In my last post, I began to address the question, Why does God value his glory above all else? Today I'd like to begin with a quote from Jonathan Edwards' brief but important work, The End for which God Created the World, and then reflect on how God can be God-centered without being a massive egomaniac.
Edwards wrote, “Some may object, that to suppose God makes himself his highest and last end, is dishonorable to him; as it in effect supposes, that God does everything from a selfish spirit” (chapter 1, objection 1). This is what I call “the narcissistic problem,” and it has been my main objection to the idea of the God-centeredness of God, or at least my main confusion about it. It takes some deep thinking to work through this problem, but when we put in the work, we come to see that God is not, because he cannot possibly be, a massive egomaniac. Let's work through the solution in four steps.
First, the problem arises from an assumption that is, in the end, false. Specifically, as sinful beings, we assume that self-centeredness or ultimate self-interest is intrinsically corrupt, but this is true only insofar as the nature of the being in question is corrupt. Since God is infinitely holy and incorrupt, he cannot be corrupt in any of his thoughts, choices, or actions, even if that be to commence and consummate all things in himself, for himself. Thus, the nature of his self-centeredness is as infinitely different from ours as his character and perfections and holiness are infinitely different from ours.
Second, the praise of worth rightly belongs to the source of worth, and since God is the source of his own worth, it is right for him to praise his own worth. What else shall he praise? The reason it is unbecoming for a person to praise his own worth is that his worth is derived from God, and thus, to praise himself is like a painting praising itself rather than the painter. But since God is the source of his own worth it is becoming of him, and others, to praise his own worth.
Third, the measure of rightful praise is equal to the measure of actual worth. The reason it is unbecoming of a person to praise himself, and more so, to do everything he does with a view to the praise of himself, is that such praise is disproportionate to his actual worth. It is like a robot seeking praise for itself because it can walk, rather than seeking praise for its creator who has made it to walk. But since God is infinitely worthy, the measure of rightful praise of him is likewise infinite, and it is becoming of him to do all that he does with a view to his praise. God’s infinite delight in himself, far from being corrupt, is a proper assessment of his worth.
Fourth, two quotes from Edwards will help elucidate the next point: “And it is impossible that God, who is omniscient, should apprehend his interest, as being inconsistent with the good and interest of the whole” (objection 2, answer 3). “This supposes that God having respect to his glory, and the communication of good to his creatures, are things altogether different: that God communicating his fullness for himself, and his doing it for them, are things standing in a proper disjunction and opposition. Whereas, if we were capable of more perfect views of God and divine things, which are so much above us, it probably would appear very clear, that the matter is quite otherwise: and that these things, instead of appearing entirely distinct, are implied one in the other” (objection 4, Answer 1).
I think my main confusion about God’s self-centeredness, or ultimate self-interest, lies in a failure to comprehend the infinite difference between the nature and effects of his self-centeredness and the nature and effects of human self-centeredness. The nature of human self-centeredness is the vain attempt to fill up the emptiness of the human soul with that which is finite, for example, praise, honor, fame, wealth, and carnal pleasure. Thus, in its effect it tends to devalue, demote, and suppress the worth of other things and beings, to puff up the self by degrading the other, or by misappropriating the value of the other. It is like a black hole that has to suck everything into itself in an attempt, however vain, to fill itself up.
The nature of Divine self-centeredness is delight in the infinitely and ultimately delightful, it is delight in fullness, and thus its effects are infinitely distinct, and opposite from, human self-centeredness. It is nearly impossible to comprehend, because we are finite and corrupt, that a creature so great as God can seek his own interest and simultaneously seek the interest of the other, and that this is no contradiction, but a necessary consequence of his nature and being. But this indeed is the case, even if we grant that his own interest is superior to the interests of the other.
Far from being a massive egomaniac, God is the most glorious, praise-worthy being in existence and therefore it is only right for him to do all things with a view to the exaltation of his glory. And it is only right that in all things we should join him in this quest. This is why the Apostle Paul wrote, "So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God" (1 Corinthians 10:31).
