Understanding God through Christ
The Orthodox Foundations of A More Christlike God
"No one knows who the Son is except the Father, and no one knows who the Father is except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him." (Luke 10:22)
"It would be more godly and true to signify God from the Son and call him Father, than to name God from his works alone and call him unoriginate." (St Athanasius, Con. Ar., 1:34)
For Vladika Lazar PuhaloFor showing me Christ,'the good and merciful and man-befriending God'
I understand there have been concerns re: the title of my book, A More Christlike God, and specifically the question of whether calling God "Christ-like" calls into question whether or not I believe in the full deity of Jesus Christ as God the eternal Son. I'm not certain that a defense can be made that doesn't sound defensive, but an explanation is surely warranted in any case.
The title was meant to be a catchy metonym for a longer premise: we need to adjust our perceptions or conceptions of God until they align fully and completely with the revelation of God through Jesus Christ. The title is not meant to invite heretical assumptions, but to grab the reader's attention so they will ask, "What does that mean?"
What is means is nothing other than this: How do we know who God is and what he is like? As my spiritual father, Archbishop Lazar Puhalo says, the book is about
Understanding God through Jesus Christ.
Given the critiques, I must say that would have been a preferable title or subtitle. However, I do believe I state this as clearly as necessary on the back cover of the book:
What is God like? Toxic images abound: God the punishing judge, the deadbeat dad, the genie in a bottle–false gods that need to be challenged. But what if, instead, God is completely Christlike? What if His love is more generous, his Cross more powerful, and his gospel more beautiful than we've dared to imagine? What if our clearest image of God is the self-giving, radically forgiving, co-suffering Love revealed on the Cross? What if we had A More Christlike God?
That is, of course I believe and confess that Jesus Christ is fully God, "the image of the invisible God" (Col. 1:15), that "all the fulness of the Godhead dwelled in Christ in bodily form" (Col. 2:9) and that "he is the radiance of God's glory, the exact representation of his likeness" (Heb. 1:2-3). To see Jesus Christ is to the see his Father (John 12:45, 14:9). He is "light from light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of one essence with the Father" (the Nicene Creed).
I did in fact say this explicitly everywhere that the book is made available — including on Amazon, my home homepage, and the editor's page. Here's a summary in the 4 1/2 minute promo video. Hopefully it removes any doubt about the book's orthodox christology (and yes, I know the video uses western sacred art rather than a canonized icon).
But that is not the image of God portrayed by so many believers today … their concepts of God are often Janus-faced, good-cop/bad-cop dualities that portray the Father as the ogre needing violent appeasement through the Son as his willing victim. My book argues that wherever one's image of God is not completely Christlike, an idol has been fashioned that must be replaced by God the Son who said, "To see me is to see the Father." In the end, my aim was to bring an Orthodox word of correction to my broader audience, to whom I now always quote the Most Reverend Irénée, (Archbishop of Ottawa and the Archdiocese of Canada), who said in a sermon I heard in Vancouver, "God is mercy only."
Though the book takes a popular tone in order to be accessible, the groundwork I did in preparation was an attempt to be careful, scholarly and doctrinally Orthodox. I made an effort to deliver Orthodox doctrine in language that Evangelicals could understand, which also required the inclusion of a glossary.
Prior to writing my book (before penning the first page), I spent nine weeks at the University of Nottingham as a post-doctoral visiting scholar, researching Patristic Christology (with a special focus St Athanasius, St John Cassian, St Gregory of Nyssa, St Gregory of Nazianzus. St Cyril of Alexandria, St Maximus the Confessor, St Isaac the Syrian and St Gregory Palamas). The appendix of the book includes supporting citations from most of these Fathers.
During my time in Nottingham, I had regular consultations with Dr. Mary Cunningham, an Eastern Orthodox scholar who taught church history/theology there for over 30 years. Here was her endorsement:
I also arranged for a face-to-face visit with both Fr. Andrew Louth and Metropolitan Kallistos Ware to test and shape the premise of the book. Namely, that kenotic love (self-giving love) is an expression of God's very nature, rather than a temporary departure from it. Both Fr. Louth and Metro. Ware affirmed my premise and their responses also appear verbatim in the appendix. Here were their responses:
Metro. Kallistos Ware: While Philippians 2 speaks of Christ emptying himself, it would be incorrect to say he laid aside his 'Godhood.' As the Vespers hymn for Christmas Eve says, "What he was, remained; what he was not, he took on, for himself, out of love for mankind.'
