So when did God become a Christian?

Richard Dawkins (thanks Rex), in his attack on Christianity called The God Delusion, famously wrote:

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

That’s not a surprising quote from an atheist. The fact is, however, I think a lot of Christians would offer an “Amen” to that statement, whether they whisper it or openly proclaim it. Reminds me of the old joke about the Sunday School teacher who was similarly describing God in those terms when one of her students popped up and said, “But then He became a Christian.”

In the churches of Christ, there are a lot of Marcionists. I’ve described what I consider to be one of the low points of my ministry, when I failed to defend a young man who was attacked by a preacher. The young man had dared to quote the Psalms during a discussion, and this longtime preacher cut him off, saying, “My Bible says it’s been nailed to the cross.”

I know it seems antiquated, unintellectual, and naive, but I take a high view of Scripture. I believe the Bible to be the Word of God. I believe that the whole Bible is inspired. I personally feel that many of our problems come from trying to make the Bible into something that it’s not, trying to make it a law book or a science book or a history book. It’s none of those and isn’t meant to be read like any of those. It’s not even a love letter, which has been popular the last few years. It’s a collection of writings, of different genres. But above all, it’s a holy book and needs to be read as such.

I take Paul’s words to Timothy in 2 Timothy 3 very seriously. I know that he was writing specifically about the Old Testament, but I don’t have a theological problem with applying them to the rest of Scripture:

“But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:14-17)

It’s all inspired. It’s all useful. It can make me wise for salvation and thoroughly equip me for what I need to do. The Old Testament and the New Testament.

I willingly and intentionally place myself under Scripture. I don’t seek to master the Bible; I seek to be mastered by the Bible. When there is something I don’t understand, I place the blame on me and not on Scripture. When there is something I don’t agree with, I accept that I’m wrong. Again, I know that it’s popular to scoff at such a view. Feel free to scoff. As the commercial says, I’m comfortable in my own skin. I’m comfortable with my relationship with Scripture. And I’m comfortable in my belief in God.

19 thoughts on “So when did God become a Christian?

  1. K. Rex Butts

    Now you’re meddling…:-) I actually had a conversation recently with a person who was a marcionite theologically speaking. For this person, the gospel erases the need for any lament (such as the Psalms of Lament) and any groaning (Rom 8.22-23).

    Grace and Peace,

    Rex

    P.S. The author of The God Delusion is “Dawkins” (not Dawson).

  2. Jr

    It seems the way of the day is to save God from being God. And there is the rub. I honestly feel that in general and deep down many really, really do not like the God of the Scriptures; and really, really do not like the Jesus of the Scriptures either. In our nature is our pride, and in that pride many really, really hate God.

    Q: “Do you believe in God?”
    A: “Yes.”
    Q: “Did God really say this and do that?”
    A: “No. Now let me tell you who He really is.”

    A few things stick out to me when reading all the debate as of late:

    1) The Creator/creature distinction is all but forgotten. With that comes a formula of a god that is acceptable to us, which then becomes the lens in which we read and interpret the Scriptures. If He doesn’t meet that standard, we question the Scriptures. Instead of allowing the Scriptures to conform our palates about God we allow our oversensitive, emotionally-driven, 21st century palates to conform a god we wished was in the Scriptures. Additionally, we have little to no concept of God’s Holiness. We also have little to no concept of His freedom (oh, but we’ll argue for ours – and demand it!).

    2) The fallacy of equal ultimacy; that man is deserving of a “fair shot” at things because we are innocent and God is neutral in His relations to us. We’ll say, “God owes us [-this-] much.” But this is not the case. All are under sin and are at enmity with God. Dorothy, we’re not in Genesis 1 anymore. God would be completely just in destroying us all in the blink of an eye. However God, in His mercy and love, is yet patient with us in order to lead us to repentance (Rom 2:4). God doesn’t owe anybody anything yet He even came in the flesh and subjected Himself to this earth. He has insulted Himself on our behalf; yet for His glory. The offensive nature of God’s grace is what makes it so fantastic.

    3) How we understand God is certainly crucial to our interpretations and the way we live. It seems to me the majority of western Christianity begins with man and ends up at some kind of a god. We see what is right in our own eyes and we go with it. Then we write books about it and say “See? THIS is how God REALLY is.” [as we wipe the sweat off our brows, ecstatic that we have saved God from God and we no longer have to be ashamed of Him]

    If we look around the world at where Christianity is exploding (south of the equator and Asia) – it’s NOT where excusing God is the rule of faith. That should tell us something.

    Grace be with us –
    Jr

  3. brian

    this concerns me, too.
    hate to hear it and see it.
    I don’t know how to combine the fearing God/Loving God, Holiness/Grace at times, but I am not going to neglect either side.

    most arguments I hear are comparing God to humans, human fathers, human expectations,
    I appreciate JRs point about neglecting the Creator/Creature distinction

  4. Bob Bliss

    Tim, good post. We have many texts in the NT that tell us we should know what the OT teaches (Romans 15:4; 1Cor.10; James 2) to divide the OT out of reach. It has long been one of my ministry goals to help my congregation regain a better understanding of the OT.

