's on earth. A communitarian D o x o lo g ic a l U n d e r s ta n d in g o f G o d 's A ttr ib u te s understanding of God As I surveyed recent writings on the subject of God, I was struck by the incessant and persistent rejects the highly problem -solving" approach to our understanding individualistic and egoof C od.' W hile there are som e notable exceptions, our discussions of God have tended to focus on cercentered character -of tain problem s regarding his attributes. Given our Western, and particularly rationalistic, as well as m odern (that is, scientific), American, culture.ihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA m ethodologies, we tend to approach God as an ob/I ject to be dissected, theodicy). and the Father as the m odel ships am ong his disciples how the com m unity how it m odels servitude, m odels m utual initiative, how interdependence intent understanding for theology servations rejects It provides derstand which k o in o n ia , share through com m unitarian practice with of God or reindi- Second, we ought we are to em ulate a Holy Spirit. understanding to be m odel a com m unity. a the Our with a com m u- that im ages God in ought to be a holy one. The holy k o in o n ia be m anifested on earth Published by Pepperdine Digital Commons, 2000 we want to know This concept how God's his creation om nipotence approach-whether Aristotelian or from that m odern believes how describe is possible those and (perhaps attributes delim ited theism -ascan the lim its of what that the attributes as they are revealed in scripture. as well as in God. This approach tributes approach to rationality, but of God's it understands relation rather them by hum an of as the at- in scripture to his creation. of God revealed than delim iting I want to the attributes m its to the attributes to and ap- does not call for irrationality of God as they are revealed expressions in only I want way of understanding to call for a doxological ratio- can som e- that they can be known in the way they are revealed of be truly by hum an rationality prescribe) known revi8 of the attributes for God. W hile I believe I also believe opposed such m etaphysics free-will that hum an of God can be truly scripture, process understanding processed, is arising tradition or from a well-intentioned in neo-evangelical known, om ni- at all. rationalistic a realist in of free crea- a classic scholastic as Aquinas, how with his activity to know with Our ra- the sort of thing propriating these attributes of God. of ZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA Over against a rationalistic fram ework, we Third, of God grounds within Or, we want is consistent consis- and determ in- attributes. is consistent call us to a different within those and in which with God is a fellowship m ust science nality. It assum es of God helps us un- nity of light, and the com m unity this world God. us the definitive of holy discipline fellowship the world. God of God rather than to an institution im m utability sum es lines. ought to function the God's sionism Am erican, salva- of com m unities It provides that God can be. For exam ple, such as Hartshorne, It conceives understanding com m unities. of God in favor of som e personal, and how relationships to delim it a few ob- than individual, in the nature ecclesiology the kind of God's functions (as in the logical exploring tional inquiry a m eaningful for social redem ption, rather W e seek to m aintain of our God through justified tures. Or, we want to know whether ego-centered particularly relationship com m unitarian vi- im plications and redem ption. ecclesiology vidualistic and state-a understanding a vision It roots ecclesiology jecting it and ing the logical relations from and com m unal, reducing how to give hu- m e to m ake individualistic as well as personal sim ply self- this line. of W estern, tion along ought of God has trem endous the highly culture. holiness, church, a com m unitarian character love, for them ." This com m unitarian and life. Perm it along First, self-giving how it m odels it m odels m an com m unities-fam ily, sion of God's relation- (John 17:21). Consequently, of God m odels gracious risking of com m unity tency analyzed, as It sub- in scripture rationality. It 3 Leaven, Vol. 8 [2000], Iss. 3, Art. 5 T h e o lo g y calls for understanding of redem ptive the attributes history instead lasticism . The doxological in the context of A ristotelian approach terventionism scho- is a confession nature, w orld of G od's rela tionshi p to us ra ther than a thesis for debate. of Jack Cottrell's m eans, eschew s philosophical abstraction gical contem plation. the contem plative tradition scholastic tradition the church G od's It understands character w e w orship com m unity cal grids; his attributes plum bed w ith respect the doxological w ith the praise and m etaphysi- are praised rather than to their logical relations. approach, of G od that contain w e w or- G od is sought in w orship/ encounter rather than in rationalistic rational or constrain ten regarded has joined tw o concepts as m utually ereign over everything exclusive: ner. I understand that are of- (1) G od is sov- in the w orld, and (2) G od is G od as sovereign dynam ic m anover the w orld The doxological