God Is Not Chewy

John Anthony Dunne

There are many things that God is not. And chewy is one of them.

chewy-1

No, I’m not referring to this well-beloved Star Wars character.

Although that’s true; God is definitely not Chewbacca.

It may seem silly, but I whole-heartedly affirm that God is not chewy.

By saying that God is not chewy I am doing what’s called apophatic theology. This is the type of theology that expresses what God is not, rather than expressing what God is. Or, since the ontology implicit in the previous sentence is more amenable to Western theology—whereas it is the Orthodox who champion this method of theology—we might prefer to say that apophatic theology expresses what is not true about God rather than asserting what is true about God. For instance, apophatic statements about God that most Christians generally affirm are such denials as, God is Uncreated, Unchanging, and  Infinite. This way of doing theology communicates the mystery of God and keeps us humans from ever assuming that we can put God in a box.

So how do I know that God is not chewy? The same way that I know anything about God—through his revelation. Cataphatic theology—the sort of theology that does affirm things that are true about God—enables us to say precisely, from revelation, why God is not chewy. The reason is obviously because God is Spirit (John 4.24) and thus the immanent Trinity (God in himself) is not chewy (let’s leave the incarnation alone for now).

Now, I do not entertain this idea of God and chewiness for giggles. I am not interested in the possibility of theomastication or, in proper apophatic manner, denying it. Rather, I am concerned to make one point clear: whatever we affirm or deny about God must come from his revelation. We are not playing Build-A-Bear with theology and we don’t have the luxury of making things up as we go along. If there’s something we don’t like, we cannot change it.

We must worship God for who he is, not for who we want him to be. And this brings me to the heart of this post: The PCUSA, most of you will have heard, recently decided to omit the contemporary hymn, “In Christ Alone” (written by Keith Getty and Stuart Townend) from its hymnal, due to its lyrics about God’s wrath being satisfied on the cross of Christ. You can read about it here. The committee wanted to change the line, “the wrath of God was satisfied,” into, “the love of God was magnified,” but the writers of the song would not approve. The issue the committee claims they have with the hymn is not God’s wrath, per se, but the cross as a display of it. This news is not really new. In ways both big and small contemporary Christians find ways to undermine God’s wrath. Bifurcating God’s wrath from the cross raises the question of whether God is truly wrathful against sin, which makes one wonder why he’s wrathful at all. . .

A. W. Tozer wrote in the introduction to his Knowledge of the Holy that idolatry was fundamentally about entertaining any thought about God that is unworthy of him. Tozer had in mind what we might call cataphatic idolatry; I believe the denial of God’s wrath is the apophatic sort.

God is not chewy, and for many, he’s not palatable either.

John Anthony Dunne
John Anthony Dunne
John holds a PhD from the University of St Andrews, where he studied under Professor N. T. Wright. He currently serves as Associate Professor of New Testament at Bethel Seminary (St. Paul, MN).

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

You might also enjoy…

2 responses to “God Is Not Chewy”

  1. Ian

    John, just thought I’d leave you a note on this post. In July I became the pastor of a PCUSA church seeking dismissal from the PCUSA to a new Presbyterian denomination called ECO. This issue over the exclusion of “In Christ Alone” from the new PCUSA hymnal has really helped crystallize why we have chosen to leave the PCUSA.

    In the debate surrounding excluding “In Christ Alone,” six members of the 15 member committee argued that the doctrine of the atonement taught in the lyrics in question is historical doctrine held by some of the great theologians of the church (including Calvin an ironic twist for the Presbyterians!). Further, the doctrine is held by many churches and individuals within the PCUSA. The argument against including it ran as follows:

    “Arguments on the other side pointed out that a hymnal does not simply collect diverse views, but also selects to emphasize some over others as part of its mission to form the faith of coming generations; it would do a disservice to this educational mission, the argument ran, to perpetuate by way of a new (second) text the view that the cross is primarily about God’s need to assuage God’s anger. “ http://www.christiancentury.org/article/2013-04/debating-hymns

    The statement implicit in the PCUSA’s decision to change the wording of “In Christ Alone,” and numerous other decisions from General Assembly the last several years, is that another reformation is under way, and whether or not this was the intent, the evangelical churches will be “reformed” out of the PCUSA.

    My church isn’t leaving because we desire to sever ties, particularly as we belong to a conservative Presbytery. We are leaving because the people in power at the PCUSA no longer desires to offer us a voice, much less a seat at the table.

    On a related note, I asked (googled) Dr. Wright on In Christ Alone. I was surprised to see that he had commented specifically on it, and also desired to modify “wrath.” His suggestion: “That’s why, when I sing that interesting recent song and we come to the line, ‘And on the cross, as Jesus died, the wrath of God was satisfied’, I believe it’s more deeply true to sing ‘the love of God was satisfied’, and I commend that alteration to those of you who sing that song, which is in other respects one of the very few really solid recent additions to our repertoire.” Wright’s point is that the cross happens because God loves His people, not because He is angry at them. It seems to me that Wright is simply trying to reorient how we talk about the atonement, from visions of a petty God looking for someone to punish to a loving God looking to save. The wrath is real, but not necessarily the big idea. At least I think that’s what he means!

    Source for Wright: http://ntwrightpage.com/sermons/Word_Cross.htm

    Reply
    1. John Anthony Dunne
      John Anthony Dunne

      Ian, thanks very much for your comments, particularly in relation to the personal and ecclesial implications of this decision by the PCUSA. And thanks too for Prof Wright’s comments on this song; I didn’t know he said those things! We’ll have a chat ; )

      My comments about apophatic idolatry are not to say that one must have a certain view of the atonement or else they are on a bad path. Surely some views are better than others (and a combination is more biblical in my opinion), but my focus was more on God’s wrath in particular. I wonder how dangerously close the PCUSA might be to removing God’s wrath from their preaching, teaching, etc. Even if they claim that they affirm it, there are certain practical out-workings of that which make you wonder.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *