What does politics have to do with
Christianity's view of God's glory? Before shaking your head in disgust at the
thought, consider first what God's glory is.
A theory proposed by the church
fathers, not as a definition of God's glory but merely as a description of His
nature and character, stands as a candidate for an explanation of His glory.
They pointed to the unique combination of holiness and love in God, and more
specifically in Jesus. This explanation comprises the perfect holiness of God,
who can do no wrong based on His purity, and His unconditional love, which will
do anything and everything He can to bless His children. If His holiness were
above His love, He would end up alone like a prudish prig who cannot have any
close relationships because all have sinned and fallen short. If His love were
to trump His holiness, He might wink at sin (as we are tempted to do with our
children) which would compromise His holiness. But God's divine nature can
allow neither of these. God's solution to the problem of mankind's sin is found
in the offering of Jesus on the cross as the atonement for sin. God's love and
holiness are thus both fully satisfied. This reconciliation of two
uncompromised absolutes is glorious.
There is one potential further aspect
to God's glory. In Revelation, the twenty four elders that surround the throne
of God are shown worshipping Him because He created all things.
Going back to the very beginning,
there is a fundamental logical impossibility that the universe exists. We
observe cause and effect in our universe. Tracing that backwards, the concept
that everything has a cause, and that cause has a cause, and so on, leads to infinite regression. But the second law of thermodynamics points the arrow of
time forward, as the direction of ever increasing entropy. Backwards, entropy
decreases. But it can’t decrease forever because of the third law of
thermodynamics. So there had to be a beginning. And before that? How did the
universe come into being? Even Aristotle knew that he needed an immovable mover
to make sense of all this. But the Bible very simply says, in the beginning,
God created the heavens and the earth.
This tells us two things. First, that God must have existed previous to
the existence of the universe that we know. Second, that God is not subject to
the law of universal causation that this universe is. That is the fundamental
answer to the problem of existence. If we ask, 'If the universe was created by
God, where did God come from?' the only possible answer is that God is not
subject to this limitation, and therefore is utterly outside our experience.
Consider a typical urban neighborhood.
Houses were built that reflect human reason: architects drew up plans;
contractors built the houses according to the plans; bankers arranged financing
and raised money in financial market; people live in the houses and make
payments on mortgages. And it all seems makes sense. Beyond the houses are
hills and the mountains, and in parks, we see trees and birds. Most people
generally say that nature is far more aesthetically appealing
than subdivisions. We listen to a robin sing, see birds fly. Consider the way
living things come to be. The plans for them are buried in the genetic code,
recorded in DNA and implemented via a very sophisticated biochemical process
that converts the genes into living tissue according to the plan of the gene.
Where did that plan come from? Can we
really believe that time plus chance plus natural selection resulted in
a detailed plan for living organisms that science is only still learning to
understand?
One of the amazing aspects of God's
creation is that there is an eternity that exists and existed before God created
our universe, and in which God conceived of this whole enterprise - creation,
redemption, glory, and so forth in which to exercise His love - when none of it
existed. We cannot fathom God's purpose or motivation in that pre-creation
milieu that resulted in His decision to create. But perhaps we have a hint for
the basis of the elders' worship in Rev. 4:11. This may not be the ultimate
revelation of God's glory, because I suspect there are dimensions of God's
existence, nature, and character that are completely outside our experience.
But we can worship Him for those aspects of His glory that we do understand.
C.S. Lewis' essay on the weight of
glory concluded with the observation that glory is in essence the approval of
God, being accepted and welcomed by Him. In this he cited various Biblical
accounts, all pointing to a common theme. Lewis did not address God's
revelation of His own glory, which he took as a given.
What does politics have to do with
this view of God's glory? Unfortunately our society and political system seems
to center on voters' approval of candidates. The very definition of manliness
is portrayed in Schwarzeneggerian terms. With no prejudice to any individual,
few are those who frame their identity in Lewisian context, that is, to approve
what God approves.
In the political realm, to gain voters
approval, candidates put forward ideas, opinions, proposed plans of action, and
broad statements of political ideology to which we respond. The reporters and
political pundits of the media act as surrogates and interpreters for the
electorate and so their approval is often sought (or rejected) by candidates.
How base this all seems standing next to the possibility of the approval of
God! And yet candidates who state that their belief system is based on
allegiance to God, to living in such a way as to gain His approval, routinely
do poorly at the polls. The leading candidates reflect the values and choices
of the voters. Do we really want leaders who would sell their soul for the
purpose of gaining an earthly crown? To paraphrase Shakespeare, the fault, dear
Brutus, is not in our politicians, but in ourselves.
