The Ultimate Act of Biblical Interpretation
Don’t miss this new blog series on the Psalms by one of my favorite Old Testament scholars, Dr. Mark Hamilton, Associate Dean of the Graduate School of Theology at ACU.
This is from the first post:
“Blessed is the person who does not walk in the council of the wicked or stand in the road of sinners or sit in the seat of mockers.”
By opening the Psalter this way, the organizer and collector of these 150 hymns from Jerusalem’s temple, whoever he was, wanted to open the collection with a benediction. The blessing tells us who the ideal reader and singer of the book is to be, namely, the person who actively avoids involvement in plots and schemes that lead to evil. A curious verse, really. You would expect the person to stand in the counsel and walk on the road, but this person does the opposite, or rather avoids the opposite. Very arresting.
Then there’s the description of the ideal reader and singer of these Psalms. This person responds to the Torah with pleasure. He or she is attentive to Torah to the extent of “meditating” on it all the time. Actually, our English word “meditate” is too weak. The Hebrew word means something more active (the same word appears in Psalm 2:1). It’s like when you pace the floor back and forth all night talking to yourself about whatever is on your mind. That’s the ideal reader’s response.
And so the Psalmist compares this person to the most beautiful things he knows, the beauty of nature. Those of us who live in west Texas understand this. Trees are precious things. Green is a wonderful color. And virtue is too. A life well lived is the ultimate act of biblical interpretation.
I asked Kerry Shook when he thought someone had enough “Biblical knowledge”. He said, “when someone reads it and doesn’t know any better but to do what it says.”
The ultimate act if biblical interpretation.
The ultimate act of biblical interpretation is that it should be theocentric (God-centered) and not anthropocentric (man-centered).
When one believes the primary focus of the Bible is man, and that all that God does is for man and relies upon man’s cooperation, then s/he will misunderstand the purpose of/and interpretation of Scripture. It is merely man-centered, malleable, and palatable religion. It becomes idolatrous worship of the creation over the Creator.
However, when one believes the primary focus of the Bible is God and what He is doing in reference to Himself and to His own glorification and according to His own sovereign counsel, plan, power, and will …
… that is the ultimate act of biblical interpretation (and life action).
If so, Jr, why create man at all? An all-sufficient God whose only objective is his own glorification hardly needs to create any creature, still less a magnificent one like homo sapiens.
I suspect the telos here is more anthropocentric than we might dare believe. With Willard, my guess is that the telos is “a loving community of self-directing, self-sacrificing persons, with God himself as its ruler and its most glorious inhabitant.” Or something to that effect.
qb
QB,
Perhaps Jr;s point is that scripture is more theocentric than anthropocentric as he said at the beginning. Prior to creating man there were an abundance of (created) angels so God did not lack for someone to chat with. Prior to the creation of the angelic host I suspect God existed from way back into eternity past. Some have suggested that the fellowship within the Godhead was sufficient and that God never lacked for anything, i.e. He did not need us to make Himself complete is some way.
Our creation is a magnificent display of his character (love) and creative ability and probably much more than that, but it is with difficulty that I contemplate it may have been to fill a void in His life. For now I just go with the catechism: Q: What is the chief end of man? A: To glorify God and enjoy Him forever.
Cheers,
Geezer
Sounds to me like “theocentric” might be the ultimate perspective of biblical interpretation; but it doesn’t make sense as the ultimate act. What Dr. Hamilton said makes sense and fits with scripture: that the ultimate ACT isn’t just to hear the word but to do the word.
Erin: I agree with you here, that those truly born-again are not simply hearers who walk away unchanged and unmotivated. Though it is not what saves us, as those in Christ by grace we obey and do good works. Amen to that.
I don’t want to get too far off topic, but what I was getting at is, why? Why do we do what we do? Motivations matter, and this is where the theocentric interpretation as the “ultimate act” comes in. The theocentric perspective says that we act not because it’s law, not because it’s some good moral thing to do, not because it may be virtuous, not because we want the glory or to be seen, not because we envision some Utopian ideal of the world, not because it just so happens to back our worldly political model, etc.
It is not ultimately about us. It is about God and that He would receive all the glory in our redemption and in our lives and good deeds. Unbelievers (like I once was) do “good” things all the time; yet it counts for nothing because their motivation is anthropocentric. It is idolatry. And sometimes professed believers fall into the same mode of idolatry.