    I have thought that if I ever engage in conversation about God with an atheist and they say, “An all powerful, all loving God wouldn’t let suffering happen.” that I would ask,”How many all powerful, all loving gods have you personally interacted with?” Which I’m sure they would say, “None.” To which I would ask, “Then how can you declare what an all powerful, all loving God would or would not do?”

  5. Adam Gonnerman

    I find the biblical perspective on God to be consistent across genres and generations, and I also am deeply challenged by the God I meet in Scripture. He is not like the god I would make.

    Thank God for that.

  6. K. Rex Butts

    It is an ever present challenge to accept God as he reveals himself and that means accepting what we might call “tensions” or even “paradoxes” in scripture. This challenge is nothing new. There is not one church denomination or theological stream (e.g., Holiness tradition) within Christian history that has perfectly portrayed God in its peaching/teaching. All streams tend to over emphasize one aspect or characteristic of God to the diminished emphasis of the other. That should not surprise us as the history of Christian theology is a history of human reflection upon the revelation of God.

    The degree to which such reflection is more a reflection of our own image and experiences is debatable and probably varies throughout history. Nevertheless, I don’t think this is the best explanation for the weakness of Christianity in our culture or any other culture. A cursory reading of scripture will reveal that the earliest Christians still struggled to have their ways of thinking renewed (deconstructed and reconstructed) with the gospel. Yet what we see is a radical new way of living take shape and therein lies much of the mystery behind a church that becomes a cultural force of change and a church that becomes a reflection of the prevailing culture. That is not to say that sound doctrine/theology is not important but it may serve as a reminder that our doctrine/theology is only as good as it influences us to live the new radical way of Jesus Christ whom we are called to follow. When Christians learn to live the new radical way of Jesus Christ, the church will be strong and will be the salt and light in the world it has been called to be. The real question is what cost is the church willing to pay to be live that radical new life.

    Grace and Peace,

    K. Rex Butts

    P.S. Yes, I’m preaching to myself too!

  7. heavenbound

    Man is Godlike. I think we fail to understand the concept of energy and quantam physics. Energy never ceases like God. I like to think of us as in earthly spacesuits.
    Think about each generation and how they approached God. How each generation dealt with the church and sin and heaven. Why haven’t we moved any further than 15 century Christians. Its deplorable to think that we argue the same points that Christians did before us. We have before us the ability to understand our solar system, galaxies and exploring the deepest seas. Really understanding in our generation how we came to be.
    I am reminded what the bible says about us. Were we there to see the foundation of the world formed? Do we know the thoughts of God? Can we raise the dead?
    The one thing I do know is that the God of the bible had a plan for the salvation of mankind. That we are unable to save ourselves and have a relationship with God that was acceptable. Christ being the salvation for us all. The love of God passes all understanding. Remember the God of the old testament had a plan to channel the blessing of salvation of man thru Israel. Stuff happens. Keep an open mind when reading the old testament. Don’t try to over analyze of how we got here. Be thankful that you know why we are here. To share his love with others and bask in his grace…
    Live in light…..

  8. Ed Heida

    One of the basic problems, I may be wrong on this, is that we think like gentiles. Not having generations of Jewish bloodlines in us, nor having the been raised in middle eastern ways of culture, we see, and very often claim for our own, the grace in the NT and leave the curse to the OT. What becomes difficult for most of us is that we just cannot see His grace His love and His Peace in the stories of the OT. What we see is a powerful God who is not to be taken lightly (David & Goliath, Israel & Egypt, Joshua, Noah, Sodom, the prophets & Israel, etc.) And now what seemingly is an about face of God, in our NT gentile eyes, there are healings galore, women being respected, children being welcomed, widows being cared for. Who wouldn’t want a God who is Christian? Yet, I think if we seek truth from the scriptures – 2 Tim. -, seek the justice of Isaiah and the prophets, seek the eternal God through His Son (NT terms – Our Lord and Master) we will see the curse is still following all men and grace is bestowed on all who become part of the citizenship the true Israel. Maybe that is why we need to study the Word. So we can say with confidence that our God is eternal, He is the same yesterday and tomorrow and back it up just like the Berians (sp?) who saw Christ in the scriptures. And maybe we will resit calling him a Christian God but will call him the great I AM, the Ancient of Days, the Creator, Mighty God, God of our Fathers, the Great Redeemer. But then again, I could be wrong.
    By the way, what is a Marcionists? I thought maybe had something to do with Marxism, but can’t be right. Again thanks for the good read. – In Him, Ed

  9. Tim Archer Post author

    Ed,
    I realized that I did toss around Marcion’s name without much explanation. Wikipedia has decent info about him: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcion_of_Sinope

    He’s often invoked to refer to people who reject the Old Testament, although he also rejected most of the New Testament. He liked Luke and Paul, and that was about it.

