Today, I’d like to take it a step farther … what happens when we treat God like an object?

**************

Early on in a theologian’s endeavor, he or she must decide whether God is primarily an object or a person, as that decision will affect how they will approach the study of God.  If theology is just like, say science or mathematics, it really doesn’t matter how the theologian lives their life.  All that really matters is a willing intellect.

Theologians throughout the centuries have made the mistake of confusing God with an object.  They have seen theology as a science that, if they are smart enough, can be reasoned through.  They assume with enough study of the Bible, enough study of church history and enough study of other theologians, they too can become a great and esteemed theologian.  And they would be right, if God was an object.

If God is a person, then a willing intellect is not entirely important. All the intellect in the world couldn’t get Him to trust you and reveal Himself to you.  And it is here the word “revelation” becomes significant because “revelation” assumes that a process of revealing is taking place, and when it comes to God, only He will reveal Himself to those He chooses … those He trusts.

**************

Christianity and especially knowing God is based more on character than on intellect precisely because God is not an object, but a person. I think the missionary knows God better than many theologians.  I think the mother who prayers incessantly for her children knows God better than the theologian who may just know more about God.

And this is the reason why: Christian Truth, being the Person of Jesus, is not solely based on logic, but on obedience, purity and humility.  Jesus states, “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.”

The journey of knowing God is not a matrix that a smart person can just figure out … if that were the case, people could reason themselves to God.

**************

In the Christian faith, Truth is a Person and any man or woman who comes in humility will find that He shows more of Himself to them then to the world’s most intellectually gifted person.  The best, most qualified theologian is not necessarily going to be the smartest person, but the most humble.

If we’re not humble enough to go where God’s at – with the downcast, the imprisoned, the poor, the fatherless, and the outcasts – you’re not going to bump into Him enough to know what He’s like.  God just doesn’t walk the halls of Harvard as much as he does the streets of the slums.  It’s not that He doesn’t love the Intellectuals; it’s just that the slums recognize their need for Him.  And for that reason, no matter how smart you are, you’ll never be a theologian who really advances into the inner sanctum of the heart of God unless you too are humble.

Luke recounts in Acts 4:13, “When they saw the courage of Peter and John and realized that they were unschooled, ordinary men, they were astonished and they took note that these men had been with Jesus.”

I say all this for a reason; specifically, that pain is one of the major character forming ingredients and is the very thing that gives authority to your view of God.  If you’re experiencing death, oppression, suffering and pain, don’t invalidate what you think about God because you don’t have a couple letters behind your name.  God just might be revealing Himself to you in a way He never could to an official, comfortable “theologian.”

There’s a couple things that could happen:

1. You could just read what others ethologists — ethologists who have actually engaged lions in their natural habitat — have written about lions, but then you technically wouldn’t be an ethologist.

2. You could capture a group of lions and study them in a caged setting; but again, this isn’t technically ethology as you’re removing them from their context and placing them in one that you’re comfortable with.

3. You could stay REALLY FAR AWAY from lions, using only binoculars and long zoom cameras, studying them from the comfort of your own setting without getting too close … in this case, you probably won’t be a great ethologists.

Most Christians … myself included … who have chosen a particular theological identity (such as “evangelical”, “reformed”, “dispensational” etc.) are usually pretty poor at studying OTHER PEOPLE’S THOUGHTS AND OPINIONS that happen to differ from their own view.

1. When engaging another view or perspective, we like to read what other people, who we already agree with, have written about supposed “lions.”

2. Or, we like to build fences around the “beasts” so we can view the beasts from the outside, devoid of “the beasts” actual context and setting.  If we’re not comfortable with them, make them into something we’re comfortable with.

3. Or, we like to view from afar, where we can stay comfortable, not having to get too close to the “other.”

John Maxwell writes:

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without [necessarily] accepting it. (Stolen from http://brettrwilkes.tumblr.com/)

I would also add, that a mark of a mature believer is being able to get close to “the lion”, realizing it may not be the devil you thought it was, and learning to understand the actual context in which “the other” exists.  Getting close doesn’t mean being stupid by sleeping with the lion, but it does mean more than most of us are willing to do.  We might see that what we thought was a “beast” in fact is more like ourselves than we originally thought … and, instead of trying to teach the beast, we may learn from them, finding that God may have had his hand in the making the lion.

Me: “What are your sources for your understanding of God and His message?”

Fred Phelps “You’re going to hell!  You homo!”

Me: “Okay, we’ve already talked about that and yes, I’m going to hell.  But I’m married to my wife and she’s a female, so I’m not a homo.”

F.P.: “Okay, as long as we agree that God loves me and he hates you and America, I’ll answer your questions.  So, my only source for my understanding of God is the Bible.”