approach is a confession of God's relationship to us rather than a thesis for debate. In understandings through in the explicit sense that G od can do w hatever and en- pleases (Pss 115:3; 135:6). W hatever scripture, experienced in life's situations, countered in corporate G od could have caused it to happen w orship. ZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA does w hatever D y n a m ic , A c tio n of has no com m on agreem ent on he does happen, otherw ise. he desires, according poses. But I also understand relationship G o d -in th e W o r ld O ur m ovem ent in the theo- G od are replaced of the G od w ho is know n T h e S o v e r e ig n , b u t R e la tio n a lly in the that the revealed G od rather than the G od of speculation. action discussion involved in the w orld in a relationally in our relationships. calls us to be like the one w hom ship-and w ith of Bernard than w ith the of Aquinas.r is first of all a w orshiping that im ages W orship and exalts litur- It has m ore in com m on The G o d th e R u le r ." of divine is a hotly contested 121 logical arena." M y heading The doxological approach to the attributes of G od and extent a n d M in is tr y G od to his ow n pur- that G od has a dynam ic w ith the w orld in such a w ay that the future is open; G od is interactive w ith his creatures, the nature, m eans, and extent of divine action in the and he values their freedom . Prayer is a genuine dia- w orld. logue w hereby W e can find w ithin the tw entieth w ide range of understandings, tic notions of natural understandings Lipscom b lam ented that" m en."!' Contem porary tive interpretation no question ... needs theology is in no better shape. narra- of E. Frank Tupper in A S c a n d a lw hich rejects interventionism and that G od is doing the best he can w ith the understanding of a classic Reform ed by Paul H elm in his recent book T h e tw o view s are the com patibilist, form ed, understanding w hich eignty and hum an end of the future, or G od's goal, w hich dom , is not open, but certain. G od is ultim ately ereign, and he w ill accom plish the is his kingsov- his purposes. O f course, in these few lines, I do not have space to explain this understanding perhaps a few com m ents understanding of divine action. But on the practicality w ill illum inate m y vantage of this point. First, G od is fully engaged in actively w orking w ithin his w orld tow ard the goal of bringing dom . G od is not on the sidelines. ated the gam e-and set up its rules-is H e cares for his creatures about his king- The G od w ho crealso a player. (1 Pet 5:7); bears their bur- dens daily (Ps 68:19); and acts on their behalf w ithin history, through his m ighty acts (Ps 107), and w ithin to balance freedom play of divine and hum an actions. N evertheless, these betw een of D . A . Carson in H o w L o n g , attem pts the future is created out of the inter- but less rigidly Re- P r o v id e n c e o f G o d .1 3 O n the continuum L o r d i" by of G od's dealing w ith w orld he has, to the exposition a advocated range from the postm odern, o u s P r o o id e n c e ," counsels extrem e M aybe this is w hy, in 1880, D avid study m ore than the principles U nderstandings a from explicitly deis- law to the so-called of divine providence Jam es A . H arding." century divine sover- and the occasional https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/leaven/vol8/iss3/5 in- their ow n existential m om ents, by his pow er (1 Thess 3:11-13). Second, G od is sovereign of evil in the w orld. A lthough over the m ystery theodicy is som etim es 4 Hicks: The Doctrine of God 122 L e a v e n , F a ll 2 0 0 0 a necessary ihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA and useful task as w e think through faith, it m ust alw ays be secondary that G od is sovereign, ceive the consequences. W e m ust not perm it our fi- to underm ine even if it soothes the conscience rienced) to the confession no m atter how w e m ay per- nite bew ilderm ent ultim ately our G od's sovereignty, of faith. W e m ust confess w ith Job, w ho had "seen" (expeG od in the w hirlw ind, "I know that you can do all things; no plan of yours can be thw arted" (Job 42:2 N IV ). It is precisely G od's sovereignty evil that grounds the prom ise of eschatological and the confidence O ur vexations that good w ill trium ph w ith the presence but that is not the G od of scripture. Conclusion The doctrine of G od is the beginning of our the- ology. O ne w rong turn here w ill have serious im plications for w here w e end up. Consequently, ology begins m easured cording w ith G od, and all theology all them ust be by w ho G od is and w hat he has done, acto how he has revealed him self. over hope over evil. of evil and suffer- ing in the w orld m ust not underm ine w ho values self-reliance rather than subm ission, JOHN M A R K H IC K S versity G raduate at H arding U ni- School of Religion, M em phis, teaches theology Ten- nessee. the sovereignty of G od. Rather, w e m ust confess G od's sovereignty Notes and trust his purposes. I See Karel Dobbelaere, "Secularization: A M ulti-Dim ensional Concept," C u r r e n t S o c io lo g y 29 (sum m er 1981): 1-213. , Third, the first tw o convictions dent, bold theology ground of prayer. The future to