I want to preface this post by saying that if this means nothing to you, then reject it. However, this means a great deal to me, so I’m posting it in case this might help some of you who read this blog. This is a continuation of my meditations on what I call the z-theory. If you wish to read further, type “z-theory” in my search box on the right column of my blog.
The bible itself testifies to the self-emptying of God, the “kenosis”, the sacrifice of his own transcendence (read Philippians 2). In a radical movement, God unfolds himself into the world which he loves. The incarnational event, the Christ story, not only reveals and relates this love of God, but actually demonstrates it as God entering into the world and the life of humanity. No longer, then, is God remotely enthroned on high, separated from his creation. Now, he is invested completely, compassionately incarnated into the actual life and history of humanity. The post-crucifixion God is no longer God the Father, for God the Father emptied himself, nor God the Son, for the Son, having completed the incarnational work, proclaimed, “It is finished!” The post-resurrection God then is the Spirit. Where we are gathered in love, there is God, but as Spirit. It is within the time and space of the cosmos, history, our human interactions, the God has condescended to live and move and have his being. It is within the affairs of people where God dwells, where God is found, where God is loved, and where God is served.
Cartoonist.
Artist.
Spirituality Coach.
Writer.
Speaker.
I have never seen theology done this badly. You should get some sort of prize for this.
Either a prize or jail time…not sure which yet.
Why must we all get so defensive and act in such a flipant mannor whenever we disagree. This is why so many people have a problem with religion. Time for some reasoned argument?
David, I wonder, is the post-resurrection God, the Spirit “emptied” in itself? When God became flesh that surely was emptying Himself, but what about the Spirit? Did God empty himself in all forms? Also, I don’t see the post-resurrection Jesus as somebody who is “emptied” anymore, he’s the risen Lord ‘who is seated at the right hand of the Father’. Not empty anymore (tho he does carry His wounds eternally – he is still the Slain Lamb, even in heaven).
So yes, he DID empty Himself when he decided to take up the form of a Human, and when he “moved in to the neighbourhood”. But did he empty Himself ever again? Also, I’m quite sure that God did “lower the bar” quite a bit when he decided to give the ten commandments, for instance, he did have to give it to us in an “emptied” way, that even we could understand them. But still, does the Spirit empty himself also, or is this just the way he prefers to be shown (relationships, etc, so basically through “the Kingdom of God”)?
dissidens, if you’re going to speak within and to the community of faith, please try to do it in a constructive, helpful, respectful manner.
otherwise, few will take you seriously.
Vahrael said, on December 15th, 2009 at 7:08 pm
Why must we all get so defensive and act in such a flipant mannor whenever we disagree.
———–Sounds to me as if Dissidens isn’t defensive. That is pretty straight up telling it like it is. In fact, not defensive——-straight out disagreement.
I won’t get involved with Z-Theory this time because I have been through that war more than once——-but people on here have taking Z-theory on because it is just that; a theory, and theory does not take the place of the Bible. And the Bible is not theory.
fishon
Hey, Dave, I think Vahrael and John need their Strattera dosage adjusted?
Jesus told his disciples that he was going away, but that the Comforter would come – the Spirit. David is talking about in the world, not in Heaven. One can still say the Father and Son exist in Heaven.
I think this is very good and it helps me. I think though that it is only God SHOWING that the spirit is here, within and around and among us. It’s not that it wasn’t here before.
David….THE SON is risen, but aren’t we to become the sons? Isn’t the ministry of the Holy Spirit parallel to the ministry of Jesus? As Jesus walked among mankind as Emmanuel, doesn’t the Holy Spirit dwell with us and in us as Emmanuel? Are we not to be like Jesus and are we not capable of, have the potential of, doing all He did and more? It seems to me that mankind sits and waits for a sovereign act of God when each of us need to be offering our bodies and minds daily to be used by the Holy Spirit….that God will dwell in us and work through us to the degree that we are willing. Unfortunately, most of the world has chosen to operate under the world system, and that includes the church. We say “thy kingdom come, thy will be done…” and then go our merry ways. If we were to be operating in the realm of the Spirit, there would be no lack…if we took the words of Jesus seriously and sought only the kingdom of God, everything would be taken care of…and yet we persist in praying for what God can give us and not for the manifestation in our lives. If you need to hear it in a lighter vein, listen toI the words of Mary Poppins in “Anything Can Happen If You Let It”….”if you reach for the stars all you get is the stars……but, if you reach for the heavens, you get the stars thrown in…” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pzgf4HDeCXI
dissidens…all I can think of is that criticism is the death gargle of the non- achiever…why don’t you do something constructive?…like maybe even giving your viewpoint…
I don’t remember that song in Mary Poppins. Maybe it’s in the recent show?
