god more obvious

8/13/2019 God More Obvious

1/63

W

W

WHY ISNT GODMORE OBVIOUS?:Findi ng the God Who Hides and Seeks

P

Paul K . Moser

...people say to me continually, Where is yourGod? (Psalm 42:3, NRSV)

When you search for me, you will find me; if youseek me with all your heart, I will let you find me,says the Lord.... (Jeremiah 29:13-14, NRSV)

WOULD AN ALL-LOVING GOD HIDE?

MChapter 1 N

Somebody once asked atheist Bertrand Russell whathe would say if after death he met God. Russells reply:God, you gave us insufficient evidence. This reply cap-tures an attitude of many people, including theists as wellas atheists and agnostics. Why isnt God more obvious?IfGod exists, why doesnt God give us sufficient evidenceof Gods existence?We shall see that God does indeedsupply sufficient decisive evidence. The decisive evidencesupplied is, however, profoundly different from what wenaturally expect.

Lets use the term God as a supreme title. Itrequires of any possible holder: (a) worthiness of worshipand full life-commitment and thus (b) moral perfectionand (c) an all-loving character. Lacking a better candidatefor title-holder, lets consider the God of Abraham, Isaac,

Jacob, and Jesus. We thus shall speak of the HebraicGod, and correspondingly of Hebraic theism as theview that the Hebraic God actually exists. Is Hebraic the-ism true?Does our available evidence indicate, as Russell

2

Moser Monograph final_4/15/00 5/5/00 3:41 PM Page 2


2/63

3

held, that Hebraic theism is false or at least unreasonable?

Can we reasonably trust a God whom we neither see norcontrol?

We sometimes have misguided expectations regard-ing God. So our expected indicators of Gods existencemay mislead us. Correct indicators of Gods existencewill line up with Gods character and plans. So we shouldask whatGodmay be like and plan to do, before we set-tle onourexpectations for God. Perhaps, however, we areunable to understand or to know God on our own andthus must learn from God. The apostle Paul held that itis part of the wisdom of God that the world did notknow God through its own wisdom (1 Corinthians

1:21). We do not need to assume now that Paul is right.We should, however, be open to the possibletruth ofPauls view. In that spirit, we shall note a number of scrip-tural passages. Lets treat them as suggestions of how wemightthink of God and Gods ways. If they ultimatelymake the best available sense of our human situation,they will merit our serious consideration as indicators ofreality. The scriptures noted will give specific content toour talk of the Hebraic God. In ignoring the scriptures,we easily fall prey to abstract, speculative, or wishfulthinking about God and thereby miss the explanatoryprofundity of Hebraic theism.

The Hebraic God is famous for hiding at times. The

theme of divine hiding reverberates throughout theHebrew scriptures and the New Testament. So we are leftwith an all-loving God who sometimes hides frompeople. Many people assume that an all-loving Godsexistence, if real, would be obvious to all normalhumans. Gods existence is not, however, obviousto allnormal humans. So, according to many people, we mayreasonably deny that God actually exists. How could anall-loving God fail to manifest Gods reality in a way thatremoves all doubt about Gods existence?Some normalhumans do not believe that God exists. They claim notto have adequate evidence for reasonable belief that God

exists. Would an all-loving God permit this?How couldthis be, if God is indeed all-loving?



3/63

SOME BIBLICALDATA

Divine hiding bears on theists as well as atheists andagnostics. Psalm 10 complains about Gods hiding.Why, O Lord, do you stand far off?Why do you hideyourself in times of trouble? (Psalm 10:1, NRSV; cf. Job13:24). Psalm 30 laments God's hiding after times of thepsalmist's confident security. When I felt secure, I said,I will never be shaken. O Lord, when you favored me,you made my mountain stand firm; but when you hidyour face, I was dismayed (Psalm 30:7, NIV; cf. Psalm104:27-29). Psalm 44 expresses outright annoyance atGods hiding, suggesting that Gods hiding is actuallymorally negligent. Rouse yourself! Why do you sleep, O

Lord? Awake, do not cast us off forever! Why do youhide your face?Why do you forget our affliction andoppression? (Psalm 44:23-24, NRSV). The subject ofGods hiding is no intellectual parlor-game in the Psalms.It cuts to the core of the psalmists understanding of Godand at times prompts lament from Gods people.

Isaiah 45:15 sums up a central Hebraic view ofGod: Truly you are a God who hides himself, O God ofIsrael, the Savior. The claim isnotthat God hides alwaysor that we have no evidence of Gods reality. The sugges-tion is that divine hiding occurs at times for Gods ownpurposes. Gods purposes in hiding may be unclear andeven impenetrable to us at times. This does not mean,

however, that they are unclear in every situation.Gods hiding is sometimes a response to human dis-

obedience and moral indifference toward God(Deuteronomy 31:16-19, 32:19-20; Psalm 89:46; Isaiah59:2; Micah 3:4). We should not, however, jump to asimplistic account of divine hiding. God hides at timesfor variouspurposes in relating to humans. Divine hid-ing is notalways a judgment on human disobedience orindifference. It is often a constructive effort to encouragedeeper human focus, longing, and gratitude towardGod. God thus aims to take us, even if painfully, to ourown deepest resources and their inadequacy, where deep

calls to deep (Psalm 42:7; cf. Psalm 130:1). In appre-hending Gods absence, we can achieve a deeper, moreprofound appreciation of Gods presence. Gods absencecan indeed make ones heart grow fonder of God, at least

4



4/63

5

in some cases. By sharpening the contrast between Gods

presenceand absence, God can highlight the surpassingvalue of Gods presence.

Divine hiding, like everything else God does, seeksto advance Gods good kingdom by promoting what isgood for all concerned. So we must keep divine hiding inthe context of Gods main desire to have people lovinglyknow God and thereby to become loving as God is lov-ing. As Isaiah 65:2 reports, I [God] held out my handsall day long to a rebellious people, who walk in a way thatis not good (cf. Romans 10:21). Gods holding outhands toward people stems from the same concern asJesus weeping over Jerusalem (Luke 19:41; cf. 13:34).

God desires that people turn, for their own good, to theloving God in filial communion and faithful obedience.Godsprimaryaim is not to hide but rather to include allpeople in Gods familyas beloved children under Godsfatherly guidance. A loving filial relationship with God isGods main goal for every human. This means that Godwants us to love, to treasure, God as our Father, not justto believe that God exists (Deuteronomy 6:5; Mark12:30; James 2:19). So production of mere reasonablebelief that God exists will not meet Gods higher aim forus. For our own good, God is after something moreprofound and more transforming than simplereasonable belief about God. Mere reasonable belief is

no match for personal transformation toward Godsloving character.

Divine hiding typically results from a human defi-ciency. An arguable exception comes from Jesus cry ofabandonment on the cross: My God, my God, whyhave you forsaken me? (Mark 15:34). Jesus felt forsak-en by his Father at that time. Perhaps Jesus learned adeeper level of obedience toward his Father from thisexcruciating case of divine hiding (cf. Hebrews 5:8).Even so, according to a common biblical theme, Godtakes no pleasure in staying away from humans or beingrejected by them (Ezekiel 18:23,32; 33:11; 2 Peter 3:9; 1

Timothy 2:3-4). As all-loving, God seeks friendship withall humans under Gods fatherly love (James 2:23; John3:16-17, 15:14-15). We distort Gods loving characterwhenever we portray God otherwise.



5/63

The epistle of James puts decisive responsibility on

us humans: Come near to God and God will come nearto you (4:8; cf. Jeremiah 29:13; Malachi 3:7).According to various biblical writers, we should takestock of our standing before God if God is hiding fromus. We then may need to change something in our lives,perhaps certain attitudes and practices against the waysof God. For important lists of attitudes and practicesagainst and in favor of Gods ways, see Mark 7:21-22;Galatians 5:19-26. These lists give specificity to the kindof unselfish love characteristic of God. Friendship withGod, like genuine human friendship, depends onunselfish love.

In the case of blameless and upright Job, a pre-sumptuous attitude about knowledge of God neededrevision (Job, chapters 38-42). Similarly, many peopletoday presume to know how a loving God shouldormustintervene in our world, if God is to be loving. For exam-ple, many people suggest that an all-loving God wouldhave to keep the world free of evil. What, however,determines how God shouldbe revealed?What standardof clarity must Gods self-revelation meet?A loving Godwould not, and should not, be bound by superficialhuman expectations. Human expectations must betransformed, for the good of humans, toward the pro-foundly loving character of God. This disturbing and

humbling lesson is central to Hebraic theism. It remindsus that our wisdom may not add up to Gods wisdom(Isaiah 29:14; 1 Corinthians 1:19-20). Our expectationsmay be shallow or even mistaken in comparison withGods loving character and intentions. Due humility isthus appropriate in approaching the Hebraic God.

HIDINGANDAUTHORITYINJESUS

The New Testament characterizes God as hidingeither himself or important information about God fromcertain people. Jesus prays as follows regarding the les-

sons of his mission.

I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven andearth, because you have hidden these things

6



6/63

7

from the wise and the intelligent and have

revealed them to infants; yes, Father, forsuch was your gracious will. All things havebeen handed over to me by my Father; andno one knows the Son except the Father,and no one knows the Father except the Sonand anyone to whom the Son chooses toreveal him (Matthew 11:25-26, NRSV; cf.Luke 10:21-22).