us, and nothing is predeterm ined a confilies open except w hat G od 2 J w ill bring planned about eschatologically specifically Prayer engages or w hat he has to do (as in the death of Christ). G od through praise, and thanksgiving intercession, petition, as it calls upon him to act on behalf of his people. It calls for divine activity in our m inistries (as in 2 Thess 1:11), and it calls for divine presence in our w orship It is our confidence that G od cares and that he can act on our behalf-both strated through pow er, boldness, of w hich he has dem on- his m ighty acts-that and confidence 62 reflects this tw ofold ist confesses (Ps 141:1). confidence fuels of prayer. Psalm w hen the psalm - that his soul can find rest in G od be- cause he know s that G od is both" strong" ing" (Ps 62:11-12). H is strength dem onstrated of Israel's the through his m ighty confidence and "lov- and love have been acts. The source is G od's revelation of him self through his m ighty deeds. That revelation has taught Israel to depend upon G od's activity in the w orld for both rest and salvation. A m erican culture daily dependence relational confidence, sense of disposition, the w orld w ill underm ine of the as w ell as the self-help strat- egies, of A m erican Christians. ages self-reliance a refreshing upon G od. A n understanding G od's actions w ithin self-reliant needs A deistic G od encour- and self-help, but the sovereign/ G od of scripture encourages and trust. A m ericans subm ission, m ay w ant a G od Published by Pepperdine Digital Commons, 2000 David Lipscom b, "God Uses the Evil as well as the Good," 22 (30 Septem ber 1880): 634. Alexander Cam pbell, "Providence, General and Special," G o s p e l A d v o c a te M ille n n ia l H a r b in g e r 26 (1855): 601-8; "Chance: Observations on the Term s Chance, Accident, Lucky, Unlucky," M ille n n ia l H a r b in g e r 22 (1851): 615-21. 4 These categories are taken from Philip Dale Krum rei, "The Relevance of Secularization for Interpreting and Nurturing Spirituality in Dutch Churches of Christ: An Analysis ofthe Relation of Pre-M odem , M odem and Post-M odem Paradigm s of Faith and the Practice of Prayer" (D.M in. diss., Harding University Graduate School of Religion, 1992), see appendix 7. His survey of congregants is enlightening. It dem onstrates that the people in the pew are thoroughly confused about God's relationship life. S A good theological history of contem porary to thought on the Trinity is Ted Peters, G o d a s T r in ity (Louisville: W estm inster/ John Knox, 1993). The contrast between the East and W est m ay be seen in Catherine M owry LaCugna, G o d fo r U s : T h e T r in ity Harper & Row, 1991). 6 I would recom m end Stanley Grenz's recent system atic the- a n d C h r is tia n L ife (San Francisco: ology, T h e o lo g y fo r th e C o m m u n ity o f G o d (Nashville: Broadm an, 1994), especially pages 92ff., as an illustration of how com m unitarian them es should shape our system atic under- standing of God. I would also recom m end Catherine LeCugna's G o d fo r U s , especially pages 377ff., for insights into how trinitarianism should im pact practical life. 7 M y survey was an unscientific perusal of the index to Restoration periodicals over the last decade or so. s As, for exam ple, in Clark Pinnock et aI., T h e O p e n n e s s o f G o d : A B ib lic a l C h a lle n g e to th e T r a d itio n a l G o d (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 9 Here I would recom m end, U n d e r s ta n d in g of 1994). as an exam ple, Donald G. Bloesch, G o d th e A lm ig h ty : P o w e r , W is d o m , H o lin e s s a n d L o v e (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1995). 5 Leaven, Vol. 8 [2000], Iss. 3, Art. 5 T h e o lo g y ihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA See J. A. Harding and L. S. W hite, ZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA T h e H a r d in g - W h ite 15 Jack Cottrell, 10 (Cincinnati: II Lipscom b, 634. D is c u s s io n 12 F. L. Rowe, 1910). P r o v id e n c e : 123 W h a t th e B ib le S a y s a b o u t G o d th e R u le r (Joplin, M o.: College Press, 1984). 16 E. Frank Tupper, A S c a n d a lo u s a n d M in is tr y T he Jesus G o d (M acon, Ga.: M ercer Univer- See, for exam ple, Henderson, Brian Hebb1ethwaite and Edward eds., D iv in e A c tio n : S tu d ie s I n s p ir e d b y th e P h ilo - sity Press, 1995). T h e o lo g y o f A u s tin F a r r e r (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1990); Thom as F. Tracy, ed., T h e G o d W h o A c ts : P h ilo s o p h ic a l 13 Paul Helm , T h e P r o v id e n c e o f G o d , Contours of Christian Theology (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1994). o n S u ffe r 14 D. A. Carson, H o w L o n g , 0 L o r d ? R e fle c tio n s E x p lo r a tio n s (University Park, Pa.: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1994); and M aurice W iles, G o d 's A c tio n in th e W o r ld : T h e B a m p to n L e c tu r e s fo r 1 9 8 6 (London: in g a n d E v il (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990). SCM Press, 1986). S to r y o f th e C o m p a s s io n a te https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/leaven/vol8/iss3/5 s o p h ic a l a n d T h e o lo g ic a l 6