preacherlady said, on December 15th, 2009 at 9:36 pm
dissidens…all I can think of is that criticism is the death gargle of the non- achiever…
———–Alice, nice saying, but just isn’t true.
fishon
NP, have you been reading Robert Capon again? i like it! and i love people who can’t handle incarnation and instead choose a pseudo-gnostic stance of deny’n the embodied experience. it’s all about the embodied, panentheist, incarnation mi amigo! RAWK!
tiggy…its in the new broadway edition…fishon…people who do nothing but nit pick and criticize are usually people who aren’t capable of doing anything…you reap what you sow…if you spend your time ripping others apart you will get ripped apart…all part of the judge and not be judged. and i’m talking about nonconstructive criticism…nothing suggested to improve or change.
Alice,
Some things are so outrageous that they need and deserve criticizing.
I take it, Alice, you then have no criticizing hanging around in your bones?
As far as improve or change, he ain’t about to. He is as dogmatic as some of us criticizers. And besides, when asked to explain some things so we can get to a possible improvement, he refuses to answer with: I won’t be trapped or put in a box.
David: The post-crucifixion God is no longer God the Father,
dissidens said, I have never seen theology done this badly.
—Straightforward and true.
You won’t be defending David’s z-theory would you?
fishon
This sounds like a story that you made up to save yourself from atheism. So that you can continue to say “God Exists” without lying.
“It is within the affairs of people where God dwells, where God is found, where God is loved, and where God is served.”
I have long had a fondness for Incarnational theology, pantheism and panentheism. I enjoy thinking about, and wrestling with, ideas of humans created in God’s image. Within the affairs of people is grace and judgement, salvation and condemnation, dances of joy and gnashing of teeth. We build the kingdom of heaven and dig the pit of hell- sometimes simultaneously. But if God speaks in the affairs of people, is there some sort of consistent or coherent message we can derive from these affairs? Some certainty? Some good news or message of hope? Perhaps you have discussed this in a previous post on z-theory. I drop by occasionally to read what you share here, but will admit to occassionally skimming for the cartoons. *grin*
fishon….I’ve been coming to this blog for about 6 mos…the only comments I’ve heard from dissidens have been nasty and critical…he doesn’t have anything constructive to say. By the way, how familiar are you with success motivation, particularly bible based success motivation? People who succeed in life quiet the inner critic as much as possible…those who make a career out of criticising everyone and everything are usually spinning their wheels.
I have now read all you have written on this blog on z-theory, and I withdraw my questions. I apologize for not reading before opening my yap, and hope I have not offended through laziness. Your theory presents a mental picture that I may be able to use in my own struggles to mesh my intellectual integrity with my religious community (not to imply that the two are of any necessity mutually exclusive). I do question your assigning terms such as “personal”, compassionate” or even “source” or “willing” to the Unknowable. If the Unknowable is unknowable, can not such terms only be assigned to the Incarnate and the Experienced?
Okay, I think I get what Mr. Haywood is saying. but:
taken the way he describes it totally denies the doctrine of the Trinity. We shouldn’t understand Jesus as still emptied. Rather, he has taken back up that which he had emptied himself of in the Incarnation. He ascended to the right hand of the Father still clothed in our humanity which had now been deified. He then sent the Spirit to unite us to himself so that we too could share in the divine life. As St. Athanasius said, God became man so that man could become God. We become by grace what Jesus is by nature. Or, if you prefer the evangelical way of saying it; He came to me ‘just as I am’ but he’s not gonna leave me like that.
Any time you step away from the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation you lose the beauty and power of the gospel. They’re not dry doctrines. They’re full of life.
Peace be with you.
marcus: you should read back on my other posts on the z-theory. i don’t think it denies the trinity.
quester: i have found this helpful for me. i share it in case it might be helpful for others.
