what does it mean when christians say "god is love"?
The knowledge and practice of love lies at the heart of Christian theology and ethics. Jesus illuminated this reality when he said the greatest commandment is to "love God" and the second is like it, "love your neighbor as yourself". This simple, and yet profound teaching is complicated by the plethora of expressions of love permeating contemporary culture (Badcock, 31). A source of clarity can be found in the Johannine, which states, “God is love". For a Christian, the definition of love is revealed in the nature, character and the activity of God. However, this Christian axiom does not hold the same meaning for all believers because of the widely divergent understandings of who they perceive God to be. At one end of the spectrum God is understood as an immovable first cause, and on the other pole there is a perception of a suffering and crucified God who shares in the affliction of his creation. These different understandings of who God is have profound implications upon the meaning of love, the reality and significance of God's relationship with the created, and ultimately upon the value of human life. When seeking to understand what Christians mean by the phrase, “God is love” is it necessary to for these views of God to be mutually exclusive? Or is there room within our understanding of this mystery for a fuller understanding of what is meant by the statement “God is love”?
The view of God as the “unmoved mover” grew out of the hugely influential stream of thought known today as Classical Theism (Macquarrie, 30). This philosophy was shaped in part by the Hellenistic conception of God as the transcendent ‘first mover’ who is subsequently uninvolved in the world and by the Church Father’s emphasis upon divine ineffability and incomprehensibility as one strategy in combating Gnostic heresies (Ramsey, 45-46). In an effort to assert the existence of God on purely rationalistic grounds Anselm and Aquinas provided arguments based upon reason and empiricism. Their specific ‘proofs’ are not relevant to this discussion but understanding the God who emerged as a result of all these influences is critical if we are to know what is meant by the statement ‘God is love’ from this Christian perspective.
For the Classical Theist God is completely and absolutely self-existent (Mascall, 11). The theologies of creation out of nothing and transcendence require a complete separation of God from the created world (Brown, 11), which means God remains unaffected by any possible human expression of faithfulness or wickedness and in no way does God share in the suffering of humanity (including the suffering of Jesus Christ). This belief necessitates God’s love to be uncaused. God’s love is wholly (and merely) an expression of his character; God’s love is unconditional and spontaneous. Any resemblance of a God who is moved within the scripture is seen as the communication of idioms or a ‘crude anthropomorphism’ (Badcock, 40).
The implications drawn from this view of God are indeed far reaching. God’s agape love is understood to be perfect and is defined by God’s character, whereas human eros love is the polar opposite. Human love is perceived to be flawed, hopelessly fallen and with no capacity to initiate any kind of a relationship with God (Badcock, 33). Within the framework of Classical Theism God acts upon the world, but the world does not act upon God (Macquarrie, 40). To say ‘God is love’ from this point of view is and expression an undialectical relationship in which God loves and offers salvation to human kind purely in response to his own character. This God is the example and definition of love that is all-powerful and unchanging, however this transcendent love takes no account of the ‘condition of its object’(Badcock, 46). It can be said that the God of Classical Theism loves perfectly but it could not be said that this “God so loved the world”, ultimately the ‘unmoved mover’ is nothing more than a “loveless beloved” (Moltmann, 220-221).
Many historical, cultural and theological forces have battered the concept of the ‘unmoved mover’. With the onset of the enlightenment God was replaced by science as the point of reference in understanding the universe. The death of millions in religious wars around this same period caused many to question God as he was commonly understood, and scores turned to protest atheism or agnosticism in order to deal with the problem of suffering. A God who is not involved and not affect by the reality of suffering became perceived as indifferent, apathetic, irrelevant or even worse… the devil himself (Moltmann, 220-221). Classical Theism was facing the frightening possibility of a complete deterioration into Deism or it could explore the prospect of a ‘passable’ God as an alternative theistic response.
Christians who believe in a suffering God who is affected by this world have a radically different understanding of the statement ‘God is love’. Love not just an expression of the reality of God’s character, love is God’s response to the deepest needs of humanity. The power of sin and death are conquered through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ upon the cross. In this view Christ suffers as God and as man and through this act of love it can be said, “There is no suffering which in this history of God is not God’s suffering; no death which has not been God’s death in the history of Golgotha” (Moltmann, 246). God is identified with all the suffering of human reality in the death of the Son, in bearing the curse of the sin (Gal. 3:13) and in having experienced separation from the Father. This notion of a suffering God can be taken a step further is saying the Father also suffers an ‘infinite grief of love’ because of the death of the Son (Moltmann, 242-243). To say that ‘God is love’ is to recognize God’s answer to the problem of suffering, which is to suffer with us and for us. A covenant relationship without conditions or limits is made possible between God and man because God is crucified and within the context of this relationship human existence finds meaning beyond indifference for a God who suffers recognizes a deep and inherent value within human life (Moltmann, 276).