Jesus claims that he is the unique son and solerevealer of God and thus has unequaled authority amonghumans. Such a claim would seem delusional at best on

the lips of any human other than Jesus. Lets observesome of the indications of Jesus authority. Jesus himself,as a personal image of God, may serve as a special kindof evidence of Gods reality.

The life of Jesus exhibited, in word and deed, a kindof authority and power unique among humans. So a cen-tral message of the New Testament is that Jesus hasunsurpassed authority and power in human history. Jesusremarks that acceptance (or rejection) of him amounts toacceptance (or rejection) of God (Matthew 10:40). Inaddition, Jesus claims authority to forgive sins apart fromGods Temple (Mark 2:1-12) and to arrange for the finaljudgment as Gods king (Luke 22:29-30). Likewise, Jesus

symbolically presents himself as the long-awaitedeverlasting king of Israel, after Zechariah 9:9, in his hum-ble entry into Jerusalem on a colt (Mark 11:1-10). Healso intimates that he is King Davids Lord (Mark 12:35-37), and that he is greater than even King Solomon(Luke 11:31). Indeed, in reply to a question from Johnthe Baptist (Luke 7:18-23), he alludes to Isaiah 61:1-2and 35:5-6 to suggest that he is Gods Messiah. Similarly,Jesus claims to be the messianic son of God in responseto the chief priests (Mark 14:61-64). This claim,according to Mark 14:64, elicits the charge that Jesus isguilty of blasphemy, of exalting himself in a way that

dishonors God.In his own ministry, Jesus suggested, the kingdom

of God has arrived. If it is by the finger of God that Icast out the demons, then the kingdom of God has come



7/63

to you (Luke 11:20, NRSV). In the parable of the vine-

yard (Mark 12:1-12) Jesus suggests that he is God'srejected (beloved) son who is heir to the things of God.In keeping with this theme, Jesus functions as the oneuniquely qualified to send the Spirit of God to empow-er people (Mark 1:8; Acts 2:32-33). In addition, Jesusclaims that his death will inaugurate the (new) covenantfor many people (Mark 14:24). He thus suggests that hisdeath has saving (or, redemptive) significance for others.Some Jewish literature around the turn of the erasacknowledges that human suffering can atone for sin,even for the sins of others (cf. 4 Maccabees 6:27-30,9:23-25). The novelty is that Jesusthis Galilean out-

castregarded his death as the means of Gods newcovenantof redemption. The covenant is Gods lovingplan to save humans from their destructive ways.

New Testament scholar E.P. Sanders observes thatJesus himself shared the Gospel writers view that he ful-filled the hopes of the prophets. He adds that Jesusactual claim may have been... not only spokesman for,but viceroy of, God; and not just in a political kingdombut in the kingdom of God.1 The previous NewTestament data suggest that Jesus regarded himself asGods unique Priest, Judge, King, Messiah, Son, andRedeemer (=Savior). He saw himself as the one sent byGod to fulfill the hopes of Israel for an everlasting king-

dom under God. No other human could make suchauthoritative claims with any real plausibility. Jesus thusshatters the limits of human authority in a way that mer-its our attention. Jesus is no mere moral reformer, spiri-tual guru, or philosophical sage. He is either (i) patentlyinsane (Mark 3:21), (ii) Satanic (Mark 3:22), or (iii)Gods unique son and viceroy. Sanders himself rightlyconcludes: He was not a madman.2 His not beingSatanic should go without saying, after one attends to thepattern of his life and teaching. The third of our threeoptions thus recommends itself seriously for ourendorsement. So we should take Jesus claim about

divine hiding seriously.

8



8/63

W

9

WHAT KIND OFKNOWING SUITSGOD?MChapter 2 N

In his prayer of Matthew 11:25-26, Jesus speaksof knowing the Son and the Father. He is speak-ing of a kind of knowledge that differs from mere jus-tified true belief that God exists. Jesus is speaking ofknowing God as authoritative and giving Father.

Perhaps you know that God exists as First Cause,Intelligent Designer, or Ground of Being. KnowingGod as Lord, or Master, who is your righteously gra-cious Father is, however, significantly different.Devoted to the latter kind of knowing, Jesusaddressed God as Abba (best translated as Father).The Greek New Testaments retention of this Aramaicterm (Mark 14:36; Galatians 4:5; Romans 8:15)offers warrant for treating Abba as part of the cus-tomary vocabulary of Jesus. Jesus customary use ofAbba to address God distinguished him significant-ly from his contemporaries. God is, however, por-trayed as the Father of Gods people in the Hebrewscriptures (for example, Psalms 89:26, 103:13; Isaiah63:16).

FILIAL KNOWLEDGE OF GOD

Proper knowledge of God, according to Jesus,requires your standing in a humble, faithful, and lovingchild-parent, or filial, relationship to God as yourrighteously gracious Father. Unfortunately, such filialknowledgerarely surfaces in philosophy of religion oreven in Christian approaches to knowledge of God.New Testament scholar James Dunn observes that

Jesus awareness of being Gods beloved son was anexistential conviction, and not a matter of merelyintellectual assent. He experi enceda relation of son-ship felt such an intimacy with God, such an



9/63

approval by God, dependence on God, responsibility to

God, that the only words adequate to express it wereFather and son.3 Jesus experience of being Godsson is clearly expressed in his prayers (for example,Mark 14:36; Luke 10:21-22; Matthew 26:42).Indeed, Jesus seems to have regarded filial prayertoward God as an ideal avenue to proper, filial knowl-edge of God and to Gods saving power (Mark 9:29).Such prayer is primarily a matter of asking what Godwants from us rather than what we want from God.Godrightly leads Gods family. We do not. Humansproperly submit to God for guidance and knowledgeof God.

We come to know other human persons byactively relating to them in personal interaction withthem. Likewise, we come to know God via personalinteraction whereby we become personally account-able to God. You could not responsibly apprehend thereality of your parents love for you apart from a sin-cere personal relationship with them. An analogouspoint holds for your responsibly apprehending thereality of Gods love. So filial knowledge of God is notjust knowledge that another object in the universeexists. The Hebraic conception of filial knowledge ofGod requires that one know God not as a mere objectbut as the supreme subjectwho is Lord of all, includ-

ing ones own life. Such knowledge requires theresponsiveness of a filial personal relationship withGod. It calls for a proper family relationship with Godas the proper loving head of the family. We must enterinto, commit to, and part icipate in, a loving relation-ship with God. This is no mere intellectual matter.Likewise, your entering into a friendship or a mar-riage relationship exceeds thinking and reasoning.

New Testament scholar C.H . Dodd has helpfullycontrasted Greek and Hebraic conceptionsof knowledge.

... for the Greek, to know God means tocontemplate the ultimate reality in itschangeless essence. For the Hebrew, toknow God is to acknowledge Him in His

10



10/63

11

works and to respond to His claims. While

for the Greek knowledge of God is the mosthighly abstract form of pure contemplation,for the Hebrew it is essentially ... toexperience His dealings with men in time,and to hear and obey His commands.4

Elucidating the relevant Hebrew term for knowl-edge, yada, G. J. Botterweck reports: To knowYahweh [the covenant God of Israel] refers to a prac-tical, religio-ethical relationship.5 Likewise, OldTestament scholar Bernhard Anderson characterizesHebraic knowledge of God as the kind of personal

relationship with God that is manifest in socialresponsibility.6 Being inherently personal, God prop-erly reveals himself personally, not merely as an imper-sonal power, sign, argument, or proof. The OldTestament book of Hosea depicts proper knowledgeof God in terms of a loyal marriage relationship(Hosea 2:16-20; cf. Isaiah 54:6). Such knowledge ofGod results from Gods gracious self-revelation, notfrom typical human ways that are self-crediting orexclusive. For our own good, we cannot know God onour own self-serving terms. We rather must beamenable to Gods better terms for knowing God, andthis requires genuine humility on our part.

In the prayer of Matthew 11:25-27, Jesus thankshis Father for hiding his ways from people unwillingto enter a humble filial relationship with God. Hethus assumes that it is good for God to maintainGods unmatched value rather than to neglect, or oth-erwise to compromise, the value of a humble filialrelationship with God. In a similar vein, Jesus suggeststhat the kingdom of God is like treasure hidden in afield (Matthew 13:44; cf. Luke 19:42). Gods valu-able ways may require some human searching(Jeremiah 29:13-14; Matthew 7:7), as such searchingcan highlight their unsurpassed value for us. It can

also show that we are unable to find God on our own,thereby prompting some humility in us. The HebraicGod wants humans to be fully engaged with God,even via our lament and protest in the face of Gods



11/63

hiding, as the Psalms illustrate. Such engagement will

save us from fatal apathy toward God. Gods occa-sional hiding thus does not entail that God is resist-ant, grudging, or deceptive toward humans (cf. Luke12:32; Isaiah 65:1-2). It aims for our valuing, ourtreasuring, God above all else. Likewise, a lovingearthly father will conduct himself in ways that main-tain his value as father of his family.

