Over at Challies.com, Tim expresses some concern over the "theology" expressed in John Eldredge's latest book:
I don't want God to romance me. I don't want God to be my lover. I don't need a boyfriend. I want God to be a Father--to be my Father. And after all, isn't this exactly how He reveals Himself in the Bible? Like many an ancient mystical nun, Eldredge seems to find strange, romantic, pseudo-sexual qualities in God's love. But when I look at the Bible, I just don't see this.
Eldredge has made me a little queasy at times, but I can't say I've noticed this particular strand of thought before. Unless it's related to, "God told me, 'John, you are my Braveheart.'" Interesting.
6 comments:
I just read the post...the quote from Eldredge was pretty weird about the hearts. But I think I would disagree with God as lover. I think Tim missed a lot of the O.T images in S.O.S. and other places. I don't know much about Eldredge other than he wants me to be Wild at Heart, but I have no idea what that means. :)
"I think Tim missed a lot of the O.T images in S.O.S. and other places."
I agree with you there. Song of Songs (interpreted allegorically) does position God as a bridegroom. So do major strands of prophetical writing in the Old Testament. I guess the question is, "How does this figure into my relationship with Christ as an individual believer?"
One thing worth noting is that the OT pictures of God-as-lover portray God's people as his bride, not so much individual followers having one-on-one dates with Jesus. The corporate element is something that often gets missed here and I wonder how Eldredge incorporates that in his theology.
For that matter, I wonder how I incorporate it... God loves us with a passion, yes. But moving from the marriage metaphor to sexually-inflected theology is a big mistake. As Paul would say, "This mystery is great." We shouldn't make it shallow by peering through a PDA lens.
"I don't know much about Eldredge other than he wants me to be Wild at Heart, but I have no idea what that means. :)"
Everyone knows that this means. At least, everyone who is Wild at Heart. You need to get with it, man. Or not. I always thought that being WAH meant that you didn't listen to Enya.
Well I know I'm not much a fan of enya so that's good I guess!
"One thing worth noting is that the OT pictures of God-as-lover portray God's people as his bride, not so much individual followers having one-on-one dates with Jesus."
Point taken. I find it interesting going through the O.T. as I am in O.T. Survey, their seems to be some tension between the individual and the community. It seems many times that God deals with the community based on the actions of individuals (i.e. Moses, and others). Yet, I think it is our tendency (mine many times at least) to look at the Bible through our individual lense. When in fact we should look at the passage as something intended to be more corperate.
I agree largely with Tim's response. It's not that I disagree that the Lord loves us, it's that He loves us with a sacrificial, I-want-the-best-for-you love. We don't see the romantic love that Eldredge dwells on whether you look at OT references to Israel being the Lord's chosen people (and the adultery references), the few places in SOS that might be taken to be symbolic of God's relationship with us, and NT references to the Church being the bride of Christ.
This brings up a key issue regarding theology (practical or otherwise) and human attempts to describe God. One cannot be too careful what metaphor one uses to illustrate the character of the Lord. As an illustration, suppose I wanted to point to God's strength and righteous indignation. I might call Him a "roaring lion," but my readers would get the wrong impression, namely, they would think of Satan. On the other hand, if I call Him "the Lion of the Tribe of Judah," then I would hit the mark.
When Eldredge uses the heart illustration, he denotes the mushy boyfriend-girlfriend relationship characteristic of teenage puppy love. I worship a Lord who showed His love in much more powerful and meaningful ways: He sent His Son to die for me and He prepares a place for me in the eternal Kingdom of God.
Perhaps Eldredge needs to ignore his editor/publisher next time they suggest that he include "talk about your feelings" type illustrations if they don't fit the character of God.
Ariel said:
"How does this figure into my relationship with Christ as an individual believer?"
Answer: It doesn't. Christ as Bridegroom imagery always refers to God/Christ's relationship with the Church, not any one individual believer.
There are tons of worship songs out there that are basically erotic ballads with capitolized pronounds; since when was I supposed to have homoerotic melodies spew from my mouth in Church?
I hate it when people refer to God romantically--God is not your romantic lover; you are not the Bride of Christ--the Church is.
I hate it when people refer to God romantically--God is not your romantic lover; you are not the Bride of Christ--the Church is.
Hey Tim, you're sounding almost Modernist in the cerainty of your thinking here. You surprise me. ;) I agree with you, if not entirely with your tone.
There are tons of worship songs out there that are basically erotic ballads with capitolized pronounds.
If you haven't yet, you should read Mark Driscoll on this. He nails the phenomenon of "chickified guys singing love songs to Jesus." There's some strong theological leadership needed to restore an accurate picture of Jesus to the church - a Christ who probably didn't even encourage man-crushes from his disciples while on earth... (whatever that means)
Post a Comment