The deepest relationship with God that is mentioned in Scripture is not what most mystics talk about, a vision of the Most High, glorious, revealing deep mysteries. That is still on the level of knowledge, of intellectual stimulation. The deepest relationship with God is unity with God. This has been mentioned by a few mystics—Meister Eckhart for one, and some of the mystics collected in the Eastern Orthodox text, the Philokalia. They use the text in John 17 as their proof-text:
"I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me. The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one.”
So Jesus prays that we, his disciples, might be in God, even as the Son and the Father are one. Because most theologians focus on the unity of God as a nature of God’s being, then the mystics assume that some would take part in God’s very being, His nature. Of course, this can get a mystic in trouble, because God’s being is so other than human. But the unity that Jesus is talking about here, I am certain is not speaking of the being of God. First of all, this unity is something that all the disciples could share, not just a few individuals. Secondly, the unity is not just shared with the Godhead, but amidst the disciples themselves. There is something mystic going on here, but it does not have to do with God’s nature. Which may indicate that the oneness between the Father and the Son, in this context, is not speaking of God’s being at all.
What could the oneness between the Father and the Son be? Something in which the disciples can share? One of the most powerful statements in John about the unity between the Son and the Father is in John 5: “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner. For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself is doing; and the Father will show Him greater works than these, so that you will marvel. For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life to whom He wishes. For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son, so that all will honor the Son even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.”
In this passage, Jesus does not focus on the Son having the same being of the Father, but the same will. In other words, the Father communicates his will to the Son and the Son does it without question. Because of this, the Son and the Father share other things: judgment, because the Son will always act in the Father’s will; miracles, because the Son acts according to the Father’s mercy; and glory, because the Son is the arm of the Father in doing the works of the Father. Thus, in this passage, Jesus does not emphasize sharing in the being of the Father, but the character and will of the Father. Jesus is completely obedient to the Father and he is of the same character as the Father.
If we think about it, this must be the source of unity between the church and the Godhead. The church is unified in doing the will of the Father and in acting out the character of the Father. Certainly humanity, no matter how sanctified, could never participate in the omnipotence or omniscience of the Father, although the Father might give us glimpses of this by acting according to the power of the Spirit. Rather, we are to be acting in accord with the character of the Father.
Steve: you know i am no Theologian. i have a simple BA in philosophy, nothing more. On top of that, while i read a lot, i don't work in a field that encourages theological/philosophical thought. That being said, i do read more than the average bear. My favorites range from bultmann to Bonhoeffer, although many of my favorites are now "discredited" by modern methodology. That being said, and, given your present circumstances, i must say i admire the thought you put into your writing even though i disagree with most of it.
ReplyDeleteAdmittedly, i know of Eckhart: however; i never read a thing he wrote. I just know about him because the effort to rehabilitate his reputation has never been resolved. Clearly Bonhoeffer pleaded for him, although it must also be recognized that there was no love lost between the vatican and Bonhoeffer.
I know i need to learn more, but each time i see references to "eastern' influences in "western Christianity" i seek either Zoastrian sources, or Gnostics above all, as these have been reasonably proven to have influenced the early church fathers, and thus the version of christianity that pervades us today in america.
Ok, all that now having been said, i need a definition from you. In your premise that the deepest relationship is one of unity, by "deepest" do you mean "profound"?