Divine hiding stems from Gods upholding thevalue of Gods invaluable loving ways. God sustainsthe value of Gods ways of human renewal in the pres-ence of people who would compromise this value totheir own detriment. For instance, we would readily

sidestep Gods challenges to our selfishness if wecould. Having preeminent value, Gods loving waysmust remain sacred and not be diminished in value(cf. Matthew 7:6). We must treasure God and Godsways. Gods primary goal in self-revelation is transfor-mation of recipients toward Gods loving character.This goal will not be satisfied by a revelation resultingjust in ones reasonably believing that God exists. Aperson can reasonably believe that God exists but hateGod. So God must be careful, and at times subtle, tohave Gods loving self-manifestation elicit a freelygiven response of humble love rather than fear, indif-ference, arrogance, or hate. Likewise, our eliciting a

response of love from children demands carefulnessand subtlety on our part. God cares mainly aboutwhat and how we love, not just what we believe. Godaims that we treasure God; for where our treasure is,there our heart is.

Proper moral education toward sacrificial loveand reconciliation always has been difficult noncoer-cive business. Typically its important lessons must beshownto us in action rather than simply statedto us insentences or arguments. We must learn such lessonsbylivingthem rather than merely thinking them. Thisholds true even when the moral educator is God.

Accordingly the life and death of Jesus offer a nonco-ercive demonstration of Gods self-giving love and alife-pattern of obedient love for humans.7 Given theimportant reality of human free will (a requirement

12



12/63

13

for genuine love), such moral education has no guaran-

tee of success. Even when God is the loving educator,failure can result. For example, we can choose life-stylesthat sidestep our learning unselfish love. Not even Godcan enforce genuine reconciliation between humansand God, the heart of redemption, or salvation.

Consider some (transliterated) non-Englishlanguage. Abba yi thqaddash shemakh. Tethemalkuthakh. Lakhman delimkhar, habh lan yoma dhen.[= Father, hallowed be your name. Your kingdomcome. Our bread for tomorrow, give us today.]Perhaps you did not initially apprehend the meaningof this Palestinian Jewish Aramaic. You may not even

have been confident initially that this token actuallyhas meaning. Perhaps you had at most a vagueglimpse of some of its meaning. The problem lies notin the Aramaic token. It lies rather in the overall per-spective of beliefs and other attitudes you bring to thistoken. Call this perspective your receptive attitude.The problem lies in your lack of appropriate exposureand sensitivity to Palestinian Jewish Aramaic. Perhapsyour life has avoided the Aramaic vocabulary andgrammar needed to grasp the previous token. So thereception of significant evidence sometimes dependson the receptive attitude of people.

Failure to receive some evidence stems from

shortcomings in intended recipientsof evidence. Theevidence itself could still be flawless. An analogy arises.People whose receptive attitude is closed to Godslanguage (or, program) of liberating love may beblinded from apprehending available evidence for thereality of God. The evidence may be readily available,just as our Aramaic token is meaningful. According toJesus, however, we need appropriate ears to hear andeyes to see the available evidence (Mark 4:9). Weneed an attitudinal change by becoming genuinelyreceptive to God, in order to apprehend the availableevidence in the right way. We need to turn, to repent,

and thereby to become sincerely open to God. Wemust thereby renounce all obstacles to God, inorder to make God our priority. God is, after all,second to none in importance.



13/63

We must acknowledge that on our own we

humans have failed dismally at the program of all-inclusive redemption (or, salvation), including self-redemption. This failure occurs relative to serious chal-lenges to our very existence (for example, death), toour well-being (for example, physical and mentaldecline), and to our moral standing (for example, ourregrettable tendency to selfishness). Call these chal-lenges our human predicament. We have no self-madeor even self-discovered solution to our commonhuman predicament of serious deficiencies. Only apersonal caring God can rescue us from this undeni-able predicament. This humbling acknowledgment is

significant relative to our knowing God, as Jesus sug-gests in his prayer of Matthew 11:25. It requires thatwe change how we think of ourselves and of our rela-tion to a righteously gracious God. It calls for ourbeginning and continuing a humble filialrelationshipafter the pattern of Jesus, the unique son of God. Italso recommends a change in our intentions regardingour conduct and habits. Such change is volitional, amatter of the will. It is not merely intellectual.Contrary to Plato, we can know what is right but failto do or even to favor what is right. We need to haveour willcaptured and transformed by Gods love.

Our humble awareness of our needing God will

displace us from the prideful center of self-importancein our supposed universe. This is illustrated by humanbehavior typical of confrontation with the HebraicGod. Such behavior includes ones bowing, falling, orcovering oneself before God or Gods heavenly repre-sentatives. See the cases of Moses (Exodus 3:6, 34:8),Elijah (1 Kings 19:13), Ezekiel (Ezekiel 1:28), Daniel(Daniel 10:5-9), Saul (Acts 9:4-9), and John(Revelation 1:13-18). We must become humbleenough to receive Gods gracious love as a giftratherthan as an earning. Our pride interferes by layingclaim to our earningGods love and thus robbing it of

its status as amazing grace, or gift. (On the key role ofhumility before God in Hebraic theism, see Isaiah57:15, 66:2; Psalms 34:18, 51:7.) Via transformationtoward humility before God, we become able to

14



14/63

15

appreciate the explanatory depth of Hebraic theism

regarding the human predicament and condition.Our eyes and ears are thereby opened in new ways.Transformation of our will can thus contribute to ourappreciation of Hebraic theism and its explanatoryvalue. It can yield a new illuminating perspective onour common human predicament. Likewise, commit-ment to redirect focus can bring a new perspective onan ambiguous perceptual figure (such as the famousduck-rabbit figure) or on a stereogram where a three-dimensional image is hidden within a two-dimen-sional pattern (see such an image at http://www.mag-iceye.com/).

In Penses, the seventeenth-century philosopherBlaise Pascal emphasized the bearing of Gods hidingon volitional transformation.

God wishes to move the will rather than themind. Perfect clarity would help the mindand harm the will. Humble theirpride. (234)

It there were no obscurity man would notfeel his corruption; if there were no lightman could not hope for a cure. Thus it isnot only right but useful for us that God

should be partly concealed and partlyrevealed, since it is equally dangerous forman to know God without knowing hisown wretchedness as to know his wretched-ness without knowing God. (446)8

Pascals remarks illuminate some cases of divinehiding, even if other cases of hiding call for a morecomplex diagnosis. The evidence of God available tous fits well with the Hebraic view of Gods variousintentions in self-hiding and self-revealing. Wheneverpertinent, God aims to displace false claimants to

Gods throne. For our own good, God works againstidolatry(commitment to false gods) and its destruc-tive consequences. Sometimes divine hiding is aneffective antidote to idolatry, but not always.



15/63

Sometimes we settle for false gods instead of the true

God. We do this whenever we persist in our selfish-ness. So our idolatrous habits run deep indeed.

Without suitable transformation, we may beblinded from recognizing God, owing to our owncounterfeit intelligence" and wisdom (1Corinthians 1:19-25). We may then lack the kind ofsincere openness, humility, and filial obedience appro-priate to relating to the true God. We may then haveassigned the authority of God to ourselves or to someother part of creation. In that case, we would be guiltyof idolatry. We often promote cogni ti ve idolatr ybydemanding a kind of knowledge of God inappropri-

ate to a filial relationship with God.9

For instance, weoften want controllableknowledge of God analogousto our knowledge of household objects. In thus vio-lating Gods program of gracious salvation throughtransformation, we are slaves to selfishness and needto be set free. The wisdom of philosophers, howeversophisticated, offers no means of freeing us from self-ish fear of losing what we value (such as our supposedcontrol). This wisdom lacks the needed power to setus free, to transform us from the inside out towardGods ideal of all-inclusive love. Only the freeingpower of Gods gracious offer of filial relationshipmeets this need. A loving earthly father can remove

some of his childs fears. Likewise, a loving God candissolve the fears that prompt human selfishness.

The extent to which we know God depends onthe extent to which we are gratefully willing toparticipate in Gods loving program of salvation(Jeremiah 22:13-17; Micah 6:6-8). Our filial relation-ship with God deepens as it yields our participation inGods redemptive program. Gods program thenbecomes ourprogram. So it is now obvious why wehumans have difficulty in knowing God. The difficul-ty stems from our resisting participation in Godsredemptive program of reconciliation. So it is the

height of arrogance for us humans to saunter up to thequestion whether God exists as if we were automati-cally in an appropriate moral and cognitive positionto handle it reliably. Careful reflection on the purposes

16



16/63

17

inherent to an all-loving God recommends an

approach less cavalier than that typical of inquiringhumans. We are, after all, inquiring about a very spe-cial kind of agent with distinctive purposes, not just ahousehold object or laboratory specimen. We humansoften proceed as if we had a hard time rememberingthis. Perhaps we cannot easily abide a gracious Beingwho evades our self-approving cognitive nets.Stubbornly, we insist on our own inferior terms forsalvation. We thereby sidestep the genuine article andsettle for counterfeits. So we miss out on the abundantlife provided by filial knowledge of God.

