Essence and Energies

Western Christianity has a two-fold distinction by which it classifies all of reality. Either something is part of the divine essence, and thus fully God, or it is part of creaturely reality, and thus not God. This distinction seems to be quite important to maintain since Scripture teaches that God is transcendent and completely "other" from the rest of his creation. One's options become extremely limited, however, when for example Peter tells us that we as Christians are "partakers of the divine nature" (II Peter 1:4). How ought we classify this "nature" that we are partaking of? Forcing one to choose whether we partake of God's essence or not has lead to two extremes: either God is totally inaccessible (hyper-transcendence) or he is part of creation after all (hyper-immanence). Typically, the latter option is taken leading to such notions as divinization, where we as creatures become divine, or pantheism, where God is becomes part of creation.   

Michael Horton has found in Eastern theology a helpful solution to this conundrum. Of the two-fold distinction which I mentioned, Eastern Christianity has always had a third option, that is, the energies of God.  Divine energies are God's words and works whereby he interacts with his creatures. They are not part of God's hidden essence nor are they simply part of his creation, but as the rays from the sun are not part of the sun itself nor part of the world it's illuminating, so also God's energies deserve their own classification. Furthermore, the East has been careful to maintain that we as Christians do not experience God according to his essence, but rather, through his energies. Thus his power, love, glory and grace... are what we partake of and know, not his very essence. God reveals himself to us through his energies.

Reformed theology shares this notion with its emphasis upon the covenant. It teaches that God has chosen to interact with his creatures only by way of covenants and thus we as his people know God through his words (oaths, promises, commands, threatenings, consolations, etc.) and his works (creation, preservation, redemption, etc.). We do not and cannot know God according to his essence, but rather what he has revealed to us about himself (Duet 29:29). God is with us in that he is God for us, the God-in-action who is moving redemptive history along. 

Be good for goodness sake?

It's amazing to me how embedded the notion of meritorious deeds is in our society. It is held by almost anyone you meet that if you do what is good, then good things will happen to you, but if you do bad things, then you better watch out. This seems to fit very well with what Paul says concerning the law of God being written on the hearts of unbelievers. Perhaps this notion is no more clearly seen than during the holiday season when people inevitably reflect upon how well they behaved themselves this year and how much better they would like to do the next. Even our children are nor spared from this principle of the lex talionis ("law of retribution") when they are told that Santa has a list that he's checking twice to find out whose been naughty or nice.  Thankfully, the gospel tells us that Christ has come and lived a perfect life of obedience in our place and through his death and resurrection, has obtained for us the forgiveness of sins and everlasting righteousness. No longer do we as Christians strive to do good works in order to obtain our salvation, but we do good for gratitude's sake, showing our thankfulness for what Christ has done. This is how it must be because we all deserve much worse than just a lump of coal in our stocking.

What do the gospel and In-n-out Burger have in common?

Besides having "John 3:16" printed on the bottom of their cups, the Gospel and In-n-out Burger are similar in that they do not change.  This is something I appreciate every week at church as I hear the preaching of the gospel as well as when I enjoy a tasty burger (which I do at least once a week).  The thing is, when you have a good product, there's no need to modify it in order to increase its sales.  Typically fast food chains will come out with a "new" item about every six months or so that sounds and looks good, but hardly ever lasts.  For example, the other day I tried Taco Bell's new "fully loaded nachos," and not only was my first chip completely devoid of any of the nacho toppings, but it was also overpriced (30 cents extra for jalapenos!) and not even as good as the classic "nacho supreme." But I'm sure Taco Bell execs already know this and they know that these nachos won't last long, but are only good for a quick buck.  One can find obvious parallels of this in the way that seeker and emergent churches adopt any number of "new" programs, styles, agendas, practices, etc. to stay "relevant"  and to gain new followers.  I am not suggesting that every one of these church leaders are conscientiously engaged in crass marketing techniques, but the shallowness in many churches is undeniable. I love the fact that the liturgy we use in our church is essentially the same as that of Calvin's and the Reformers, and theirs was a conscience reproduction of the ones used in the early church.  That being said, I think I'll go get a burger.

God Does What He Says

It may seem a bit obvious to you, but one of the major "findings" in what is known as Speech/Act theory is that we do things when we speak.  Speech involves more than just sound utterances proceeding from someone's mouth, but it is a complex and powerful medium that includes both the speaker as well as the hearer. Scholars have divided a speech/act into three parts: the first, known as the locutionary act, is the act of speaking itself. For example, someone performing the speech/act of warning others about a fire in a theater.  The next part of speech is known as the illocutionary act.  This is the content of the speaking, that is, what it is the speaker says.  In our example, it would be the word, "Fire!" Lastly, there is the perlocutionary act. This is the effect or result of the speech/act.  Someone yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater would no doubt result in people quickly evacuating the building. 

Theologians have sought to use these categories in their understanding of Scripture. For example, since all the acts of God are Trinitarian in nature (each member doing His respective part), it seems helpful to view the Father as the one performing the locutionary act, the Son (the Word) performs the illocutionary act, and the Spirit bringing about what is spoken in the perlocutionary act.  This notion is nothing new. Look, for example, at the Belgic Confession of Faith, written in 1561:

The Father is the cause, origin, and source of all things, visible as well as invisible. The Son is the Word, the Wisdom, and the image of the Father. The Holy Spirit is the eternal power and might, proceeding from the Father and the Son.

Biblically, this is clearly seen in the act of creation. The Father said "Let there be...", the Son, through whom he made all things, was the content spoken ("The Word" cf. John 1:1-3), and it was the Spirit who was "hovering over the waters," bringing about that which was spoken (Gen 1:2).  With this in mind, we see along with the Ancient church's analogy, that the Son and the Spirit are "the two hands" of the Father. Thus we see that everything the Father does, it is through the Son, by the Spirit.

Michael Horton, in his book Covenant and Salvation, seeks to apply this communicative model to the act of justification. Taking the traditional distinction of the "external" and "internal call" of the gospel, he posits that the external call involves the Father speaking (locution) the content (illocution) of the gospel, which is the Son, to all the world. And the internal call is where the Spirit brings about the results (perlocution) of that word spoken in the lives of the elect by his regenerating power. Thus, the verdict of justification does what it says. When God declares us "righteous" it is not because of any inherent righteousness of our own, for God "justifies the ungodly" (Rom 4:5). But, just as He spoke the world into existence ex nihilo, so also he "calls into existence the things that do not exist," (4:17) i.e. our righteousness. 

This way of understanding justification further bolsters the doctrine of salvation by grace alone, since it insists that God's speech/act is not based upon any inherent or infused righteousness or moral abilities in the sinner. Also seeing God's sovereign act of salvation in this communicative model may also help our Arminian brothers understand what we mean when we suggest that God works sovereignly, however not by brute force, as if we were inanimate objects, but spoken to as humans with creaturely integrity.