Again, the theological position of a suffering God does not stand without its challenges. Weinandy argues that a suffering God fails, “… to grasp the full significance of the Incarnation and the transforming affects of Christ’s redemptive suffering” (Weinandy, 172). The theology of the incarnation demands that the Son of God suffer – solely and exclusively as a man – in order to maintain the integrity of his divinity and the reality of the incarnation. Therefore, any conception of Jesus suffering “as God… exploits the communication of idioms” contained in the scripture, and it would empty his suffering of being a genuinely human experience (Weinandy, 175-176, 204).
An unmovable God seems to be incapable of love, and a suffering God seems unable to maintain his divinity without being mitigated to some lesser form. In light of this paradox it is possible to have a view of God who is not passively changeable, and yet at the same time he chooses to make himself vulnerable to the suffering of this world. What then does a Christian who holds this position mean with statement “God is love”?
God’s character is the perfect definition of love and not only is this love expressed in response to his own character but his love set in motion in the context of a dialectical relationship between God and humankind (Macquarrie, 41). In no way is God’s character changed in the midst of affliction. Rather God’s character would be more fully realized as love has been and continues to be expressed in its various manifestations including: creation, the cross and sanctification. The intrinsic value of human life and love is fully appreciated because redemption is viewed as a restoration of the image of God. Ultimately the meaning of “God is love” is made known when a Christian abides in the relationship created by God’s love and when he or she reciprocates this love back to God and to the world.
Reference List
Badcock, Gary D. “The Concept of Love: Divine and Human”, in Nothing Greater, Nothing Better, Kevin J. Vanhoozer ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2001.
Brown, Peter. Augustine of Hippo. University of California Press, 2000.
Macquarrie, J. In Search of Deity. London: SCM Press, 1984.
Mascall, E. L. Existence and Analogy. Longman, 1949.
Moltmann, Jurgen. The Crucified God. Translated by: John Bowden and R. A. Wilson Augsburg Fortress Pub, 1993.
Ramsey, Boniface. Beginning to Read the Fathers. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1985.
Weinandy, Thomas G. Does God Suffer? University of Notre Dame Press, 2000.
The view of God as the “unmoved mover” grew out of the hugely influential stream of thought known today as Classical Theism (Macquarrie, 30). This philosophy was shaped in part by the Hellenistic conception of God as the transcendent ‘first mover’ who is subsequently uninvolved in the world and by the Church Father’s emphasis upon divine ineffability and incomprehensibility as one strategy in combating Gnostic heresies (Ramsey, 45-46). In an effort to assert the existence of God on purely rationalistic grounds Anselm and Aquinas provided arguments based upon reason and empiricism. Their specific ‘proofs’ are not relevant to this discussion but understanding the God who emerged as a result of all these influences is critical if we are to know what is meant by the statement ‘God is love’ from this Christian perspective.
For the Classical Theist God is completely and absolutely self-existent (Mascall, 11). The theologies of creation out of nothing and transcendence require a complete separation of God from the created world (Brown, 11), which means God remains unaffected by any possible human expression of faithfulness or wickedness and in no way does God share in the suffering of humanity (including the suffering of Jesus Christ). This belief necessitates God’s love to be uncaused. God’s love is wholly (and merely) an expression of his character; God’s love is unconditional and spontaneous. Any resemblance of a God who is moved within the scripture is seen as the communication of idioms or a ‘crude anthropomorphism’ (Badcock, 40).
The implications drawn from this view of God are indeed far reaching. God’s agape love is understood to be perfect and is defined by God’s character, whereas human eros love is the polar opposite. Human love is perceived to be flawed, hopelessly fallen and with no capacity to initiate any kind of a relationship with God (Badcock, 33). Within the framework of Classical Theism God acts upon the world, but the world does not act upon God (Macquarrie, 40). To say ‘God is love’ from this point of view is and expression an undialectical relationship in which God loves and offers salvation to human kind purely in response to his own character. This God is the example and definition of love that is all-powerful and unchanging, however this transcendent love takes no account of the ‘condition of its object’(Badcock, 46). It can be said that the God of Classical Theism loves perfectly but it could not be said that this “God so loved the world”, ultimately the ‘unmoved mover’ is nothing more than a “loveless beloved” (Moltmann, 220-221).
