Greg Boyd and the God of the Cross

Last updated on: July 13, 2017 at 12:05 am by Scot McKnight

Greg Boyd and the God of the Cross 2017-07-08T14:03:56-05:00 Scot McKnight

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Greg Boyd focuses his book on God — that is, on theology proper. How we understand God, A.W. Tozer said a million times, determines everything. So a critical element of Boyd’s The Crucifixion of the Warrior God is how he understands God.

How does he? At the cross. His God is the Cruciform God, and that means everything to his hermeneutic of understanding everything else in the Bible, including his view of the violence-of-God passages.

He opposes the Cruciform God to the Classic God of Christian theology. Here are some tasty quotations:

In the process of God “breathing” the written witness to his covenantal faithfulnessf God sometimes displayed his triune, cruciform agape-love by stooping to accommodate his self-revelation to the fallen and culturally conditioned state of his covenant people. 644

The orthodox doctrine of the Trinity states that from all eternity, God exists as three Divine Persons who fully pour themselves out for one another and who fully dwell within one another in perfect, other-oriented agape-love. This triune pouring out and mutual indwelling was best expressed in the Cappadocian doctrine of the “perichoresis” of the three divine Persons and, with Balthasar, Moltmann, and others, I contend that this divine perichoresis entails a sort of self-emptying (kenosis) in the very essence of the Trinity. That is, the very identity of each distinct divine Person is found in the unique way each selflessly and completely offers himself up in love to the other two. 646

Along the same lines, when the Son stooped to the infinite extremity of completely identifying with our sin and experiencing our godforsakenness, he was manifesting, and incorporating us into, the perfect, loving holiness and unity that he eternally enjoys with the Father and Spirit. 647

In this chp Boyd goes into great depths about Thomist theology proper, but before he does that he gives a perfectly clear sketch of how his method works on violence-of-God passages:

Consider, for example, the literary portraits of God doing things like causing fetuses to be ripped out of their mother’s womb (Hos 13:16), having parents cannibalize their children (Lev 26:29; Jer 19:9; Lam 2:20; Ezek 5:10), or commanding his people to massacre entire populations (e.g., Deut 7:2). If we remain confident that the cross fully reveals God’s true character, then we must conclude that while the straightforward meaning of horrific portraits such as these reveals a great deal about the fallen and culturally conditioned ways that God’s ancient covenant people sometimes conceived of him, this surface meaning conceals God’s true character more than it reveals it. Yet, precisely by being incorporated into the written witness to God’s covenantal faithfulness, horrific portraits such as these indirectly bear witness to the fact that God has always been willing to pour himself out by stooping to whatever extreme was necessary to remain in solidarity with, and to continue to further his historical purposes through, his covenant people. 651

This is why I say Boyd’s book is about method, but that method is 100% rooted in his theology proper: if he is right about God, then his method and applications carry penetrating powers.

Which is why he asks this:

The all-important question, therefore, is: how are we to arrive at an understanding of God’s true eternal nature? In the classical tradition, this was arrived at through a process of philosophical reasoning, a process that finds its classical expression in the writings of Thomas Aquinas. Toward the beginning of his Summa Theologica, Aquinas observes that the contingent, temporal, ever-changing, compound, and imperfect world we experience is not self-explanatory. To account for this world while avoiding an infinite regress, Aquinas argues that we must posit an ultimate reality that is altogether unlike the world we are trying to explain—namely, a reality that is altogether necessary, simple, timeless, unchanging, and perfect. This ultimate reality, he concludes, “everybody takes God to be.” 653

Again, method and substance: Thomist or Cruciform? He critiques Thomist thinking in these terms:

I contend that by disallowing the depictions of God’s sequential, dynamic, personal, mutually influential relationship with his people to reflect the way God truly is, this classical interpretation of Scripture has undermined the most distinctive and most distinctly beautiful dimension of the Bible’s portrait of God. To be clear, I am not at all denying the need to assess the way in which biblical depictions do and do not reflect God’s true nature. What I am rather denying is that the classical philosophic conception of God should be the criterion we use to assess this. 662

To sum up, I have thus far attempted to make clear how the Principle of Cruciform Accommodation reframes the traditional conception of divine transcendence, and thus of divine accommodation. I have argued that this principle reframes the revelatory content of divine accommodations, replaces the classical conception of God’s transcendence with the revelation of God in the crucified Christ as the primary criterion by which we assess divine accommodations, emphasizes the moral character of God’s transcendence over his metaphysical attributes, and locates the most important dimension of God’s incomprehensibility within the revelation of God on the cross rather than defining God’s incomprehensibility over-and-against this revelation. And I trust it is clear from this discussion why this cross-based principle requires us to consider Scripture’s violent divine portraits to be accommodations that conceal God’s true character on their surface while revealing his true cruciform character in their depth. 682-3

Uncategorized

Previous Post

July 12, 2017

Eugene Peterson and Same-Sex Marriage

Next Post

July 13, 2017 The Seeds of Life (RJS)

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Acts of the Apostles Adam Advent Anabaptism Angels Anglican Apologetics Atonement Baptism BCP Prayers Bible Biblical Studies Birds Blogging Bloglossary Bonhoeffer Books Calvinism Christianity Church Church History Coffee Colossians Commentary Recs Conversion Creation Creeds Culture Death Ecclesiastes Economics Education Embracing Grace Emergent Emerging Movement Eschatology Essays Ethics Eucharist Evangelicalism Family Fasting Fathers Fellowship of Differents Footsteps Tour Fun and Whimsical Gospel Grace Happiness Heaven Hell Holy Spirit Irenaeus James Jesus Jesus Creed Job Justification Kingdom of God Law Lectures Lent Liberalism Love and Marriage Mabanteneni Manhood Mary Miracles Missio Alliance MissioLife Missional Missional Jesus Movies and Film New Perspective Northern Seminary OneLife Origins Project Orthodox Parables Pastor's Spouse Pastoring and Leading Pastoring and Preaching Patristics Paul Paul-John Tour Pharisees Pietism Political Theology Prayer and Formation Preaching Problems for Faith Psalm 119 Psalms Public Issues Purgatory Religions Resurrection Revelation Romans Rule of JCreed Science and Faith Sermon on the Mount Sports Ten Commandments Theology Third Way Top Ten Lists Translations Uncategorized Universalism University Ministry Way Out Weekly Meanderings Wisdom Women and Ministry Work Worship Writing & Blogging Youth Ministry

Select a Month July 2021 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 0000

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

I made a rash vow that cost me my only child after a military victory. Who am I?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Gideon Barak Samson Jephthah