God, we noted, is not after mere justified true

belief that God exists. God cares how we handle evi-dence of Gods existence. The concern is whether webecome loving in handling such evidence, in agree-ment with Gods character. So contrary to a typicalhuman attitude, knowledge of God is not a spectatorsport. It is rather part of a process of Gods thoroughmake-over of a person. It is, from our human stand-point, anacti ve commitmentto a morally transformingpersonal relationship. We come to know God only asGod becomesour God, the Lord of our lives. God willthen differ from a mere object of our contemplation,speculation, amusement, or self-indulgence. Godrefuses, for our own good, to become a mere idol of

our thought or entertainment.Proper knowledge of the Hebraic God is inherent-

ly ethical and practical rather than simply reflective.Spectators complaining from the far bleachers may infact remain out in the bleachers, by their own self-iso-lating choice. Knowing God requires ones appre-hending a call to come in from the remote bleachersand gratefully join God's plan of gracious salvation.This plan is no mere intellectual puzzle for philoso-phers or theologians. God is more serious than ourmental gymnastics, for our own good. We have, afterall, livesto form and to live, not just thoughts to think

or intellectual puzzles to solve. Gods call, in keepingwith the call of Abraham, Jeremiah, Jesus, and Paul,requires that we commit to using our whole lives forthe advancement of Gods kingdom of self-giving



17/63

love. So proper knowledge of God extends to our

deepest attitudes and convictions. God is free of oursuperficial ways.

KNOWING INJOHNSGOSPEL

Johns Gospel highlights the importance of thehuman will in human knowledge. In John 7:3-4, Jesusfaces a problem of hiding raised by his own brothers(who, according to John 7:5, did not believe in him).His brothers tell him that nobody works in hidingwhile seeking to be known openly. Their challenge isstraightforward: Manifest yourself to the world

(John 7:4; cf. John 10:24). Jesus replies that the worldhates him because he testifies that its works are evil.He suggests that the world has the wrong attitudetoward him. John then portrays Jesus as teaching inthe temple that if anyone willsto do the will of God,that person will know whether Jesus teaching is fromGod (7:17). Note the importance of ones willingtoobey God, as in a humble filial relationship with God.It is fitting, then, that this part of Johns Gospel cul-minates in a dispute over filialassociation with eitherGod or the devil (John 8:39-47). (See also the relevantfilial language of ones being born again/from abovein John 3:1-12, in connection with seeing/entering

the kingdom of God and knowing the things of God.)A human filial response to God presupposes thatGodgraciously takes the initiative in trying to establisha filial relationship. Godfirst calls us to humblereception of Gods transforming love. God loves usbefore we love God.

John 12:35-40 continues the theme of hiding.After predicting his death, Jesus advises his listeners towalk while they have the light, unless the darknessovertake them (v. 35). He suggests that understandingthe things of God requires trust in God (v. 36).Christian faith is not, however, an ungrounded

response to inadequate evidence for God. It is not aleap of faith. It is a filial attitude of obedientlyentrusting oneself to a faithful God who reveals him-self as a righteously gracious Father (cf. John 14:1).

18



18/63

19

Jesus hides from the unbelieving crowd. John links the

unbelief to the kind of judgment described in Isaiah6:10. He has blinded their eyes and hardened theirheart, unless they should see with their eyes and per-ceive with their heart, and turn for me to heal them(cf. Mark 4:11-12). John suggests that the crowdsunbelief in the face of Jesus miraculous signs led tohardening and blindness in understanding. So oneshandling of the available evidence concerning Godhas serious consequences for ones understanding otherconsiderations about God. The signs of God must behandled with utter seriousness, as ones very life is atstake. Assessing evidence of God is no parlor game.

John 14:21 portrays a grand promise from Jesus.The person having my commandments and keepingthem, that is the one who loves me; the person lovingme will be loved by my Father, and I will love that per-son and manifest myself to him (John 14:21). Thisamazing promise is general, applying to anyonekeepingthe commandments of Jesus. Note the importance ofobedience and love, key factors that go well beyond rea-sonable belief that God exists. The promise has crucialvolitional conditions. The prophet Hosea, we noted,uses a loyal marriage relationship as a model for know-ing God. On this model, mutual respect and love willobviously be central to a knowledge relationship. We

could use a relation of friendship to make the samepoint, in keeping with John 15:13-15.

One of Jesus disciples restates the challenge fromJesus brothers in John 7:4, asking why he will notmanifest himself to the world (John 14:22). The dis-ciples thinking is famil iar: why hide from the world i fyou have miraculous powers?Jesus offers a reply thathighlights again the importance of the volitionalhuman attitudes of love and obedience in relation toGod. If a person loves me, that person will keep myword, and my Father will love him, and we will cometo him and make our home with him (14:23). Jesus

reply assumes that the world does not love the thingsof God. So Gods self-manifestation would not havethe filial effect of love desired by God. Such a mani-festation would thus compromise the value of Gods



19/63

self-revelation. In another context, Jesus remarks that

an evil and adulterous generation seeks a sign(Matthew 12:39, 16:4; cf. Mark 8:12; John 6:30).Entertaining signs and wonders are typically ineffec-tive toward a filial relationship with God. They do notcut deeply enough into ones character to elicit sacrifi-cial love toward God. (Section 3 below considers thistopic.) Jesus portrays God as desiring not mereacknowledgment or intellectual affirmation, but anattitude of filial, loving obedience toward God. Forour own good, God wants us to treasure God as ourLord, as our loving Master.

The first epistle of John develops the theme that

proper knowledge of God depends on a filial attitudeof loving obedience toward God.

By this we know that we have come to know[God], if we keep his commandments....Whoever keeps his [Gods] word, truly inthis person the love of God is perfected. Bythis we know that we are in him. The onewho claims to remain in him ought himselfto behave as he [Jesus] behaved (1 John2:3,5). The one who loves ... knows God.The one who does not love does not knowGod, because God is love (1 John 4:7-8).

John regards a filial attitude of loving obediencetoward God as required and adequate for properlyknowing God. So our not loving will preclude ourknowing God. Note the central role of the son Jesusin this passage. Jesus serves as the practical model forgenuine filial knowledge of God. The Gospel of John(6:30-36) identifies Jesus as the effective sign thefilial evidence for us from God. God seeks to revealGods character of personal love. So God sends Jesusto manifest Gods self-giving love. Jesus is a signunavailable to people closed or indifferent to Gods

gracious offer of filial relationship. Filial knowledge ofGod exemplifies the distinctive kind of personalknowledge of God central to Hebraic theism. Filiallove is built into the very core of knowing the God of

20



20/63

21

love. Other proposed ways of knowing God are but

cheap counterfeits. The prophet Hosea would say thatthey involve harlotry rather than a loyal marriage.Efforts to know God without loving friendship withGod miss the true character of the God of all-inclusivelove. God, we might say, is hidden only in Godssupreme love. Gods occasional hiding is Gods loveobscured, owing to some deficiency on our part. Thisobscuring seeks to uphold the supreme value ofGods love while God tries to bring us all deeper intothat love.

What about evidence of God from prophecies,miracles, the empty tomb of Jesus, the post-resurrec-

tion transformation of the apostles, design in nature,and the reality of moral conscience? Such evidenceenhances reasonable Christian commitment. Still, it isnot decisivefor filial knowledge of God. A person canaccept such evidence without properly knowing Godat all in a filial manner. One can acknowledge suchevidence but still fail altogether to love God or to becommitted to obey God.Accepting such evidenceis onething; loving Godis another. This difference yields asharp contrast between dead faith and saving faith.Saving faith is renewing faith, toward Gods lovingcharacter.

Jesus demands of his followers a whole-hearted

loving commitment toward God as genuinely lovingFather (Mark 8:34-38; Matthew 8:18-22, 10:37-39).Such whole-hearted commitment finds no adequatebasis in the uncertainties of theoretical inferenceabout history or nature. Its needed basis, we shall see,is in the morally transforming presence of God'srighteous love through filial relationship. Such a rela-tionship is made available and exemplified by the self-giving life and death of Gods unique son Jesus. Thehistorical evidence is indeed significant. The HebraicGod works tirelessly in the turbulence of human his-tory. God even sends his unique son into the histori-

cal fray to exhibit Gods sacrificial love. Still, such evi-dence is not suitably decisive for filial knowledge ofGod. Our filial knowledge of God must be liberating,reconciling, and morally transforming toward Gods



21/63

character. Historical evidence cannot fill that bill. By

analogy, your having historical evidence about a loyalmarriage falls short of your lovingly participating in aloyal marriage. Similarly, your knowing about a valu-able friendship does not add up to your having a valu-able friendship.

We must know Gods transforming love directlyin filial relationship, not just in historical evidenceabout Gods love. C.H. Dodd has put this key lessonin context. Perhaps one of the most striking featuresof the early Christian movement was the re-appear-ance of a confidence that [one] can know God imme-diately.... Jesus Christ, with a confidence that to the

timid traditionalism of His time appeared blasphe-mous, asserted that He knew the Father and was pre-pared to let others into that knowledge. He did so ...by making others sharers in His own attitude toGod.10 Jesus shareable attitude to God is inherent-ly filial, as illustrated by the Lords Prayer (Matthew6:9-15) and the testing of Jesus in Gethsemane (Mark14:32-36). Jesus directly experienced his Fathers gra-cious self-giving love and obediently returned thesame sacrificial love to his Father. We are called to dothe same, even in the same whole-hearted manner.