Many historical, cultural and theological forces have battered the concept of the ‘unmoved mover’. With the onset of the enlightenment God was replaced by science as the point of reference in understanding the universe. The death of millions in religious wars around this same period caused many to question God as he was commonly understood, and scores turned to protest atheism or agnosticism in order to deal with the problem of suffering. A God who is not involved and not affect by the reality of suffering became perceived as indifferent, apathetic, irrelevant or even worse… the devil himself (Moltmann, 220-221). Classical Theism was facing the frightening possibility of a complete deterioration into Deism or it could explore the prospect of a ‘passable’ God as an alternative theistic response.
Christians who believe in a suffering God who is affected by this world have a radically different understanding of the statement ‘God is love’. Love not just an expression of the reality of God’s character, love is God’s response to the deepest needs of humanity. The power of sin and death are conquered through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ upon the cross. In this view Christ suffers as God and as man and through this act of love it can be said, “There is no suffering which in this history of God is not God’s suffering; no death which has not been God’s death in the history of Golgotha” (Moltmann, 246). God is identified with all the suffering of human reality in the death of the Son, in bearing the curse of the sin (Gal. 3:13) and in having experienced separation from the Father. This notion of a suffering God can be taken a step further is saying the Father also suffers an ‘infinite grief of love’ because of the death of the Son (Moltmann, 242-243). To say that ‘God is love’ is to recognize God’s answer to the problem of suffering, which is to suffer with us and for us. A covenant relationship without conditions or limits is made possible between God and man because God is crucified and within the context of this relationship human existence finds meaning beyond indifference for a God who suffers recognizes a deep and inherent value within human life (Moltmann, 276).
Again, the theological position of a suffering God does not stand without its challenges. Weinandy argues that a suffering God fails, “… to grasp the full significance of the Incarnation and the transforming affects of Christ’s redemptive suffering” (Weinandy, 172). The theology of the incarnation demands that the Son of God suffer – solely and exclusively as a man – in order to maintain the integrity of his divinity and the reality of the incarnation. Therefore, any conception of Jesus suffering “as God… exploits the communication of idioms” contained in the scripture, and it would empty his suffering of being a genuinely human experience (Weinandy, 175-176, 204).
An unmovable God seems to be incapable of love, and a suffering God seems unable to maintain his divinity without being mitigated to some lesser form. In light of this paradox it is possible to have a view of God who is not passively changeable, and yet at the same time he chooses to make himself vulnerable to the suffering of this world. What then does a Christian who holds this position mean with statement “God is love”?
God’s character is the perfect definition of love and not only is this love expressed in response to his own character but his love set in motion in the context of a dialectical relationship between God and humankind (Macquarrie, 41). In no way is God’s character changed in the midst of affliction. Rather God’s character would be more fully realized as love has been and continues to be expressed in its various manifestations including: creation, the cross and sanctification. The intrinsic value of human life and love is fully appreciated because redemption is viewed as a restoration of the image of God. Ultimately the meaning of “God is love” is made known when a Christian abides in the relationship created by God’s love and when he or she reciprocates this love back to God and to the world.
Reference List
Badcock, Gary D. “The Concept of Love: Divine and Human”, in Nothing Greater, Nothing Better, Kevin J. Vanhoozer ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2001.
Brown, Peter. Augustine of Hippo. University of California Press, 2000.
Macquarrie, J. In Search of Deity. London: SCM Press, 1984.
Mascall, E. L. Existence and Analogy. Longman, 1949.
Moltmann, Jurgen. The Crucified God. Translated by: John Bowden and R. A. Wilson Augsburg Fortress Pub, 1993.
Ramsey, Boniface. Beginning to Read the Fathers. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1985.
Weinandy, Thomas G. Does God Suffer? University of Notre Dame Press, 2000.
posted by Jason at 2:22 p.m.
2 Comments:
Very interesting. That discussion about God and immutability goes on in my circle as well.
Jeremy
Interesting historical review, brilliant work and research. However, I find your synthesis lacking...I want to know not just what you think, but the reality of 'God is Love' in your life. You pose some interesting challenges but I would like to hear how you feel more, your experience of God is Love or lack thereof. Maybe you could do another post on how this works out in real life, your work here, while well done academically is far too removed from who you are. (And who I know you to be)
Am I being unfair?
Post a Comment
<< Home