Motivations matter. This is what I was pointing to with the theocentric interpretation as the “ultimate act.” It helps us define everything in all creation and put all that we “do” in this life into perspective. Hope that helps clarify.
Grace to you -
Jr
“Unbelievers (like I once was) do “good” things all the time; yet it counts for nothing because their motivation is anthropocentric. It is idolatry. And sometimes professed believers fall into the same mode of idolatry.”
Where do you get such black-and-white, either-or theology from? Should not the Parable of the Good Samaritan (Lk 10.25-37) help remind us that sometimes people outside the church do good (neighborly) deeds for no other reason than because it is the right thing to do…and how is such a deed idolatrous?
Grace and peace,
Rex
I should tell you that the first little church I preached in had a lady who had survived Auschwitz (but not all of her family made it out) and she was now an agnostic who simply came to our congregation because it was close by and she believed good place to be involved doing good deeds. She was the biggest giver and was always finding ways to help others out…I fail to see how her good deeds were idolatrous because she was agnostic in her belief.
Grace and peace,
Rex
Outside of Christ, who/what was I? Dead in sin, a hater of God, an enemy of God. This is what the Scriptures tell me. “For if while we were enemies we we reconciled to God by the death of His Son…” I was an enemy of God. I was also once “dead in the trespasses of sins…a child of wrath…” In my past life I did not serve God in faith or for His glory even when I gave and helped others. The glory was either for me or for another person or reason. Therefore, I was an idolater. I was outside of Christ. I was dead in my sin. Even my righteous deeds were like filthy rags to God, because my iniquity took me away.
If my motivation in doing good was for something other than God, like because it made me feel good, or it would better the society around me, or whatever, I was an idolater. Motivations do matter and this is why: I served (ultimately) something or someone else other than Christ. As a believer, I can still fall prey to this kind of idolatry, which is why it is important that we battle to die every day.
[[As for the good Samaritan, I'm sure you read Jervell in school and know what he writes concerning what Luke is doing in Luke-Acts in regards to the Jews and Samaritans. He posits that critical analysis shows that Luke does not use the Samaritan material in an illustrative way for Gentile Christian readers. Jesus came to unite Israel first; to be their King; then and only then could the Gospel go to the Gentiles. Jervell really shines a light on how Luke depicts Jesus' actions with Gentiles (like how He's always excusing Himself from connection), yet He was more than willing to engage with and speak of Samaritans. Ever wonder why the "good Samaritan" wasn't instead a "good Gentile soldier"? The story has little to do with doing good deeds "for no other reason than because it is the right thing to do." It has a much deeper meaning than that in the Luke-Acts, Jews-Samaritan paradigm.]]
qb: “I suspect the telos here is more anthropocentric than we might dare believe.”
I believe that would make us idolaters. But worse, it makes God an idolater. God didn’t “need” to create man, but He did so that we would marvel at Him. He created us to worship Him; that is our purpose and it is a blessing of grace, “for the Father is seeking such people to worship him” (John 4:23).
John Piper put it well in his book “Let the Nations Be Glad:”
“The ultimate foundation for our passion to see God glorified is his own passion to be glorified. God is central and supreme in his own affections. There are no rivals for the supremacy of God’s glory in his own heart. God is not an idolater. He does not disobey the first and great commandment. With all his heart and soul and strength and mind he delights in the glory of his manifold perfections. The most passionate heart for God in all the universe is God’s own heart.”
God is theocentric. We should be too. There is no reason to love others if not for the purpose to bring glory to God. That’s the point of everything in creation and should be the point in all that we do.
Grace to you -
Jr
Piper. Kool-aid. Don’t drink.
Thanks, qb. You’re right on target. “What is a human being that you are mindful of him?” marveled the psalmist.
That is the kind of God I have little interest in: a God who is obsessed with “himself” while others can go to hell.
If that’s the kind of God there is, God shouldn’t have created people God intended to send to hell. That’s just not nice.
If I were going to believe, it would certainly not be as a Calvinist. I’d hate to be a Calvinist parent: to love my little child so much but to wonder if maybe he or she isn’t part of the elect. Called to love someone God in God’s sovereignty had decided to send to hell. Such a desperately sad little theology.
Fight that idolatry!
Yikes. qb was suspicious of Piper from an innocent distance, but now it’s a full-blown disgust. qb finds it well-nigh impossible to accept an understanding of God in which God puts himself at the EXCLUSIVE center of his own purposes.