Me: “Wouldn’t you say that America is a source of your understanding of God?  I mean, if America wasn’t ‘a whore’, you probably wouldn’t protest America and you might have a different view of God’s message?”

Michael Buffer from out of nowhere: “Let’s get ready to RUUMMMMBBLLLLEE!!!”

F.P.: “Michael Buffer is going to hell.  And your copy cat, half-brother Bruce too!”

Me: “Whatever”

Me: “Fred, you’re a smart man … you’re a disbarred lawyer and you attended various Bible Colleges.  I also know that – as a lawyer – you took down the Jim Crow laws in Kansas back in the 60s and I respect you for that!

F.P.: “Yes, in the 60s I was very involved in the Civil Rights Movement and took on and defeated the Jim Crow Laws.”

Me: “I also understand that you’re a five point Calvinist and identify yourself as Reformed.”

F.P.: “It looks like you’ve done your Wikipedia homework, son … but yes, I’m Reformed.  I have my beliefs on my website, which I would show you if those homo hactivistists didn’t hack my websites.

Me: ”As you know, one of the main topics of the Reformation — for both the Protestants and the Catholics — was the sources through which we understand God.  Luther, et al, — in the words of Justo Gonzolaz – sought to make the Word of God the starting point and the final authority for his theology.”

F.P. : “Luther and I agree on that point, but Luther didn’t attend my church so he’s probably in hell.”

Me: “You also realize that Luther saw the Bible moreso as a means than an end.  Justo Gonzalez writes that for Luther, “what was important was not the text of Scripture itself, but the divine action to which that text testifies.  The Word of God is Jesus Christ, and the Bible is the Word of God because it leads to him.”

F.P. : Yes, I knew this.

Me: “Luther believed that the Bible is the word of God because Jesus — as the Word of God — incarnates Himself through the pages of the Bible.”

F.P.  ”Can somebody get me a gin tonic with a straw?”

Me:  ”You mean a gin and tonic?”

He nods his head and I get out of my chair and mix him a gin and tonic.  He takes it, eats the lemon slice off the side of the glass and starts making annoying slurping sounds through the small straw.

Me: “Throughout Church History there have been a number of sources that the Church has used in it’s understanding of God.  For instance, in reaction to Luther and the Reformation, the Catholic Church called the Council of Trent.  At Trent, they asserted that Tradition has equal authority with Scripture.  And so, today Catholics have the tradition of the Church’s fathers, including the Pope, as having parallel authority as Scripture.”

F.P.: “All Catholics are in hell along with George Washington.”

At this point I jump out of my chair and connect with a heavy overhand and utterly knock Fred Phelps out for about ten minutes.  After he comes to, I offer him another gin and tonic as a peace offering, he accepts and we continue.

Me: “John Wesley had the quadrilateral as his sources for understand God and they were:

• Scripture – the Holy Bible (Old and New Testaments)
• Tradition – the two millennia history of the Christian Church
• Reason – rational thinking and sensible interpretation
• Experience – a Christian’s personal and communal journey in Chris

F.P. : “You stole that from Wikipedia didn’t you?”

Me: “Shut up!”

F.P.: “Hahahahahahell”

Me: “As you know Zwingli was a Swiss reformer – contemporary with Luther – who had a positive view of reason, while Luther had a negative view of the authority and source of reason.  This difference was clearly seen in how they came to believe in predestination.  Both believed that predestination was true, but Luther came to the conclusion based on his EXPERIENCE as a sinner and the grace of God, while Zwingli, who was influenced by Aristotelian scholasticism, believed in predestination “as a logical consequence of the nature of God.  For the Swiss reformer, the main argument in favor of predestination was that, since God is both omnipotent and omniscient, God knows and determines all things beforehand.” (Story of Christianity; Vol. 2; 63).

F.P.: “Zwingli’s probably in heaven because he’s Swiss and the Swiss invented Swiss cheese, which goes really well with my gin tonic.”

Me: “Early I mentioned that you were a Civil Rights Activist.  How much of that mentality has affected your understanding of how to engage culture?”

F.P.: “The tactics I use today are the same tactics I used during the Civil Rights Movement.”

Me: “In the beginning of our conversation you said that the Bible was the ONLY source of your understanding of God and his message, yet you just told me that the Civil Rights Movements also affected your views.”

F.P. “Okay, you got me.”

Me: “My point is this, Fred, you think you have the ABSOLUTE word of God and are doing the ABSOLUTE things that God wants you to do, but you admit yourself that you’ve had influences from others sources than the Bible.  COULD IT BE THAT YOU DON’T HAVE THE ABSOLUTE MOUNTAIN TOP VIEW OF GOD?  And maybe, what you are doing — though you think it’s absolutely right — is in fact wrong?

At this point Fred falls asleep from too much gin and tonic and I awoke to the sound of my alarm clock.