Is God Man-Centered?
A couple of weeks ago I stuck my nose, uninvited, into a conversation on how much Jesus spoke about heaven and hell, and I touched on the issue of "God-centeredness vs. man-centeredness." In it I briefly discussed that there are some nuances to those terms that we probably don't pay much attention to, but should.
Over the last decade or so, probably longer, the phrase "God-centered" has come into vogue to contrast certain views of theology and ministry against other popular movements. I am not sure where I first heard the term. It may have been listening to or reading John MacArthur in the Lordship Salvation debate. The phrase "God-centered" applies very well to that debate, in my opinion, because the positions MacArthur was writing and speaking against often seemed more concerned with the spiritual welfare of man than the glory of God.
I have also seen it used as a polemic against the work of people like Robert Schuller and Norman Vincent Peale, who make the self the center of religion. In fact, one of my favorite snarky little polemical quips is that, while Peale would find Paul appealing, Paul would find Peale appalling.
And certainly John Piper has made the phrase a watchword of His ministry.
In each of these cases a phrase was used to combat a very real and serious error. Yet, as sometimes happens I am afraid that the rhetorical device of setting up a dichotomy between that which is God-centered and that which is man-centered can lead to some unintended consequences.
I am reminded of a story by my intellectual mentor, Richard Pratt (I'll claim him as a mentor, I doubt he would claim me as a mentee). Back in the day, when he was young, he came blazings into the reformed faith and went straight into obnoxious TR mode. Pratt was and is a brilliant intellect, he was reading, understanding and writing on Van Til when he was a young man, and he seems to have been a kind of prodigy.
At some point in his studies, while still in obnoxious mode, he studied under a TR's worst nightmare - John Frame. Frame wasn't reformed enough for Pratt and apparently Pratt continually argued with him, and one day Frame got through to him when he said "you don't believe man has any significance." I think I have that right, I know some of my RTS friends who read me have heard the same story, so if I have anything wrong, please comment.
This apparently set Pratt back, because for the first time he was forced to consider just how significant man is in God's plan.
I would like us all to consider the same, that in fact, God is very man-centered. I realize this will sound like heresy to some, but I would ask you to seriously consider those words. In saying that, I do not mean to say that man is supreme. With Piper and others I believe that God's greatest concern is for His own glory. I believe that God's central concern is His own glory. In saying that I do not intend to blur the creator-creature distinction by deifying man or humanizing God.
And yet, when we look at the Scriptures I don't think we can escape the fact that all of God's activity is centered on man. The centrality of man in God's plan is shown in many ways.
1. Man is the pinnacle of creation.
2. The image of God is displayed in man.
3. The glory of God is most clearly displayed as God takes on human flesh.
John 1:14 - The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
John 1:18
No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known. The Holy Bible : New International Version. 1996, c1984 . Zondervan: Grand Rapids
5. The entire plan of redemption hinges on God taking the form of man - Philippians 2:5-11
6. The eternal destiny of man is to be perfected as man, not to somehow transcend humanness.
I have a concern that, if we are not careful, this discussion can take on gnostic overtones. I am not saying that it has, and I certainly don't believe that the John Piper's and John MacArthur's of the world have done this. Yet, gnosticism views materiality as evil and I am afraid that we can adopt a gnostic kind of lens which sees humanity as only evil. And yes, I do think we Reformed types are most guilty of that as we can misuse our doctrine of total depravity.* We can assume that total depravity means utter depravity (see this post for an explanation of those terms). And we can forget that the essence of what it means to be human is to be God's image bearer, not a sinner. Sin is a corruption of who we are, not the essence of who we are.
I offer all of this not as a polemic but hopefully to spur on some conversation. I am still fully on board with the concerns of MacArthur and Piper and those who a devolution in popular evangelicalism when it displaces a concern for the glory of God with a concern for the ever changing wants and desires of man.
Yet, I think a little refining of the rhetoric is in order and that the "God-centered vs. man-centered dichotomy" may not be the best paradigm for discussing these very real problems in the church's life.
* For more of my own thoughts on Total Depravity see the following
Do the Reformed believe in Free Will
Total Depravity
Total Depravity and Free Will
How Much Depravity and How Much It Applies
Depravity and Disagreements
Recent Comments