    Interestingly enough, the early development of the canon occurred in opposition to Marcion. Orthodoxy had to define which New Testament books belonged in the canon. This happened in the 2nd century, which destroys the myth that the Catholic church developed the canon.

    Grace and peace,
    Tim Archer

  10. Tim Archer Post author

    H.B.,
    I think we need to be careful with saying that man is godlike. Remember that our “flesh” opposes the leadings of God’s Spirit. That means that much of what is natural in man is opposed to the things of God.
    Grace and peace,
    Tim Archer

  11. heavenbound

    tim: weren’t we created in God’s image? I can recall 3 events in the bible that demonstrated energy. One when Christ transfigured in front of the disciples in a radiant light. Another when Christ appeared to Paul on the road to Damascus. Yet another when God appeared to Moses in the form of the burning bush. We posess energy levels also. Heat energy to keep our bodies at a temperature of 98.6 average in most humans. Brain energy that triggers heart rate and involuntary actions of internal organs. Brain waves that can move small objects when projected toward those objects.
    Didn’t the Catholic church hinder science and progress of science in the middle ages, called the “Dark Ages”……

  12. Tim Archer Post author

    Created in God’s image, corrupted by the fall. We now have a human nature from which we need deliverance.

    Every man retains a reflection of the image of God; every man contains the corruption of the fall.

    Grace and peace,
    Tim Archer

  13. heavenbound

    Tim: Have you ever thought about the Immaculate Conception? I mean really thought about it. The creator’s DNA mixing with humans, to create the Perfect being? This is straight out of a Ray Bradburry adventure novel, of course not. But just think of how intricate our bodies are with the make up of atoms, cells, organs, functionality. Yet the God of the universe creates a human with Godlike characteristics and creates a person that is man and God. Not just physical characteristics but mental, emotional, spiritual characteristics as well. What happens in the gene pool when something as minor as one little gene’s mutation goes wrong. Huntington’s disease, cerebral palsey, genetic abnormalities.
    There can be only one way a human can be created and that it is with another human, right? Well in this case the other being was God. Yes, for God to create an intelligent Godlike human, this can only happen with like creatures and God like for creation to take place………As the things we now know about the human creation, the church can no longer brush off this as just a miracle or the shadow of some movement across the Virgin Mary……..

  14. Tim Archer Post author

    The Immaculate Conception refers to the conception of Mary, claiming that she was conceived without sin (and therefore did not pass sin on to her son). I don’t think that’s what you’re referring to. I’m guessing you’re talking about the conception of Jesus. If not, feel free to correct.

    I actually agree with much of what you’re saying. Here are the two exceptions:
    (1) I don’t see how God is limited in the way that He could bring His son into the world. You twice stated that this could “only” happen in a certain way. Really? You don’t think God could have done that any way He chose? I do. It seems to me that this is a good example of human logic being misapplied to God.
    (2) None of what you say takes into account the Fall. None explains Paul’s cry in Romans 7 “Who will deliver me from this body of death?”

    Man was created in the image of God and corrupted by sin. Both of those realities are at work in our beings.

    Grace and peace,
    Tim Archer

  15. heavenbound

    Tim: I don’t buy the fact of what Catholics believe about Mary being sinless. My points excludes anything to do with sin. It seems you have a preoccupation with sin and the fall of man. This goes way beyond our tragic position before Christ was conceived and came to save mankind. The title of this topic is “When did God become Christian.”
    He became a Christian when the program of salvation became complete.

  16. Tim Archer Post author

    H.B.,
    (1) I’m not the one that brought up the Immaculate Conception; I just thought you might want to clarify what you were referring to. I assumed that you didn’t believe in it.
    (2) My preoccupation with the fall is only to remind you that looking at man in his current state doesn’t give us a clear picture of how God is. Like the rest of creation, we have been subjected to corruption. Christians, when they allow the Spirit to work in them, are slowly shaped back into that image. (2 Cor 3:18)
    (3) The title of the post was meant to be ironic. God never “became a Christian.” He has always been the same God.
    Grace and peace,
    Tim Archer

  17. nick gill

    Tim,

    Oddly enough for me, I find myself sort of with HB on one point. I don’t believe that God could have fulfilled His own stated purposes – His mission – by bringing His Son into the world “any way He chose.” Perhaps that is so, in the sense that God could have created any kind of cosmos He chose.

    But given THIS creation, given God’s desire for humanity to be his image-bearers and sovereignty-partners, given His covenant(s) with Abram, David, and Israel – I believe God’s prior decisions and His own character self-limited his options until the whole of the creative and redemptive mission hinged on one little Jewish girl saying her prayers. And in Luke’s conclusion, Jesus seems to be telling the disciples, esp. the Emmaus Road pair, that all this is how it HAD TO be (24:26-27, 44-49).

    And that just sparked another interesting thought: what if Mary wasn’t the first daughter of David that Gabriel visited… just the first to say, “I am the Lord’s slavegirl, let it be unto me according to your word?”

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.