In kenosis, the Word was not deprived of anything. Christ remains in union with the Father. They are not separated, but takes on humanity in addition. Therefore, the most we can ascribe to kenosis is a voluntary self-limitation. For example, he accepts human limitations such as weariness and pain, even ignorance, for Christ said, 'As to when the end of the ages will come, no one knows the day or the hour, not even the Son of man. Only the Father knows.'
Perhaps rather than 'emptied himself,' it would be better to say that he poured himself out in love, and that love is his nature. And in this way, kenosis is plerosis. The supreme manifestation of this love, this glory, is the Cross. 'God is never so powerful as when he is most weak.'
As Christ said to Paul, "My strength is made perfect in weakness," and this applies to kenosis. We could say this at the very least: that kenosis reflects something of the eternal Being of God as self-giving love.
Fr. Andrew Louth: In the Trinity, there is a kind of kenosis in the sense of them making way for one another and, therefore, when Christ empties himself, he actually shows what it is to be God. Kenosis in the modern sense of the Lutheran kenoticists since the 18th century are concerned with what is being taken away, what it is for Christ to be human, with showing why God isn't there. Whereas I think in the fathers, kenosis means God coming down alongside us, his 'condescension' to live among us. For the Cappadocians and Maximus, kenosis is God's self-emptying love. Sometimes you get the impression of self-emptying so as to make it possible for us to see him, rather than God disguising himself. And sometimes kenosis is bound up with the nature of divine being, that love is not concerned with power or force, but love is essentially letting others be and become what they're created to be. And in that sense, kenosis is bound with the nature of love.
In Maximus' treatise on the Lord's Prayer, we empty ourselves in response to God's kenosis. We empty ourselves of the passions in order to receive him. In his treatise on the Lord's Prayer, he sees the kenosis of God as something inspired by love and the response is love.
As the Son involved his self-emptying (kenosis), so our deification involves our kenosis, the self-emptying of the passions. The way up is the way down: the kenosis of the Son demands the kenosis of the adopted sons; the manifestation of the One 'more beautiful than the sons of men' calls for the 'cultivation of the beauty given to them by grace.
While I could not meet him in person, I also contacted Fr. John Behr by email to discuss the book, and he now has a copy. His helpful responses to my questions also shaped my thinking from the outset and is recorded in the appendix as follows:
Fr. John Behr: It is a mistake to think of kenosis as laying aside divine attributes. It is much better to think in terms of humility, self-effacing, self-sacrifical love, so that it is indeed in weakness that the power of God is made manifest, opening up a path for us also to enter into divine life. If Christ had put aside divine attributes to become human, we would not be able to share in his divinity; he would not be a mediator. etc.
In some ways, thinking along such lines results from starting off from an already conceived humanity and divinity – as other than each other. Surely, rather, the fundamental truth of Christianity is that the two are shown together, in and through each other; conceptually distinct (God creates, we are created etc), but only ever seen in one prosopon, one hypostasis.The difficulty of holding this together results in the many divergences over the centuries, but the creeds always bring us back to this fundamental point of the Gospel.
I thought some of this context might help clarify the book's background, content and agenda … and how even the title serves that agenda if it can be judged by more than projections or assumptions.
For those who would like a third party assessment, I presented the material at a More Christlike God workshop at Holy Resurrection Sobor in Saskatoon. Fr. Leonard Herrem, Archpriest Orest Olekshy and Protodeacon Taras Papish were all in attendance. One might ask for their review of the orthodoxy (and deficiencies) of the material.
Those would would like me to present this material in their church or school can contact me via my website contact page. OCA churches are asked to first seek permission via Archbishop Irénée.
Your servant in Christ,
Brad
It was great to read the context in which the book was written – very informative, and hopefully helpful for anyone who might find it difficult to grasp with its message. So far everyone I encountered and recommended the book to (and there have been many) absolutley loves it. Thanks for taking the time to write this explanation!