{Has qb read the Ten Commandments (“Thou shalt have no other gods before me”)? Of course, so please don’t patronize…}
Here is qb’s reasoning, distilled, and stating the conclusion at the beginning.
The object of God’s primary affections is not himself. If we have seen Jesus, we have seen the Father. And if we have seen Jesus, we have observed a being whose primary touchstone is a unique kind of love (I John 4:7-8), a kind of love that offers oneself as a sacrifice for the sake of the other (John 3:16), that considers others more important than oneself (Phil. 2), that gives one’s own life as a testimony to its genuineness (John 15:13), that presents itself as a the paradigmatic example for the community of believers to follow (John 13:35). Whatever that is, it’s not self-obsession, no matter how much gymnastic sophistry can be brought to bear.
Willard’s formulation of the divine telos seems about right, taking the scripture in its entirety. Here is his take, word for word:
“The aim of God in history is the creation of an all-inclusive community of loving persons with God himself at the very center of this community as its prime Sustainer and most glorious Inhabitant.”
God at the center? Yes. But the center of what? The center of a community of human beings who have been formed in his likeness – a likeness defined almost exclusively by self-giving, other-directed agape – through a life of discipleship to Jesus the Incarnate.
That is not to set us out as somehow self-adequate in our worthiness to be at the center. We are created beings, after all. But a narrative that puts God at the center of his own affections doesn’t pass through the biblical data very well at all. The main piont of having no other gods before Jehovah is that the other gods are not real and cannot deliver on the promises attributed to them.
qb
P. S. I just posed myself a thought experiment that was highly revealing: “What sort of father would I be to my sons if I modeled my father-ness after Piper’s God?” The result was not pretty.
“The Divine Conspiracy” is on my list to read soon but the quote QB shares from Willard seems to be on par with the comprehensive biblical witness. I just don’t think Piper’s claim about God can be sustained when held up against the Genesis creation narrative (not to forget the rest of the redemptive goal of God that unfolds throughout scripture). Further, Jr., reading of Romans seems to assume Paul is presenting a systematic theology of the gospel rather writing to address a growing conflict between the Jewish and Gentile Christians…which means that without denying the fact that all people are sinners, justified by grace through faith, etc…, Paul just might be using a bit of rhetoric in his argument to level the playing field between the two side and never meant for all of his statements to be turned into a propositional claim through which the rest of scripture is to be filtered through.
Grace and peace,
Rex
Rex, the “comprehensive biblical witness” of which you speak of (/grin) stands over against what we might call a reductionist atomization of Scripture, which I take to be Piper’s approach. The narrative of God is not merely the sum of its verses. That’s why I find Wright’s exegesis so compelling: he is credibly conversant with all of the Bible’s minutest data (including the historical literature that grew up around it from among the believing community), but in putting it all together he does not settle for a hyperconstrained spline when a more elegant and straightforward fit can be obtained with just a handful of powerful parameters.
(I guess that’s qb’s blathering way of saying “amen.”)
qb
Some of you seem to be pitting these things against each other, but I do not believe that God’s biggest affections being for Himself along with the actions of the Incarnate Jesus (the revealed God) and therefore how we should love and act toward others are mutually exclusive things. I do not believe they are. Why is Psalm 8 pitted against other Scriptures when in fact they go together? There is no conflict there for me and I don’t believe they are conflicted in the narrative of Scripture.
qb, you raised a number of quotes from Scripture, all of which I would affirm. But what is the ULTIMATE cause or purpose of all those things? Why did Jesus offer Himself up for the sake of others (sinners at that!)? Why did God send Him? Why did Paul tell us to consider others as more important than ourselves? Why did Christ give a life that testifies to its genuineness? Why do we, then, love each other in kind? Are not all these things, ultimately, for the glory of God? Do not all these things point to Him and His Name? And is this not His purpose?
Jesus said, “The one who speaks on his own authority seeks his own glory; but the one who seeks the glory of him who sent him is true, and in him there is no falsehood” (John 7:18). And did He not also say in regards to good works, “In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven” (Matt 5:16)? And when Jesus was on His way to the cross, “But for this purpose I have come to this hour. Father, glorify your name.’ Then a voice came from heaven, ‘I have glorified it, and I will glorify it again’ (John 12:27-28).
Jesus seeks the glory of God in what He is doing. Jesus does not put his actions for others up against the ultimate action of glory, praise, and honor to the Father. However, there is but one ultimate purpose; namely, glory to God the Father. And this does not neglect love in the slightest. For Jesus, it was His fuel.
