Still reading the Migliore and Grenz books. Migliore describes several metaphoric models for understanding creation. Of the five models of creation that Migliore describes, I find myself strongly relating to a combination of the emanation analogy and the artistic expression model. I can understand how Migliore might see emanation as impersonal, but I like how Grenz matures the idea by illustrating the outpouring to have a naturally reciprocating character. (LONG QUOTE AHEAD “The act of creation is the outflowing of the eternal love relationship within the triune God. The world exists because out of the overflow of his own character, which is love, the eternal God establishes an external counterpart, creation. Just as it is created in accordance with the very essence of God –love—this counterpart exists to be both the recipient of and the mirror of the divine love” (Grenz Book "TftCoG"-101). This is consistent with my inclinations about God; He is love, He is abundant, He is the beginning (with His work of creation) and He is the end (the receiver of creation’s response). Also, simply put, the “creative” nature of creating, expresses God’s artistry and playfulness. The artist is creator of beautiful things. In this sense we comprehend that the world is God’s and that His creation was purposed to present the beauty within His nature. This would also indicate that while the creation may be seen in different ways, it’s true meaning is only found within the intent of the Creator. I think that uncontrolled-emanation is the weakness of that concept, but if it is looked at as controlled/planned release it expresses the way that God is personally engaged with creating/creation. God is in control of how and when He releases Himself into creation. I suppose this is why I feel that it should be merged with the artistic expression/play analogy. When these two are coupled, it helps me express that God creates, as He will and out of who He is.
The formation and generation analogies compliment the abovementioned models. Formation should refer to God’s work of sustaining creation, and His work of redemptive recreation. The Generation model depicts a human, cultural, and even personal understanding of the way God engages His creation. As God emanates His character through creative activity, He cares for, and provides for the needs of His creation. This is an outpouring of His love and power, and it coincides with the concept of God forming His creation for His glory.
I do not prefer the concept of the mind/body relationship. While it does help to portray a unity the God desires for His creation to have with Him, it otherwise is allows for some weaknesses. This model would seem to level the creation with the Creator. The mind and body are co-dependent on each other in many ways. It would be incorrect to infer that God is dependent upon His creation.
Grenz asserts that creation is the work of the full Trinity. In some places it seems that Grenz is depersonalizing the HS ("The dynamic that binds the Father and the Son – the power of their relationship-is the HS") ("the Spirit is the personal power of God- the dynamic of love between the Father and the Son – by means of which all things exist"). These examples cast a picture of the HS as being power through which God works...as opposed to being powerful (which would be an attribute, and description of action of the person of the HS). I don't know if I am describing what I mean well or not...Grenz makes the HS seem to be only the adjective of the Father, rather than it's own noun. Though, the final two sentences of this section in the book could be looked at as contradiction for the purpose of this discussion.
"the HS is the 'one' (seems to have a sense of individuality) through whom the Father, the direct agent in creation, fashions the world."
vs.
"the HS is the personal power of God" (the strength in which God works).
While the distinctive roles he describes do make logical and spiritual sense, I think that more value can be found when we focus on the unified way in which the Trinity completes creation. I do not mean to say that the value is only in the oneness. In any subject, it seems to help understand a concept when we look at its smallest denominators. By dissecting "God Creates" into "The Father, the Son, and the HS create" we can better comprehend HOW the Trinity is one. I think that there is value in looking at the distinctions; but they should not separate God's persons...they should reveal their unification, and the unified way in which the Trinity completes creation. Holistically, the Trinity called all things into existence, laid purpose for all things, and is at work sustaining and leading creation to respond to the Creator. This ways in which the Trinity completes Divine experience (even in creation) helps me believe in God and in His sovereignty. Faith in the completeness of a Trinitarian God who creates out of His own nature provides that there is purpose in an orderly creation, and that all of His creation is inherently good. For me, the cohesion of the Trinity accentuates how He has put all things into proper order, and all things are created to express His glory.
No comments:
Post a Comment