Our discerning that Jesus himself offers a com-pelling reason to acknowledge God is no mere intel-

lectual matter. We must be genuinely willing to exem-plify the kind of God-centered excellence shown byJesus in his relation to God as Father. We must bewilling to appropriate Jesus teaching that we humanshave failed at being properly filial toward our right-eously gracious Father. We must also be willing toacknowledge sincerely that this is the worst kind ofpersonal failure possible. We thus must render judg-ment against ourselves, judgment that we haverebelled against our filial responsibility before God(cf. Luke 15:11-32). This is the beginning of whatJesus called repentanceand demanded of his

followers (Mark 1:15, 6:12; Luke 13:3,5). It iscrucial to our appropriating Gods forgiving love.Such repentance calls for humble recognition that weare not entitled on our own to know God as Father.

22



22/63

23

We must recognize that filial knowledge of God can

come only as a gracious gift, not as a prideful earning.Likewise, true love must be received, not bought orcoerced. Accordingly we cannot buy or force evengenuine earthly friendship.

The excellence of Jesus is ultimately revealedtopeople sincerely willing to honor such excellence withtheir lives, and notjust their thoughts (Matthew16:15-17). Divine grace aims to remove community-destroying pride about good works and status (Luke15:28-32; 1 Corinthians 4:7; Ephesians 2:9).Likewise, God uses the gift of Gods self-revelation toremove pride about self-crediting intellectual means

of finding God (cf. 1 Corinthian 1:26-29). Argumentcan indeed remove some obstacles to Gods self-reve-lation. Gods Spiritis, however, the final source andseal of such revelation. Gods Spirit makes the wisdomof God a liberating power absent from worldly wis-dom. Proper knowledge of God thus has its ultimatesource in the Spirit of God, who testifies about Godimmediately to our spirits (Romans 8:16; cf. 1 John4:13, 5:6-9; 1 Corinthians 2:12-14). Gods Spirit con-victs us of our unloving ways and calls us to lovingrelationship with God and others, even our enemies.

In keeping with Jesus prayer of Matthew 11:25-27, we ultimately know God by gracious revelation

through Gods Spirit. Christian theory of knowledgemust therefore give a central role to the immediatetestimony and power of Gods revealing Spirit. Paulput the point clearly. We have received not the spiritof the world but the Spirit from God, in order that wemay know the things freely given to us by God (1Corinthians 2:12; cf. 4:7, 12:3; Romans 8:14-16;John 3:8; 1 John 5:20). So people will be unable toappreciate the cognitive and spiritual depths ofHebraic theism from outside, apart from filial recep-tion of the Spirit of God. Jesus thus connects (a) ourfinding, and receiving from, God with (b) our receiv-

ing the Fathers Holy Spirit (Luke 11:9-13). Our filialknowing of God thus depends on our receiving theSpirit of God. This does not call, however, for anirrational leap of faith. God faithfully supplies



23/63

adequate, convicting grounds for our calling on the

name of the Lord.The Hebraic God is anything but cognitively

safe, or controllable. We cannot control either Godor Gods hiding on occasion. So we cannot removeGods hiding with our self-made recipes. The HebraicGod leaves us empty-handed when we insist on seek-ing with our self-made tools, including familiar recipe-like spiritualities. We therefore cannot solve theproblem of divine hiding if a solution requires a self-made tool to remove such hiding. We are, after all,neither God nor Gods advisers (Isaiah 40:13-14). Atbest we are Gods loyal children. So we should not be

surprised that we lack our own devices to banish Godsoccasional hiding. We have no warrant for trying tocontrol God, just as children should not try to controltheir loving earthly father.

Gods ways need not line up with our preferredways for God. This is one central message of the bib-lical writings. It fits with Gods distinctive role in thehuman predicament. God is the supreme Gift-Giverwho seeks us prior to our seeking God. This is whatHebraic covenant love (chesed) and New Testamentgrace (charis) are all about. If we love God, it isbecause God firstloved us, desired us, and offeredGods love to us (1 John 4:10,19; Romans 5:8). The

order here is crucial, cognitively and morally.11 For ourown good, Gods calls for our grateful surrender andobedience to the merciful Gift-Giver. Our anxiouslycasting about with our own self-crediting tools forfinding God is thus misplaced (Romans 10:6-9). TheHebraic God is not to be found by our own self-pro-moting recipes.

We often prefer not to settle for grateful accept-ance of Gods gift of (a) personal filial knowledge ofGod and (b) Gods personal assurance of Gods pres-ence. We often prefer to earnour knowledge of Godon our own terms. We prefer to have cognitive control

here as elsewhere in our lives. Such control offers us adesired basis for prideful boasting in ourselves. TheHebraic God, in contrast, favors a cognitive approachof humble, self-giving compassion, where God serves

24



24/63

25

as the humble Gift-Giver of knowledge and we serve

as grateful recipients. It is only out of our acknowl-edged weaknessour recognized needthat we havetrue humility and gratitude toward God. We shouldlet God be God (and thus be transformingly gracious)even in our acquiring knowledge of God.Analogously, children should permit their earthlyfather to be gracious toward them. Otherwise, a lov-ing relationship will be impossible.

Our habitual refusal to love sacrificially as Godloves blinds us from seeing the things of God. As 1John 4:3 states: Whoever does not love does notknow God, because God is love. Our recurring atti-

tude of prideful ingratitude is particularly self-blind-ing with regard to God, just as it undermines earthlyfriendships. Such ingratitude is the poisonous root ofresistance to God. It is a corrosive attitude that drivesGod into hiding. Via gratitude for gifts received, incontrast, we come to trust and even to love God,thereby growing in filial knowledge of God. PerhapsGod would become less hidden to us if we spent moretime gratefully talking and listening toGod ratherthan merely talking about God. We must welcome thegift of Gods presence for it to benefit us by trans-forming us. Proper reception of God demands invit-ing and welcoming God with gratitude. Mere reason-

ing, however sound, will not fill this bill. Reasoning isat best a delivery truck. God must supply the pricelesstreasure (Gods love) to be delivered. Similarly, in earth-ly friendship we must receive the gift of friendship,thereby going beyond reasoning about friendship. Lovealways moves beyond mere reflection, to commitmentand action.

KNOWLEDGE AND GETHSEMANE

Lets distinguish: (a) propositionalknowledge thatGod exists, and (b) filialknowledge as ones standing

in a humble, faithful, and loving relationship to Godas righteously gracious Father. Filial knowledge ofGod requirespropositional (or, intellectual) knowl-edge that God exists, but it exceedspropositional



25/63

knowledge. One can know that God exists, as we

noted, but fail to love God. Filial knowledge of God,in contrast, includes our being reconciled to God (atleast to some degree) through a loving filial relation-ship with God. It requires our entrusting ourselves aschildren to God in grateful love. We thereby are trans-formed in who we areand in how we exist, not just inwhat we believe. God has manifested faithfulnesstoward humans in covenant relationships and in giv-ing us astonishing gifts. So we must be actively faith-ful toward God with all that we are and have. This isbasic to genuine filial knowledge of God. Nothingrequires that God supply our propositional knowledge

that God exists apart from our filial knowledge ofGod. Ideally God promotes the two together.We can now distinguish theoretical theismand fil-

ial theism. Theoretical theism affirms that God exists.It is often coupled with the view that some peopleknow, or at least reasonably believe, that God exists.Theoretical theism, however, will not resolve ourcommon human predicament. A key human deficien-cy regarding God is in our moral orientation regard-ing lordshipover our lives. Insisting on our own lord-ship, we are alienated from God. In the interest ofgenuine personal reconciliation, God does not settlefor our accepting theoretical theism. Our having a

friendship requires more than our knowing that afriend exists. So God promotes our embracing filialtheism. This is the view that we are properly childrenof the God who as our loving Father merits ourrespectfully and gratefully beli eving in, or trusting,God as the Lord of our l ives. Theoretical theism is fineas far as it goes. It does not go far enough, however,for Gods redemptive concerns. Filial theism goesbeyond belief that God exists, in recommending a fil-ial life-commitment to a personal Lord. God wants usto be members livingin Gods family, not just peoplewho believe that Gods family exists.

Filial knowing of God requires our knowing Godas Lord in the second-person, as supreme You.Lordship entails supreme moral leadership, and moralleadershipentails a call to moral accountability and

26



26/63

27

direction. When self-centered humans are the recipi-

ents, Gods call is for moral redirection and transfor-mation toward Gods character of sacrificial love.Knowing God as Lordrequires our surrendering toGod as follows: Not my will, but Your will, Notmy kingdom, but Your kingdom. Filial knowing ofGod thus points to Gethsemane and the cross ofJesus. It depends on our volitional sensitivity and sub-mission to the will of God. Such knowing requires agenuine commitment to obey Gods call, even if thecall is to give up ones life in sacrificial love on a crim-inals cross. We thus come truly to know God not inour prideful cognitive glory but rather in our voli-

tional weakness relative to the priority of Godswill.Such humble knowing is indispensable to Hebraic fil-ial knowledge of God. Our willful pride must not getin the way of our embracing the God of gracious(rather than earned) love. As Jesus showed inGethsemane, our will must take second place to Godsloving will. Otherwise, filial knowledge is impossible.