Why does God even forgive sin?
“I, I am he who blots out your transgressions for my own sake, and I will not remember your sins” (Isa 43:25)
And the Psalmist pleads for forgiveness by appealing to what? “For your own name’s sake, O Lord, pardon my guilt, for it is great” (Psa 25:11)
What does Paul appeal to as the reason for our community?
“Welcome one another as Christ has welcomed you, for the glory of God” (Rom 15:7)
Why were people created?
“Bring my sons from afar and my daughters from the end of the earth, every one who is called by my name, whom I created for my glory” (Isa 43:6-7).
Why did God call Israel?
“You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will be glorified” (Isa 49:3).
“I made the whole house of Israel and the whole house of Judah cling to me, declares the Lord, that they might be for me a people, a name, a praise, and a glory (Jer 13:11).
Why did God rescue Israel from Egypt?
“Yet he saved them for his name’s sake, that he might make known his mighty power” (Psa 106:8).
Why did He not forsake Israel?
“For the Lord will not forsake his people, for his great name’s sake” (1 Sam 20:22).
Why did God defer His anger even more?
“For my name’s sake I defer my anger, for the sake of my praise I restrain it for you, that I may not cut you off. Behold, I have refined you, but not as silver; I have tried you in the furnace of affliction. For my own sake, for my own sake, I do it, for how should my name be profaned? My glory I will not give to another” (Isa 48:9-11).
Why did God bring Israel back from exile?
“Thus says the Lord God, It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am about to act, but for the sake of my holy name” (Ezek 36:22).
God’s (Jesus’) love for others is ultimately rooted in God’s affection for His Name, His praise, and His glory. The latter feeds the former and it is the most loving act there is. For as Jesus said in His prayer for us in John 17, “Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me…”
What is our ultimate reward? To see the glory of Jesus! Therefore, the most loving act of God toward us is His affection for His own Name and glory.
Grace to you -
Jr
“What sort of father would I be to my sons if I modeled my father-ness after Piper’s God?” The result was not pretty.”– qb
“If I were going to believe, it would certainly not be as a Calvinist. I’d hate to be a Calvinist parent: to love my little child so much but to wonder if maybe he or she isn’t part of the elect. Called to love someone God in God’s sovereignty had decided to send to hell. Such a desperately sad little theology. “–Robbie
Part 1 of my response:
Piper’s God… Calvin’s God…Wright’s God… IF I were going to believe…
God is God. When we attribute adjectives to Him from limited human understanding, we are trying to make Him into someone we can understand and control. There is only God. He is no less God when we don’t like His attributes than He is when we do like them!
God, in Jesus, sacrificed Himself in Love to reunite His children back to himself. God, through Joshua, ordered genocide. Same God. One God. Supreme, Ultimate, Love, Justice, Mercy, Wrath, Ever-lasting, Not-to-be-messed-with, All-powerful GOD.
Part 2:
I was raised being taught that God desires authentic relationship with us. Therefore He offers us saving Grace through being united with Jesus. We have the free-will to chose to accept this free gift of Grace. God throws out a Life-Saver to us, and all we have to do is reach out and grasp hold of the Grace.
But if we are pitting the fatherly example from “Piper’s God” against the model most in the church of Christ tradition hold (and I typed above)… here’s where I’m left scratching my head.
What kind of “loving parent” only offers a life-line out to their child and does not jump in and pull them to safety? Is it “loving” to only OFFER saving, but not actually save? What real parent wouldn’t rush into the surging flood and wrap their arms around their child even if the child tried to resist the assistance?
“Piper’s God” doesn’t wait for permission to save His children. He jumps in after them.
(And, Piper is no stranger to having a child who is not seeking God. He knows how hard it is to love a child and know they are in danger of losing their souls.)
I know… I know… “What about those He doesn’t save?” And I struggle with this. I keep coming back to: They aren’t His children, and they don’t want to be. I don’t know why. And I don’t understand. If I did, I wouldn’t need God.
My husband’s “fatherhood” isn’t a mirror of God’s fatherhood, it points to it. My husband is a man, a created being. It is in my husbands failings that he is best able to point our children to a God who Never Fails. It is through my husband’s human, feebleness, that he is able to point to a God who is more than we can ask or imagine. God’s strength, love, mercy, and fatherhood look all the more glorious in our admissions of inadequacy.
I guess I’ll wrap this up now. I guess this just hit some of my hot buttons.
