The Selfish God
Read the flap over God’s glory between Ben Witherington III (read especially Ben’s stuff in the comments) and John Piper. Denny Burk has some stuff about it too. It’s a well-worn debate. Is God selfish for acting solely with regard to his own glory? Piper amasses proof texts and Witherington gives exegetical commentary on their background (see comments). Piper brings out the God-centered/man-centered bifurcation, and Witherington says this sort of theology makes for a narcissistic God.
Piper is well known for saying that God’s chief end is to glorify and enjoy himself forever. Certainly this is selfish. But is it bad? Not according to Piper. One of the salient features of Piper’s thought is that he is an ethical egoist. Not many people know, but Piper is an admirer of Ayn Rand of sorts. To be sure he qualifies his egoism along theocentric lines; we do what’s best for ourselves by pursuing the highest pleasure, which is pleasure in God, and we do this because this is what God does. Perhaps the implicit idea in Piper’s theology is that God, like human beings, is a worshiper and if he did not worship himself he would be an idolater. I’m not sure if this is what Piper himself would espouse, but his admirers have used this very argument in debates with me numerous times. It seems to be a logical outworking of the theology.
Of course, a number criticisms follow immediately from this. One main problem with ethical egoism is that it seems to have no guard against the generally acknowledged immoral practice of acting on behalf of self at the expense of others. God does exactly this as his predestination of human beings to damnation must obtain so that God’s glory will be maximized. The same is said about evil and suffering and so on. Theologically, there is no reason to suppose that God is like man in being a worshiper. In fact, it is very telling of how anthropomorphic (God being cast in the image of man) this theology is. It also treats God as monistic block (no self-giving triune relations) that is analogous to Aristotle’s Unmoved Mover who sits aloof contemplating himself, as all that is “moved” is in teleological (glorious?) relation to the “mover.” God has no relationship with us, only relationship with himself.
To his credit Piper has done the hard work of responding to these objections, though I think he in end fails to totally absolve himself of them. The problem, as I see it, that Piper and the Jonathan Edwards school has is that “God’s glory” is left vaguely undefined. If love is a means to glory as an end, then what else can glory mean other than “getting applause,” and what does love mean other than “liking applause?” The more important question biblical theology needs to answer is What is God’s glory? If God’s glory is construed in Trinitarian terms, a very good argument can be made that it is the divine love shared between the persons. Creation is then the receptacle of this love as it spills over into it. Love does not always obtain, however, because it must be free and not determined. If this is the case, then Piper’s theology is false but we can still say that God acts for his glory.
November 26th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
(Cursed blog, and your critical thinking ways. ;D )
I dont have much right now, I do ask: Do Witherington, Piper, Burk, and/or you believe that we, as believers, can know ALL there is to know about God? (Thats more for a ‘Note to Self’ concerning this post, and not to detrack.)
Aside from that, ‘What is God’s glory?’ is a good question to ask and think about. Thanks for the links, especially Piper’s thoughts on Rand.
November 26th, 2007 at 2:00 pm
RacheAl,
To answer your question: no–we cannot know ALL there is to know about God. Since he is an infinite being and we are finite, there is no way we can know ALL of him. However, this makes some sense of heaven. It will take all of eternity for him to reveal himself to us.
November 26th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
Adam,
Thanks for this post. It really challenged me…
I hope you are well….
November 26th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
Sweet. Im glad everyone we are all on the same page.
November 26th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
We cannot know all there is to know. This is why I am troubled by certain assertions that are located within certain theological viewpoints. The notion that God is omniscient is certainly defensible by way of scripture. However, the conclusion that we are elected to salvation is simply an offshoot of this idea, drawn by a human logic that cannot possibly know God outside of scripture.
As such, we are left with what would seem to be a very important aspect of salvation that is not advanced by scripture. That doesn’t make the idea of election wrong, but I am going to be leary of an idea that, to embrace, requires us to think a certain way about God.
November 27th, 2007 at 12:43 am
Excellent commentary. Enjoyed it.
November 27th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
> “God’s glory” is left vaguely undefined
Only because they don’t listen to Building 429.
> It also treats God as monistic block
Obviously Piper doesn’t believe this, so I assume you’re saying that it logically follows if he is indeed an ethical egoist, which I have to question. Piper spends a lot of time preaching altruism, with the caveat that ultimately we do benefit by giving ourselves to Christ. Serving to the point of sacrificing our lives, living with a “wartime” mentality, etc., are not the teachings of an ethical egoist.
November 27th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
No, I don’t think Piper believes in Aristotle’s Prime Mover, or teaches people to become egoists that avoid altruism. But I do think there is a connection with “glory-centered” God that can’t do ANYTHING without considering what’s best for him.
November 28th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
Hey Adam,
A thought and a question.
1. Piper, of course, does indeed define “glory of God.” You may disagree with his definition, but it’s not true that he leaves it vaguely undefined.
2. Given your view that love must be non-determined and free in order to be genuine, I’d be curious as to how you think through the necessary love between the members of the Trinity, as well as the love of the “elect angels” to God? Also, what’s your view on babies who die–do they go to heaven?
Thanks, brother.
JT
November 28th, 2007 at 5:47 pm
Of course Piper amasses proof texts, but Witherington provides “Exegetical background” as you called it. That is all well and good, but there are NT scholars who are just as good (if not better) in their exegesis than Witherington who would disagree. It all comes down to what team you want to cheer for, it seems to me anyway. The whole debate seems to be truncated by peoples emotions.
November 28th, 2007 at 6:59 pm
Blake, you are probably right in your sentiments, but I think there has to be a way forward.
Justin, I’m happy to hear that Piper defines his views of glory, though it has never been quite clear to me what it means (seeking applause?). In this web debate it seems that “glory” is being left undefined. For example, Denny Burk’s post chides BWIII for making God’s love an end and and not a means to an end–which is his glory. But what in the world is that? Why can’t it simply be the expression of his love? Do you see what I mean?
To answer your questions about Trinitarian relations, “elect angels,” and infant death I will proceed in the order you asked.
First, my view of love is one that is representative of contingent agents. It does not follow from proposition (a) “to participate in God’s love one must be able refuse love” that (b) God must be able to refuse love. The relations between the Trinity can be thought of in part and parcel to the larger question, “Can God refuse to love?” The answer is no. This is because God is a necessary being whose nature is immutable (and this is the same of the members of the Trinity). Since God’s nature cannot BE other than it is it cannot DO other than what it does, namely love. Conversely, a contingent being cannot have a nature that necessarily loves.
This naturally follows into the second question about “elect angels.” Since they are contingent they are free. How else did the devil become the devil? Of course, at this point our understanding of election will differ since I take a conditional view. Only God possesses inherent goodness since he is necessarily good. Created agents, because they are contingent, must, through the freedom of choice, bring about their virtue. God creates a world in where this is feasible and wills no sin in their beings since his providence is unambiguously good. Nevertheless, since it is his desire that love be reflected relationally—not coercively—it stands to reason that these beings are free to rebel and resist love.
Third, about infants, I am of the view that they are cast upon God’s mercy. Their souls have not emerged in a fully sentient form that engages with him in the way he normally intends and so are blessed with salvation. David seems to see this as part and parcel to God’s goodness (2 Sam 12:23). On what other basis could he have such confidence? While there is a question about original sin and inherited guilt, infants are not necessarily beyond the hope of redemption since those things have not been formed into fully conscious and responsible human being.