Mr. Haywood,
I’ve read the first two now. I’ll read more.
However, saying that god is no longer the Father or the Son but only the Spirit sure seems like a denial of the orthodox teaching that God exists eternally (including now) in three persons: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. According to Christian doctrine, the Father did not empty himself. The Son did. Jesus’ work was not done when he said ‘It is Finished,’ we believe that he is still working. Rather, his earthly work was finished.
This is why I say that this post denies the Trinity. However, after reading a few other posts about your thoughts on the Bible, I doubt very much that orthodoxy is what you are shooting for.
David, can I ask your opinion of what you have just described? Do you think it is the “best” method God could have implemented to accomplish what you seem to believe he has accomplished? Do you think the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, 2,000 years ago, is the “best” method for …what…communing with humanity TODAY?
While I can’t help but be touched by such a story, my rational side is insulted when I am asked to believe that this is the best the creator of the universe can do, TODAY.
You finished with – “It is within the affairs of people where God dwells, where God is found, where God is loved, and where God is served.”
Is it not reasonable to wonder why, if that is true, why does it seem that, in the “affairs of people”, that no God “dwells”? David, why do I not see any manifestation of God?
Why does it seem that, whether Christian, Muslim, Atheist, Mormon, etc, the only difference between them is what they believe (or don’t believe), but, there is no manifestation of any God to be detected?
Help me understand what you see that I don’t.
The reason I ask your opinion initially is because I think there is a better way, today, for the creator of the universe to make him / her / it’s self known to humankind, rather than to rely on a 2,000 year old story of sacrifice.
You seem to imply that with the emptying God the Father ceased to exist and that when “it was finished,” the Son ceased to exist.
I for one would be very glad to be shot of the patriarchal theology of God the Father which merely replicates earthly bonds of patriarchal servitude and guilt. Throughout history, the things that have been done in the name of the father and because of his supposed authority, are horrendous. From slaughtering thousands in the name of God to burning thousands in the name of Hitler and the Fatherland to the pain and abuse brought about by domineering fathers, whether aggressive and violent or cold and remote. The father’s ‘love’ is always conditional – conditional on obedience and acceptance of his authority. This is not a model I can subscribe to.
Tiggy,
Conditional? You must not be a father.
I’m female, Marcus!
Tiggy,
I had kind of figured that.
I am a father. And I can assure you that– though their are definitely men who are selfish enough to procreate without any real commitment to their family– there is an amazing love that instantly develops between a father and his child. There is no reason for it. It just is. This is the kind of relationship the God talks about when he refers to himself as our Father. It means that he is love, and that his love for us just ‘is’. It means that there are no conditions. Just as my children did nothing to earn or deserve my love. Just as there is nothing that they could do to make it end.
None of us fathers are perfect representatives, of course. But, it’s enough to get the idea. My dad is a good man and it is through him that I learned about God. I’ve pissed him off plenty of times, but he always loves me. It’s the same with my kids. It’s the same with God.
I don’t think the modern idea of being a father was around when the New Testament was written. I don’t believe there are many fathers who love unconditionally, especially after their children get to a certain age and especially when those children are not made in their father’s image.
I must admit, I’ve not had a real father myself to draw conclusions from, but I find it a rather dangerous relationship because of the amount of power that a father has. I don’t like having people in authority over me and I never have. Not many fathers show respect to their children.
Tiggy said, on December 16th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
I don’t think the modern idea of being a father was around when the New Testament was written. I don’t believe there are many fathers who love unconditionally, especially after their children get to a certain age and especially when those children are not made in their father’s image.
—————I am so sorry you feel the way you do about modern-day fathers. Tiggy, you make such a blanket statement in you opinion of fathers. There is no doubt there are bad fathers out in this big old world, but there countless fathers who have unconditional love for their children.
Age is absolutely no requirement for having unconditionally love for our children after they reach a certian age. I wonder where you and why you have a sense that it is like that?
My daughter is 34; well beyond the age where you say a father’s love will not be unconditional. Well, my daughter has done every conceviable sin you can think of except murder, and I still love her unconditionally. Oh, tiggy, my daughter is not made in my image: She is adopted. No way am I an exception. No way am I unique. I am of the tribe of fathers that love his child unconditionally.