Grace
As I read through these comments, the question that seems to be being raised is this: Is God’s creative and redemptive work self-serving for the sake of himself or is it self-giving for the sake of creation?
Whether that question is a fair assesment of the discussion, that is what I am hearing.
Any ways, we can all cite proof-text after proof text to support one answer over the other…and we’ll just talk past each other. My present understanding of the Genesis creation narrative leaves me to believe God’s act of creating was self-giving rather than self-serving. Because I understand God’s redemptive act to be the restoration of God’s creative intent, I continue to believe that what God is doing is self-giving. And my understanding of God’s redemptive purpose came into shape through the help of people like Jurgen Moltmann, Stanley Grenz, some writings in the Eastern Orthodox tradition, and a certain professor name John Mark Hicks.
Grace and peace,
Rex
Geezer continues to be impressed by QB’s rhetoric, but is slightly disturbed by the provocative language QB uses, albeit infrequently. Little things like “qb was suspicious of Piper from an innocent distance, but now it’s a full-blown disgust” and suggesting that “self-obsession” might be an attribute of Piper’s God seem at odds with QB’s obvious intellectual ability and general thoughtfulness. Is Geezer making a poor leap of logic in wondering if this is more a poking of a finger in the Calvinist eye than it is in accurately representing the thinking of Piper, Sproul, Carson, Begg and other contemporary Calvinists?
Geezer suspects that QB simply does not appreciate Piper et al b/c he may believe the oft presented caricature is the reality.
Hesed,
Geezer
Geez, I’m going with what Piper has written, not any particular caricature…unless his writings constitute a caricature of himself. qb
Geezer was raised in the CofC and maintains close familial (generational) ties there as well as close relationships with friends that are still actively involved with the Churches of Christ. Geezer views the CofC as his dysfunctional church family and has left the denomination and is involved with another group of Christians. The differences between the 20th century CofC view of man, his will and abilities as well as their view of God and His attributes and Geezer’s view is quite significant.
However, as much as Geezer disagrees with the theology of the CofC and even the way in which they have dealt with those with whom they disagree Geezer would not say he is *disgusted* by the CofC. Geezer would have to take a few minutes and think of extreme cases before the word *disgust* might even be considered as descriptive. (Foy E. Wallace Jr and his virulent attacks on his theological opponents comes to mind.) No doubt Geezer is disappointed, sad and even angry at what he has seen pass for commendable Christian behavior and thought in the CofC, even in the 21st century. But to claim to be disgusted seems to assume an air of superiority of thought and understanding reserved for those who are perhaps more able than Geezer and his peers.
Perhaps Geezer should not be surprised at these attitudes for we are all influenced by the culture in which we are raised; and Geezer has already indicated he found his larger CofC family to be dysfunctional. To be sure, Geezer hopes the best for them and will always look forward to news from home. He does genuinely pray that it will be good news of wonderful things happening in the family rather than more put downs and ridicule of those with whom we disagree. Geezer is convinced God is able to make it happen!
Hesed,
Geezer
The first chapter of John Piper’s book, “Desiring God”, can help in answering questions about how God can seek his own glory without being arrogant and while loving the people he created in a sacrificial manner.
In short, nothing is more worthy of praise and glory than God himself. As human beings, we naturally praise the glory of persons and things that are beautiful and praiseworthy. When God presents himself to people as the object of praise and glory, he is showing love toward us by presenting us with the most praiseworthy and glorious person in existance. It’s not that he is arrogant; it’s that he knows that he is the personification of glory and he doesn’t want us to settle for less than the best. That would be a disappointing idolatry rather than the source of ultimate joy.
In addition, the apostle Paul showed that God’s choice to adopt people into his family was intended to be “to the praise of his glorious grace” (Eph. 1:5-6). Christians have obtained an inheritance from God “to the praise of his glory” (Eph. 1:11-12). We have heard the word of truth, believed in Christ, and were sealed with the Holy Spirit “to the praise of his glory” (Eph. 1:13-14). God made a great sacrifice for us, and he has blessed us with an opportunity to direct our praise for his sacrifice and our salvation toward himself rather than toward something or someone who does not deserve it.
Terry, I could be wrong, but nobody here appears even remotely to suggest that God is not the most praiseworthy ____ [not sure what word to use there] in the whole order. Which windmill are you tilting at?