A pressing issue is: are weentitledto know God?Do we humans have a right to know that God existswithout knowing God as Lord, as the morally supremeagent for our lives?Some people uncri tically assumean affirmative answer and thereby neglect filial knowl-edge of God. An even prior question is: whois enti tled

to decide how one may know Godwe humans orGod?Given our status relative to God, canwereason-ably make demands on God, including demandsabout knowing God? Perhaps Gods dispensing ofknowledge of God is truly gracious, a genuine giftcalling for grateful reception. Many people presumethat we have a rightto know God on our preferredterms. In virtue of what, however, does God owe usrevelation and knowledge of God?

Gods ways of imparting knowledge of God maydiffer significantly from our natural expectationsregarding God. How we may know God depends per-

haps on what God lovingly wants for usand from us.So as knowers we may be responsible to God, and notjust to ourselves and our prior cognitive commit-ments. Perhaps, moreover, we can truly come to know



27/63

God only if we acknowledge our unworthiness of

knowing God. It may thus be illuminating to askabout the attitudes of people inquiring about God.What are our intentionsin having knowledge of God?Do we have a bias against filial knowledge of God?Dowe resist knowing God as personal Lord who lovinglyholds us morally accountable and expects gratefulobedience from us as Gods children? Such crucialissues rarely emerge in discussions about knowledge ofGod, but they bear nonetheless on real human attitudes.

Philosopher Thomas Nagel has a cosmic author-ity problem with theism. In his words: ...I hopethere is no God! I dont want there to be a God; I dont

want the universe to be like that.12

Nagel confesses tohaving a fear of any religion involving God. Such fearseems widespread among humans. It stems fromhuman fear of losing human lordship over humandecisions and life. Such self-protective fear resistsGods liberating ways of unselfish love. This kind offear prompted an atheist friend of mine to report thathe would kill himself if he had to acknowledge Godsreality. The sad attitudes of Nagel and my friendregarding God speak volumes about the human con-dition. Such attitudes self-destructively banish Godfrom human lives.

28



28/63

A

29

ARE SIGNS ANDWONDERSNEEDED FORKNOWLEDGE

OF GOD?MChapter 3 N

The Hebraic God is the God of miracles. How domiracles figure in knowledge of God?Shouldnt Godbe less stingy with miracles, including altogetheramazing observable events?Hebraic theism disallowsGods being trivialized as an object of amazement forour convenient examination or speculation. It calls forknowledge of God as Lordwho is the supreme per-sonal guide and gift-giver for human life. This God isthe lovingly commanding agent to whom we are ulti-mately morally responsible. This is the final personalauthority over all creation, including over humanknowers. In filial knowledge of God, we have knowl-

edge of a supremepersonal subject, not of a mere objectfor casual reflection. This is not knowledge of a vagueFirst Cause, Ultimate Power, Ground of Being, oreven a Best Explanation. It is convictingknowledge ofa personal, communicating Lord who demands fullgrateful commitment in response to Gods gracioussalvation. In love, God convicts us of our waywardtendencies. Such convicting knowledge includes ourbeing judged, and found unworthy, by the standard ofGods love.

God aims that all people freely choose to betransformed by God from self-serving to self-giving,loving children of the God of morally serious love.

(For suggestions of this ideal, see Deuteronomy 6:5,10:12-13; Leviticus 19:18; Mark 12:28-30; John15:9-17). As all-loving, God desires that eventually all



29/63

people freely come to be morally and lovingly perfect

as God is morally and lovingly perfect (Matthew5:48). Given this aim, God is not required to offerundeniable, or insuppressible, evidence that would pro-duce universal merepropositional knowledge thatGod exists. Love of God, like ordinary friendship,cannot be coerced but must be freely given, and Godis in the full-time business of promoting love of God.In respecting human freedom, God has offered evi-dence of God that allows for deniability of Gods exis-tence. God does not generally value knowledge thatGod exists apart from filial knowledge of God. Forour own good, God desires that we know God as God,

specifically, as our gracious Father. God is cognitivelysovereignandmorally demanding. God lovingly sets theconditions for approaching God, and the conditionsset are sensitive to our moral attitude toward God. Wehave no firm basis to demand that God meet our ownfavored ways of approaching God.

REVELATION, SIGNS, AND WONDERS

The Hebraic approach to filial knowledge of Godgives primacy to revelation from God. It thus offers atop-down rather than a bottom-up approach to thesource of filial knowledge of God. This explains the

absence of esoteric philosophical reasoning about Godin the Jewish and Christian scriptures. Filial knowl-edge of God is available to every sincere seeker atGods appointed time. Still, its realization comesviaand not in advance ofan attitude of sincerewillingness to love God with the kind of love charac-teristic of God. This fits well with the Christian mes-sage that God islove, that is, inherently loving (see 1John 4:8,16; cf. 2 Corinthians 13:11). Our resistingGods characteristic kind of love, including love ofenemies, is to reject God. Paul thus notes that if heunderstands all mysteries and all knowledge but lacks

Gods love, he is nothing (1 Corinthians 13:2).Each person must individually seek filial knowl-

edge of God, just as each person must form his or herown friendships. You cannot give me your filial

30



30/63

31

knowledge of God. Nor can anyone else. On Gods

side of the relationship, only God can show you Godin a way that constitutes reconciling and morallytransforming filial knowledge of God. Other peoplecannot accomplish this on their own for you. Ourneeded turning to God moves us away from selfish-ness, ingratitude, and self-righteousnessthe core ofresisting God. Such repentance is necessarily personal.It cannot be done by proxy. It is not, however, cogni-tively arbitrary. All mature human persons have evi-dence from moral conscience that their self-righteous-ness and selfishness lack support from the quality oftheir actual moral character. Our frequently presumed

status of superior moral importance is but misguidedpride. We can know this on proper reflection. Ourrecurring moral pride is indeed a thin veneer, perhapslightly covering but not genuinely improving who wereally are.

Critics will object that Gods presence is tooambiguous to merit reasonable acknowledgment.God owes us more miraculous signs and wonders,whatever Gods redemptive aims. Why doesnt Godconvince us, once and for all, with decisive manifesta-tions of Gods awesome power? It would cost Godnothing, and it would vanquish nagging doubts aboutGods existence. A truly loving God would use mirac-

ulous powers to free us from our doubts. Godsredemptive purposes, many will thus object, do notexonerate God from the charge of excess restraint inmanifestation. If God exists, God is blameworthy forinadequate self-revelation.

Philosopher Norwood Russell Hanson complainsabout the absence of observable happenings thatestablish Gods existence. There is no single naturalhappening, nor any constellation of such happenings,which establishes Gods existence....If the heavenscracked open and [a] Zeus-like figure ... made hispresence and nature known to the world, thatwould

establish such a happening.13 Hanson observes thatnothing like the Zeus-event has ever occurred so asto recommend theism to all reasonable people.He thus concludes that theism lacks



31/63

adequate warrant for universal acceptance.

Cri tics such as Hanson exhibit misguided expec-tations about what exactly astonishing signs willaccomplish. Astonishing signs, like ordinary events,are interpretively flexible. They logically admit of var-ious coherent interpretations, including nonmiracu-lous interpretations. Miraculous events do not imposetheir interpretations on us. We interpreters mustdecide on our interpretations of events, and variousbackground beliefs and motives typically influenceour interpretive decisions. We thus should not regardmiraculous signs as effective for all inquirers. A miracu-lous sign can prompt and build trust toward God in

people genuinely open to Gods intervention, but notin all people. The best and correct explanation of astriking event may be that it is miraculous. Suppose,however that your background assumptions werethoroughly materialistic, acknowledging only physicalentities as real. In that case, an explanation acknowl-edging miracle would not prevail for you by yourstandards. You would then find an alternative treat-ment of the striking event. Perhaps you would with-hold judgment on its interpretation or appeal to illu-sion or even to extraterrestrial powers (e.g., UFOs).

Astonishing signs often fail to convince. Peoplecan minimize the force of such signs by making cer-

tain alterations in their beliefs. The New Testamentsuggests as much. If [people] do not listen to Mosesand the prophets, neither will they be convinced evenif someone rises from the dead (Luke 16:31). TheGospel of John concurs regarding the ineffectivenessof miraculous signs in producing faith. After Jesushad said this, he departed and hid from them.Although he had performed so many signs in theirpresence, they did not believe in him (John 12:36-37). Humans can reject even the loving signs fromGods self-giving son.

If you demand a universally convincing undeni-

able manifestation of God, you should considerwhether that is really a viable demand. For anyamaz-ing manifestation, you couldcoherently ascribe asource (however implausible) without making refer-

32



32/63

33

ence to God. The strange possibilities are endless; like-

wise for your wiggle room regarding God. Suppose,however, that you came to refer to God at a time. Youwould then persist in this reference only if you trust-edGod not to change in a way incompatible with thesupreme title God. Such personal trust exceeds onesapprehending an astonishing sign. God builds hiskingdom on personal trust anchored in Godssupreme love. This preserves the kind of personal free-dom essential to genuine love.