Not many fathers show respect to their children. What does that mean? Like how not?
No, tiggy, way to broad a brush you paint with.
fishon
It’s not modern fathers I have a paricular issue with. What I meant was t hat the idea of fatherhood was not the same in Jesus time as it is now. In many ways fathers are better now than in the rest of history, but it’s only recently that fathers have begun to behave in the ways you talk about. For most of history, fathers have despised female children and wanted sons. They have seen daughters as a burden and as only having value for breeding purposes or in higher circles for forging political alliances. You have to look at this historically – what we see now is only the tip of the iceberg.
Fathers dont’ show respect by – not listening, humiliating, being scornful, not taking seriously, being dismissive, perceiving a daughter as a xexual t hreat, dominating through physical abuse and aggression.
Maybe I just know a lot of people whose fathers are like t his. I’ve never heard any of my friends speak of their fathers in positive ways. I’m sure there are some good fathers, but generally I distrust the whole notion of fatherhood. Fathers are scary. And if I did have a father who was good, he’d have to be a real flesh and blood physical father, not someone absent.
David,
“quester: i have found this helpful for me. i share it in case it might be helpful for others.”
Fair enough. I don’t mean to badger you with my questions. I tend to bubble forth with such when presented with a new idea. I find this z-theory potentially very helpful. I’ll have to wrestle with it more, but I can do that on my own and stop bothering you.
One more thing, you might enjoy reading Dorothy l. Sayers’ “Mind of the Maker”. She has a similar idea of the Trinity as you present in this theory- though her image is that of a book rather than a waterfall. Her conclusion, as I remember it (I read this years ago) was that the more we choose to create and to build each other up, the more we live out God’s image that we were created in and the more we participate as co-creaters in God’s kingdom. I found it inspiring, and the ideas really help me come to grips, of a sort, with your z-theory.
Best wishes, David. While I don’t comment often, your blog here has been a real blessing to me over the past year.
Has anyone read Calvin Seerveld’s ‘Rainbows for a Fallen World’ – on the theology of aesthetics?
thanks. i’ll check it out.
quester: i like her analogy (the idea, the writer and the reader). so in a way, the analogies are similar. the idea is emptied. the writer is finished. it is all in the reading. very deconstructionist too.
I find your Z-theory intriguing, David, though I can understand why some Christians would consider it as smacking of modalism. I lean in that direction myself, though kind of tentatively. I can’t quite get around the fact that Paul sometimes refers to the Holy Spirit as “the Spirit of Christ”, and I’ve never been able to see how evangelicals and other orthodox Christians can substantiate their claim that Jesus was pre-incarnate. I think John 1 is more poetical than theological, in much the same vein as Proverbs anthropomorphizes Wisdom.. But that’s just me.
I enjoy your creative theologizing. Keep it up!
Tiggy…just because you didn’t have a good father figure, doesn’t mean there aren’t scores of men who are wonder fathers and who are totally commited to their children.
Preincarnate – maybe we were all preincarnate. I don’t think humans can really deal with stuff about time, given what we know of time from physics. I had enough trouble getting my head round ‘Back to the Future’. John seems to be suggestign something archetypal.
I think very recently notions of fatherhood have changed to a more intimate relationship, but before that fatherhood was quite a remote thing to do with control of resources and women. It’s not particular fathers I distrust, but the notion of fatherhood – this idea that there’s this big intrinsic authority we should look up to. The failure to question that authority and the collusion of the family in maintainting his power has led to all sorts of abuse.
Question: [is it ok to question here? is this a 'safe' place for questions?] Is it seen as wisdom to remember our fallen state and realize that even Adam (in a sinless state) needed to rely on God to truly know truth–ergo (or Erkl) even more so, we (fallen) need to rely on God to truly know truth?
Would that point to a mode of thinking which does not (for example) take feminist notions and human fatherly failures (or seeming successes) and press them back into the doctrine of God? I.e., perhaps the work of forming an idea of human fathers actually should take a cue from ummm, I dunno, God the Father (He is still around, z theory and this post (“of course, you’re misunderstanding it–I really am trinitarian”) notwithstanding).
why does so much of the quest which so many say they are on, take them in directions other than the Word? Just [deeply] askin…