And Geez: can you not think of ANY form of theology that would fire your “disgust” reflex? None at all?
qb’s not suggesting Piper’s not saved, or qb’s brother, or anything like that. But the implications of the belief expressed in the excerpt above are toxic. Just as are the implications of, say, Dwhatever theology it is that causes David Brown to go after someone like Al Maxey.
I was addressing Rex’s question: Is God’s creative and redemptive work self-serving for the sake of himself or is it self-giving for the sake of creation? Rex raised an important question.
Terry,
I have not read Piper’s “Desiring God” however I read other books and articles by reformed theologians. With that being said, it is interesting to read your comments and some of the other comments defending Piper’s theological caricture of God…did you all read the same Piper
?
I say that because some of the comments have portrayed God as seeing his creation, namely humanity, as simply a means to his own glory and thus, portraying humanity as simply a commodity…at least that is what I am understanding as I read some of these comments. My problem with that is that it just does not fit with the Genesis creation narrative (what God affirms regarding his creation of humanity or his purpose for creating them) and his redemptive purposes which I understand to be a restoration of his intent in creation. I have no probelm affirming that God’s creative and redemptive goal bring him glorification. However, that same goal brings glorification to those in Christ as well (Rom 8.30). That surely means creation is more than just a means to an end.
Further more, if the Genesis creation narrative is read in the context of a statement being made to Israel after being delivered from 430 years of bondage (where they surely had bought into Babylonian mythology), what God is affirming in the creation narrative is first and foremost how God sees the people of Israel (as image bearers of him called to his creative purposes) prior to their becoming his people through the Mosaic covenant. That fact ought to temper any claim that apart humanity is by nature incapable of bringing glory to God.
Any ways, I hope that explains more why I raised the question I did.
Grace and peace,
Rex
Thanks for the response, Rex. I’m not sure that I agree with you on everything. But I agree with you that God is glorified in creation and redemption.
This is about the centrality of God in all things, the purpose for all things, the end of all things, even in and of Himself. I’m talking ultimacy not singularity, but what I am reading from some here is that the penultimate things are actually the ultimate things. This, again, is idolatry.
Rex wrote, “Is God’s creative and redemptive work self-serving for the sake of himself or is it self-giving for the sake of creation?”
Why is that an either/or? Why do you pit them against each other? That was my point in the longer comment above. While I will argue for ultimacy (that being God and His Name, Glory, Power, Praise, etc.), that does not mean His self-giving or His mindfulness of man is anything less than the amazing and loving thing that it is. In fact, the case made is that it makes Him even more loving, that we can share in the ultimate.
Why do you keep using exclusive language like “simply for his glory?” I never said, nor has anybody else here, that it was “simply for his glory.” That is a straw man. Again, I’m talking ultimate purpose, not solitary purpose.
What is true is that the fuel for everything Jesus did was for the glory of the Father. He didn’t do things just to do things, or be a nice guy, or a good teacher. He did things so that in the end, ultimately, He/His Father would be glorified. This is the witness of Scripture, as I and Terry have demonstrated above.
The question is: are we idolaters? What truly and ultimately motivates us and our love for God and others? Do we make much of God because He makes much of us; or do we make much of God because He frees us and empowers us to make much of Him? Which do we seek more in the redemption of all creation, the gifts or the Giver of those gifts?
Man-centered motivation and theology as the ultimate purpose and end is idolatry, plain and simple, and it plagues our tradition. It is amazing the lengths the theology of man-centeredness goes to, even making God an idolater.
Grace to you -
Jr
QB,
You asked if there is form of theology that disgusts me. Yes, there is.
I am familiar with some things done in Africa in the name of religion, at least in part, that have disgusted me. A few things in SE Asia as well; I’ve walked through the killing fields and picked up a human tooth and a shred of a baby’s crocheted clothing left in the dirt for 25 years after the infant was torn from his mother’s arms and killed before her face. And of course during the dark ages and the Spanish inquisition there were some pretty horrible abuses of the Christian religion.
There are times when I take a close look at myself and see the old man, though he is dead, acting like he is pretty much alive. It can be disgusting, even frightening, when one does not do what he would do, but instead does the very thing he would not. If only sin were some alien invader that had infected me from afar rather than being my nature. Thanks be to God for his unspeakable gift. How he could love man and do all he did to redeem me is beyond my comprehension.
Perhaps if you struggled to understand Piper better your view towards him would soften. He often speaks of God’s self sacrificing love for man and how glorious God is.
Hesed,
Geezer