God is Not a Mutant
In context: we were talking about God’s immutability (unchangeableness) in a worship briefing last week and someone chimed that the word immutability always makes them think of God not being a mutant (here I resist a commentary on how pop culture has influenced the English language) - moving on…
I picked up Tozer’s Knowledge of the Holy this week. I love Tozer’s vantage point, but there is always something that is left ‘wanting’ for me when I read this book. I’ll call him “Aquinas lite”. He hits the big ideas on God’s nature and holiness. He proclaims the Father. However, I wish He brought Jesus into the center of the discussion more often. That’s where Aquinas has him beat.
For those that don’t know, St. Thomas Aquinas was a medieval Catholic theologian who created one of the first ’systematic theologies’. Translation: he tried to examine every attribute of God, and the church. Impossible of course, but reveals he had a king’s heart to search out the depths. Being catholic, and medieval makes Aquinas a bit too lofty for most 20th century believers. His Treatise on the Incarnation covers pages 2973-3451. Of course, Aquinas has his problems, but I’m very forgiving of the medieval believers. It was a tough century.
Let me put it this way: What happens to the immutability of God when we consider this verse, “Jesus grew in stature”? I’ll tell you what happens, Jesus now redefines immutability through His incarnation. Whatever we thought immutability was, gets turned around. It is no longer conceptual, but about the nature of a man, or at least a trait and characteristic of a man.
I love incarnational theology. Keeping the central truth, Jesus, as central. Not that we have to ‘name drop’ Jesus; or implying that if we are not talking about Him 24/7 we are missing it, but our theology must come from Him and go towards Him.
Well here’s the problem (one of the problems): in the name of not lowering our view of the Father people shy back from resisting the commonly accepted Tozer defined attributes of God but in doing such I fear we unintentionally lower our Christology. Meaning, we confess God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, atemporal, immutable, impassable (most people around here don’t include impassable but it was a part of the original package deal before Tozer), and these are the important ‘things’ (character, nature, essence, etc.) which make Him God, as distinct or holy or ‘other than’ creation. Then we simultaneously state Jesus is at least not omnipresent, atemporal nor immutable yet He came to reveal the fullness of God to us. Hummm…. dare I say contradiction?
When God described Himself to Moses it was, “the Lord, the Lord God, having the capacity for relationship not metaphysics,” (that’s my paraphrase). God seemed to be concerned with describing His imminence to humanity not His transcendence.
Tozer says that “To say that God is immutable is to say that He never differs from Himself. … As there can be no mutation in the moral character of God, so there can be none within the divine essence. … His being is other than and different from all other beings … in being self-existent, self-sufficient, and eternal.” (Knowledge of the Holy, chp. 9) I agreed with Him in that God is who He is and His “moral character” will never change. God will not stop being love. Tozer also goes on to say that “The law of mutation belongs to a fallen world” as He contrasts decay and death verses God’s eternal existence. Now, if this is only what one means when he/she speaks of immutability then I am fine with that. But when we being to include changes in mood (emotions), changes in actions, changes in quality of relationship, really anything that would de-personalize God then things get haze as we have to still maintain Jesus’ humanity and the Father’s “un-humanness,” relationally speaking.
We certainly know that the Father has on more than one occasion changed His mind. Jesus was not a man before and now He is one. God exists in dynamic relationship with the other persons of the Trinity as well as with an always changing world. Any time someone is born God begin a new relationship that previously did not exist. God is influenced, moved and affected which is the very nature of relationship. In all of this He will never cease to be Himself and in that we find no change.
yes. yes. and yes.
i was talking to Bret Mavrich about this last night too - Jesus holiness is bound to His incarnation. One of the most holy (impossible to grasp with the natural mind) things about God is that He had the capacity to manifest His perfection in the Person of Christ. Who can know it! Who can search it out! And of course, Jesus tells us in John that the glory about which the angels cried ‘holy’ in Isaiah 6 - as His own glory (not…in the limited sense, the ‘Father’s glory’.
We gain the knowledge of the holy through no other means than meditation upon ‘the Word’. Without Him, we have no hope of knowing God.
Well here is another thought, you said, “Without Him [the Word, Jesus], we have no hope of knowing God.”
So in what sense did the prophets know the Father? Moses spoke to God face to face as one speaks to a friend (I understand that is a euphemism for intimacy, he didn’t literally see His face, but intimacy is knowing none the less). Because I thought that at least partially the purpose of the Father tabernacling (Rev.21:3) on the earth was so that we would know Him and see His face (Rev.22:4). I would say that revelation of God is progressive. He has continually drawn closer to humanity in various ways through history and what was previously cloudy (though still available) suddenly became much more easily accessible through Jesus.
I always love this peek into your thoughts Kyle
david> in what sense did they know the Father? through the Spirit and very much at a distance. the face to face of Moses was about intimacy, of course, not supernatural encounter. Hebrews states definatively that the final word of the prophets is Jesus. He spoke to people before, but he was ‘unknown’ in a very significant sense.
Jesus acknowledges in John’s Gospel that the Glory that Isaiah saw we HIS glory - and it is only through faith in Christ that the prophets have come into the kingdom. they saw him dimly, from a distance.
I’ll say it this way: no one comes to the Father but ‘through’ him - the how and when of the ‘through’ is a bit mysterious, but it is absolute. I wouldn’t call it so much ‘progressive’ as ‘conclusive at the incarnation and the cross’.
Kyle,
I appreciate the depth and scope of your posts on this blog. You are certainly a thinker. I appreciate a Trinitarian incarnational theology in that Christ’s human nature is never separated from his divine nature–and yet they are certainly united in a hypostatic sense (Definition of Chalcedon). Incarnational theology must include trinitarian language in order to avoid a unitarian worshipping of the 2nd person. At any rate, I find your linking of Tozer to Thomas quite intriguing. I think most people would place Aquinas securely alongside the Scholastic tradition and Tozer more within a mystical category (albeit an uncommonly orthodox mysticism). Certainly would be an interesting argument though.
What happened? You dropped out of sight on thegreycoats@wordpress.com. We just posted our interview with Ernie Gruen where he corroborates his testimony concerning aberrant practices at Kansas City Fellowship (Mike Bickle’s organization predating IHOP). It is pretty interesting stuff. Might be useful info. for the recruits.
-N
Wow,
You must be a busy guy Kyle.
Thomas’ life work is certainly considered more scholastic than mystical. However, after his work had been buttoned up, he had an experience of God that convinced him that his work was rubbish, so to speak. Therefore, I wonder whether indications of Thomas’ openness to the mystical experience of God may be prefigured within his work (which is too large for me to be persuaded to study it for the purpose of answering this question), in which case he might be considered a life-long mystic.
I’m a bit concerned about linking doctrine about Jesus’ humanity with doctrine about God’s immutability. Does the fact that Jesus, being human, required food prove that God is not self-sufficient? I’d think not. I suggest that the fact that Jesus was, and is (!), fully human means we have to be careful in considering how attributes of God relate to the unique God-man.
But, quibbles aside, I am blessed to read the thinking of a man so concerned both with the renewing of the mind and the experience of God. Blessings to you, Kyle!
P.S. A book along these lines you might enjoy: The Kingdom Triangle by J.P. Moreland, distinguished professor of philosophy/theology/apologetics, Biola University.
miss you and love you!!