TWO KINDSOF PEOPLE AND SIGNS

What about people open to Gods intervention butnot yet believing in God?Wouldnt they benefit frommiraculous signs by coming to believe in God?Perhaps. Lets distinguish people passivelyopen tobelief in God and people activelyopen to belief inGod. People passively open to such belief do not putany serious effort into examining whether God hasintervened in history. Such people are open to Godwith striking indifference. This indifference manifestsitself in failure to act in ways that take seriously theavailability of evidence for God. Passive openness ismere lip service to taking a real interest in the avail-ability of evidence for God. We do not appropriatelyvalueevidence for God if we lack a morally seriousinterest in the availability of such evidence. Passiveopenness is thus an improper, insufficiently seriousattitude toward available evidence for God. It trivial-izes a matter of supreme importance.

People actively open to belief in God take amorally seriousinterest in the availability of evidencefor God. Such an interest has potential morally trans-forming effects. These people are not morally indif-ferent about whether God has intervened in history.They take a morally serious interest in availableevidence for Gods intervention. People suitable for

filial knowledge of God must be actively willing to bemorally transformed toward the loving character ofGod. Are there such morally serious seekers whowould believe in God if and only if they had firsthand



33/63

a miraculous sign from God?This question suffers

from vagueness in talk of a miraculous signfrom God.

Lets distinguish morally impotentand morallytransformingmiraculous signs. Morally impotentmiraculous signs can surprise and entertain people butcannot transform their moral character. Morallytransforming signs, in contrast, change ones moralcharacter toward the moral character of God. Peopleoften seek mere entertainment from visible phenome-na. God, however, seeks our moral transformationfrom the inside out. For our own good, God is not inthe entertainment business regarding our coming to

know God. Isaiah 58:2 portrays God as complainingabout the Israelites that day after day they seek meand delight to know my ways, as if they were a nationthat practiced righteousness and did not forsake theordinance of their God. The New Testament likewisediscourages our seeking after morally impotent signsfrom God. It promises, however, a morally transform-ing sign to genuine seekers after God. Since this signis a definitive sign from the God of morally seriouslove, it manifests the character of God. It thus mani-fests Gods morally serious love. The New Testamentconfirms this expectation, explicitly and repeatedly.(See 2 Corinthians 5:16-17; 1 John 4:12-13,16,19.)

Paul thus remarks that hope in God does not disap-point us because Gods love has been poured out inour hearts by Gods Spirit (Romans 5:5).

The presence of Gods morally transforming loveis the key cognitivefoundation for filial knowledge ofGod. Such divine love is a foundational source ofknowledge of God (Colossians 2:2; 1 Corinthians8:2-3; Ephesians 3:17-19.) It is real evidenceof Godsreality and presence. This love is a personal interven-tion by God and the basis of a personal relationshipwith God. It is the presence of a personal God. So thefilial knowledge in question exceeds propositional

knowledge. It rests on morally transforming love fromGod that produces a loving character in children ofGod, despite their obstruction at times. This transfor-mation happens to one, in part, and thus is neither

34



34/63

35

purely self-made nor simply the byproduct of a self-

help strategy. This widely neglected supernatural signis available at Gods appointed time to anyone whoturns to God with moral seriousness. It transformsones will to yield gratitude, trust, and love towardGod and love toward other people. So: We knowthat we have passed from death to life because we loveone another.... Whoever does not love does not knowGod, for God is love (1 John 3:14, 4:8, NRSV). Sowe need to learn how to apprehend, and to be appre-hended by, Gods supreme lovefor all of us, not justtruths aboutGods love. Neither God nor Gods love isa proposition or an argument. Neither is reducible to

an intellectual construct.The evidence of Gods presence offered by lovingcharacter-transformation in Gods children is crucial.It goes much deeper than the comparatively superfi-cial evidence found in entertaining signs, wonders,visions, ecstatic experiences, and fancy philosophicalarguments. We could consistently dismiss any suchsign, wonder, vision, ecstatic experience, or argumentas illusory or indecisive, given certain alterations inour beliefs. In contrast, genuine character transforma-tion toward Gods all-inclusive love does not admit ofeasy dismissal. It bears directly on who one really is,the kind of person one actually is. Such transforma-

tion cuts too deeply against our natural tendenciestoward selfishness to qualify as just a self-help gim-mick. It thus offers a kind of firm evidence that resistsquick dismissal. Critics of Hebraic theism have uni-formly failed to undermine such crucial evidence forGod. Typically they ignore it. It thus escapes their self-limiting cognitive nets.

Entertaining signs and wonders are optional andnot mandatory for God. They are not suitably morallytransforming in the way required by filial knowledgeof God. In this regard, they are markedly inferior tothe supernatural sign from the transforming presence

of Gods love. An all-loving God would make Godspresence availableto humans at Gods appointedtime. Gods presence, however, need not exceed thepresence of Gods love or be available apart from



35/63

morally serious inquiry. Gods presence need not

include miracles irrelevant to moral transformationtoward Gods character, even though God may usesuch miracles as attention-getters. An all-loving Godcan properly make confident knowledge of Gods exis-tence arise simultaneously with filial knowledge ofGod. So God is exonerated from the charge of irre-sponsibly neglecting entertaining signs, so long asGod reveals Gods presence to anyone suitably recep-tive. Hansons use of the Zeus-example overlooksthese considerations. It trivializes Gods actual aim. Asall-loving, God aims to bring unloving people to loveGod and others, even enemies. One could not have a

more difficult, or a more important, task.God does try at Gods appointed time to draweveryone into the kingdom of God, but God does notextinguish our free will. Neither God nor anyone elsecan coerce genuine gratitude, trust, or love. Freechoice is a prerequisite for loving relationships. Forcedfriendship is no friendship at all. In keeping with fullmoral goodness, God seeks loving relationships aboveall else. God seeks the freely chosen grateful union ofour wills with Gods morally serious loving will. Onlythen is an all-inclusive loving community possible.Being all-loving, God seeks such a God-centered com-munity above all else (John 13:34-35, 15:12-17,

17:20-23). Given the signs of personal excellence leftby God in ourselves and other areas of creation, weshouldseek after God and thereby come to know Godin a filial manner. Some people, however, will neglectthe responsibility of seeking after God. The demandsof discipleship are too inconvenient for many of us,given our chosen priorities. (See the Parable of theSower, in Mark 4:3-20, for Jesus diagnosis of unbe-lief.) We thus refuse to be displaced from the center ofour universe. Still, God challenges our self-destructiveblinders that aim to disregard Gods program ofall-inclusive redemption. We cannot plausibly blame

God, then, for the blinders we sometimes stubbornlychoose to wear.

36



36/63

H

37

HOW DO WISDOMAND EXPLANATIONFIGURE IN

KNOWLEDGEOF GOD?MChapter 4 N

As our wills yield to Gods excellence, we openourselves to a kind of transforming wisdom and super-natural power unavailable from worldly wisdom. Wethen encounter a divine Father able and willing to lib-erate us from our own destructive, even self-destruc-tive, ways. Paul captures this point succinctly. Myspeech and my proclamation were not with plausiblewords of wisdom, but with a demonstration of theSpirit and of power, so that your faith might rest notin human wisdom but in the power of God (1Corinthians 2:4-5; cf. 1 Thessalonians 1:5). Talk ischeap indeed, but Gods power is priceless. The power

of Gods Spirit appears not with competitive, prideful,or otherwise self-serving behavior. It rather involvessuch unworldly fruit as self-giving love and service.Accordingly the cross of Jesus is the standard of Godspower (1 Corinthians 1:18). Paul lists some supernat-ural fruit of Gods Spirit: love, joy, peace, patience,kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control (Galatians 5:22-23; see 1 Corinthians 13:4-7on God-inspired love). Such fruit is as rare as it isexcellent and is no mere self-help product. It rather isthe yield of Gods supernatural transformative power.God is the original bearer of such fruit. So we shouldapproach God and knowledge of God accordingly.

Gods merciful wisdom has authority and powerof a special kind. It is a saving authority and power thatworks from within to avoid coercion, to preserve free-



37/63

dom, and to liberate us from bondage to selfishness.

Jesus captured the idea by telling his disciples that theauthority of God comes through service rather thanthrough wielding control over people (Mark 10:42-45). So Jesus accepted scandalous death on a criminal'scross, thus manifesting Gods self-giving, sacrificiallove to the very end. God, through Jesus, reconciles usby manifesting self-giving love and by calling us to fol-low suit (cf. 2 Corinthians 5:19). The disturbingauthority of Jesus is all about laying down our person-al rights in love, for the sake of the good of others. It isthus the direct opposite of worldly authority. Indeed,it is foolishness in the worlds eyes (cf. 1

Corinthians1:22-29). Even so, the divine love involvedin such authority is the anchor all humans need toavoid being swept away in fear, pride, and selfishness.

The love we receive from God is not only obligat-ing (we have been purchased with a high price) butalso empowering. It empowers us to live freely in Godsself-giving love, thereby empowering others to do thesame. Such empowering love is the God-given recipefor the building of Gods everlasting kingdom. Wesometimes fail to see the supernatural power in suchlove, because we tend not to value such love properlyor we do not want its guidance in our lives. We thusmiss the empowering self-revelation offered by God.

At times we even presume to have the power of sacri-ficial love solely within ourselves. This, however, is anillusion of our pride. Our lives tell the real truth aboutus. We need Gods empowering Spirit of love to live inlove. True sacrificial love is from God (1 John 4:7).It is not ours to trumpet. Our boasting should thus bein God, not in ourselves.