Edwards wrote, “Some may object, that to suppose God makes himself his highest and last end, is dishonorable to him; as it in effect supposes, that God does everything from a selfish spirit” (chapter 1, objection 1). This is what I call “the narcissistic problem,” and it has been my main objection to the idea of the God-centeredness of God, or at least my main confusion about it. It takes some deep thinking to work through this problem, but when we put in the work, we come to see that God is not, because he cannot possibly be, a massive egomaniac. Let's work through the solution in four steps.
First, the problem arises from an assumption that is, in the end, false. Specifically, as sinful beings, we assume that self-centeredness or ultimate self-interest is intrinsically corrupt, but this is true only insofar as the nature of the being in question is corrupt. Since God is infinitely holy and incorrupt, he cannot be corrupt in any of his thoughts, choices, or actions, even if that be to commence and consummate all things in himself, for himself. Thus, the nature of his self-centeredness is as infinitely different from ours as his character and perfections and holiness are infinitely different from ours.
Second, the praise of worth rightly belongs to the source of worth, and since God is the source of his own worth, it is right for him to praise his own worth. What else shall he praise? The reason it is unbecoming for a person to praise his own worth is that his worth is derived from God, and thus, to praise himself is like a painting praising itself rather than the painter. But since God is the source of his own worth it is becoming of him, and others, to praise his own worth.
Third, the measure of rightful praise is equal to the measure of actual worth. The reason it is unbecoming of a person to praise himself, and more so, to do everything he does with a view to the praise of himself, is that such praise is disproportionate to his actual worth. It is like a robot seeking praise for itself because it can walk, rather than seeking praise for its creator who has made it to walk. But since God is infinitely worthy, the measure of rightful praise of him is likewise infinite, and it is becoming of him to do all that he does with a view to his praise. God’s infinite delight in himself, far from being corrupt, is a proper assessment of his worth.
Fourth, two quotes from Edwards will help elucidate the next point: “And it is impossible that God, who is omniscient, should apprehend his interest, as being inconsistent with the good and interest of the whole” (objection 2, answer 3). “This supposes that God having respect to his glory, and the communication of good to his creatures, are things altogether different: that God communicating his fullness for himself, and his doing it for them, are things standing in a proper disjunction and opposition. Whereas, if we were capable of more perfect views of God and divine things, which are so much above us, it probably would appear very clear, that the matter is quite otherwise: and that these things, instead of appearing entirely distinct, are implied one in the other” (objection 4, Answer 1).
I think my main confusion about God’s self-centeredness, or ultimate self-interest, lies in a failure to comprehend the infinite difference between the nature and effects of his self-centeredness and the nature and effects of human self-centeredness. The nature of human self-centeredness is the vain attempt to fill up the emptiness of the human soul with that which is finite, for example, praise, honor, fame, wealth, and carnal pleasure. Thus, in its effect it tends to devalue, demote, and suppress the worth of other things and beings, to puff up the self by degrading the other, or by misappropriating the value of the other. It is like a black hole that has to suck everything into itself in an attempt, however vain, to fill itself up.
The nature of Divine self-centeredness is delight in the infinitely and ultimately delightful, it is delight in fullness, and thus its effects are infinitely distinct, and opposite from, human self-centeredness. It is nearly impossible to comprehend, because we are finite and corrupt, that a creature so great as God can seek his own interest and simultaneously seek the interest of the other, and that this is no contradiction, but a necessary consequence of his nature and being. But this indeed is the case, even if we grant that his own interest is superior to the interests of the other.
Far from being a massive egomaniac, God is the most glorious, praise-worthy being in existence and therefore it is only right for him to do all things with a view to the exaltation of his glory. And it is only right that in all things we should join him in this quest. This is why the Apostle Paul wrote, "So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God" (1 Corinthians 10:31).
Comments
Post a Comment