We have touched on the relevance of wisdom toknowledge of God. What, however, is wisdom, andwhat does love have to do with wisdom?Aristotle, inthe Nicomachean Ethics(1141a), portrays wisdom asthe most finished of the forms of knowledge and links

it with excellence. Wisdom in general is knowledge, orsound discernment, of what is excellent. What is excel-lent in a certain domain of existence is what is the bestavailablein that domain. Wisdom regarding our own

38



38/63

39

human kind is just sound discernment of what is excel-

lent for human character and human intellectual andpractical life. Wisdom thus exceeds knowledge. Wecan have knowledge of many things but lack sounddiscernment of what is excellent for human characterand life. Our having justified true beliefs does notguarantee our having sound discernment of what isexcellent for us. Many people have extensive knowl-edge while their lives remain in shambles. Many suchpeople lack the perspective of genuine wisdom, ofsound discernment of what is excellent for their lives.

WISDOM WITHOUT GOD?

The life of wisdom is just the life characterized byexcellence. What qualifies as excellence for our livesdepends on the kind of universe we inhabit, as itdepends on the best actually availablefor our lives. Aquestion of first importance is thus theological. Is therea god who loves us?Is there an all-loving being worthyof worship and full life-commitment?Most contem-porary philosophers say no. This fits with a commit-ment to materialism, the view that all of reality is ulti-mately physical. The universe portrayed by material-ism has no room for the all-loving Hebraic God, whois by nature non-material.

Bertrand Russell has vividly described theuniverse of materialism in his 1903 essay A FreeMans Worship.

Brief and powerless is Mans life; on himand all his race the slow, sure doom fallspitiless and dark. Blind to good and evil, ...omnipotent matter rolls on its relentlessway. For Man, condemned today to lose hisdearest, tomorrow himself to pass throughthe gate of darkness, it remains only to cher-ish ... the lofty thoughts that ennoble his

little day; disdaining the coward terrors ofthe slave of Fate, to worship at the shrinethat his own hands have built; undismayedby the empire of chance, to preserve a mind



39/63

free from the wanton tyranny that rules his

outward life; proudly defiant of theirresistible forces that tolerate, for amoment, his knowledge ... despite thetrampling march of unconscious power.14

Russell speaks of blind matter, thus suggestingthat our universe has no lasting purpose or guide.Accordingly Russell refers to the blind hurry of theuniverse from vanity to vanity (p. 52).

Russell is explicit about our purposeless existence.

That Man is the product of causes which

had no prevision of the end they wereachieving; that his origin, his growth, hishopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, arebut the outcome of accidental collocationsof atoms; ... that all the labours of the ages,all the devotion, all the inspiration, all thenoonday brightness of human genius, aredestined to extinction in the vast death ofthe solar system...all these things, if notquite beyond dispute, are yet so nearlycertain, that no philosophy which rejectsthem can hope to stand (p. 45).

So Russell proposes that we humans can proceedonly on the firm foundation of unyielding despair(pp. 45-46). Russells position of despair implies thatHebraic theism cannot hope to stand.

Russell portrays wisdom in terms of the Stoicfreedom of submitting our desires to the reality of thehostile universe. Such submitting of desires requiresthat we not rebel with indignation against the uni-verse. It requires that we resign ourselves to its hostili-ty. Russells brand of wisdom thus entails that fromthe submission of our desires springs the virtue of res-ignation (p. 49). So Russells foundation of unyield-

ing despair promotes resignation rather than indigna-tion. Russell urges nonetheless that we help others suf-fering in the same tragedy with ourselves, that weinstil faith [for others] in hours of despair (p. 53).

40



40/63

41

Russell does not say what we should instil faith in; nor

is it clear that his materialism offers any real option fora worthwhile object of faith. Still, we should appreci-ate Russells honesty about the ominous results ofmaterialism, even though his confidence in material-ism is overdrawn.

Russell acknowledges that his materialism leavesus with some strange and inexhaustible mysteries.We humans are one of the mysteries. A strange mys-tery, according to Russell, is that Nature, omnipo-tent but blind, ... has brought forth at last a child ...with the capacity of judging all the works of hisunthinking Mother (p. 46). Russells materialism

seems doomed to acknowledge mystery here, given itsimplication that we are but the outcome of accidentalcollocations of atoms (p. 45). Russell also speaks ofthe inexhaustible mystery of existence in general (p.51). If the unconscious material world is just the resultof accident, inexhaustible mystery is no surprise. Mereaccident, whether in matter or in minds, has a way ofbeing irredeemably mysterious.

In a 1936 essay, Do We Survive Death?, Russellrecommends his hypothesis of accident over any com-mitment to an intelligent designer of the universe.The world in which we live can be understood as aresult of muddle and accident; but if it is the outcome

of deliberate purpose, the purpose must have been thatof a fiend. For my part, I find accident a less painfuland more plausible hypothesis.15 Russell sketches asimilar view in A Free Mans Worship, proposing thatthe worlds evil would make God evil if God existed.Two problems emerge, aside from Russells oddly over-looking the role of free agents other than God in theorigin of evil.16 First, we should be wary of Russellstalk of the worlds being understoodas resulting fromaccident. The accident postulated by Russell leaves uswith unexplainable mysteryrather than understanding.Russells postulating the accidental origin of our world

does not yield an explanationof the worlds origin.Rather, it disavows the availability of an explanationand thus of understanding. If the origin of the materialworld is truly accidental, it lacks the kind of compo-



41/63

nents needed for explanation and understanding.

The second point concerns Russells talk of therelative plausibilityof his hypothesis of accident versusa thesis of intelligent design. By what standard isRussells hypothesis of accident more plausible thanHebraic theisms commitment to a personal creator?Russell says that his hypothesis is less painful thantheism. He would not argue, however, that the lesspainful of two hypotheses is more likely true. Perhapsa view about what kinds of things are realinfluencesRussells judgment of relative plausibility.

Everything in the world is composed of events,according to Russell, and the notion of substance, in

the sense of a permanent entity with changing states, isno longer applicable to the world. 17 Russells view ispuzzling. It seems that physical events, for example, arewhat physical substancesundergo. It thus seems thatevents require substances. If a plausible hypothesismust accommodate Russells view that there are onlyevents and no permanent substances, Hebraic theismwill automatically be implausible. The Hebraic God isno transitory event or series of such events. This Godis an everlasting agent. So Russells view of realitywould preclude Hebraic theism. It would also accountfor his assertion of the relative plausibilityof hishypothesis of accident.

Russells general view of reality rests on his viewthat the natural sciences have cognitive priority overcommon sense and everything else. Russell acknowl-edges that the sciences begin with common-sensenotions and judgments: notions of causation, space,time, things, etc. The sciences, however, often revise oreliminate such common notions to achieve theirexplanatory purposes. Russell observes that we typicallystart our theorizing from naive realism, the view thatthings are just as they seem. We initially think that theobjects we perceive really are as they appear. We thinkthat snow is white, that fire is hot, that feathers are

soft. The natural sciences, however, offer a strikinglydifferent view. Our best physics entails that the fea-tures ascribed to external objects by naive realism donot really inhere in the external objects themselves. For

42



42/63

43

example, our best physics entails that physical objects

are devoid of color and gappy rather than continuous.Russell thus remarks that naive realism leads tophysics, and physics, if true, shows that naive realismis false.18

WISDOM AND ULTIMATE AUTHORITY

Should we follow Russell in taking the natural sci-ences as our ultimate cognitive authority?Russell holdsthat the conscious purpose of philosophy ... ought tobe solely to understand[or, to explain] the world aswell as possible...19 Philosophy, in his view, should

therefore seek the best available explanation of theworld, including ourselves. This is indeed a major aimof philosophy, even if not the sole aim. Still, it is anopen question whether the natural sciences have ulti-mate authority concerning the best available explana-tion of the world.

The view that the natural sciences alonehave ult i-mate cognitive authority is scient ism. Scientism is notitself a thesis of the natural sciences. Nor is it recom-mended by the natural sciences themselves. Scientismis aphilosophicalthesis about the authority of the sci-ences. So scientism is apparently self-defeating. It isnot supported by its avowed sole source of ultimate

cognitive authoritythe natural sciences. The impor-tant point is that the natural sciences themselves donot conflict with Hebraic theism. Conflict arises whena theorist, going beyond the sciences, proposes that thenatural sciences alonehave ultimate cognitive authori-ty. Such a theorist is then engaged in questionable, ifnot self-defeating, philosophy.

We now face a crucial question. How should wedecide what merits ultimate authority for us regardingwhat we believe and do: for short, regarding our lives?Many people go through life without an explicitcom-mitment to an ultimate authority for their lives. They

still may have an implicit commitment to such anauthority. The unexamined ultimate authority, howev-er, is not worth having. It lacks the consistent guidingpower it merits, at least relative to a persons commit-



43/63

ments. Philosophy makes an important contribution

when it identifies an ultimate authority for a personslife and clarifies its importance and viability.

What ultimate authority shouldwe choose for ourlives?How shouldwe arrive at such a decision?Notethe double occurrence of should. Another questio

god more obvious

Documents