PTSD people are not amused

by Andrea Elizabeth

He almost convinced me here

Some may object to the notion of a cruciform God and argue that in the discussion of God’s holiness, we cannot forget God’s majesty and power. Here John Webster is helpful, because he rightly defines God’s holiness, not as pure majesty, but as “majesty in relation.” Because God’s majesty and God’s relationality cannot be separated, we must understand God’s majesty in light of God’s revealed relationality. We do not simply hold the majesty and relationality of God in tension; with Paul, we must see them in convert, a unison revealed in the power of the cross. God is not a god of power and weakness but the God of power in weakness. As Webster also reminds us, we must always keep divine activity and divine attribute together: God’s actions are self-revelatory, the expression of God’s essence or character. Thus if the cross is theophanic, God must be understood as essentially cruciform.

You can see though that he does not have a concept of energies, only essence, therefore in his view weakness must be essential as does majesty. And anything that contradicts essential weakness is idolatry-not God. And then he blows it by going there:

The Idolatry of “Normal” Divinity

In light of this first theological conclusion, we must affirm that the “normal” “civil” god of power and might is an idol, and it must be named as such. This god is not the Lord God revealed in Jesus Christ [I’ll insert “essentially on the cross”] and narrated in the theopolitics of Phil 2:6-11. The “normal” god of civil religion combines patriotism and power; this is the god of many American leaders and of many Americans generally. (This god has, of course, had many other incarnations in human history.) Most especially idolatrous…is military power incarnate, whether in the crusades or in Iraq or at Armageddon.

Oh brother. I bet he considers idolatrous our icon of St. George defeating the dragon, or of military saints, or of Christ harrowing hell, or of the Transfiguration where only a few were invited to see his glory. I bet he doesn’t like locks or gates around heaven. Does he not think that not saying no will lead to vandalism, rape, murder, and blight (see This Old House in Detroit)? Yes Jesus suffered most of these things, and so did the martyrs, actually though there seems to be a line around rape. That torture in particular was avoided either by the will of the Saint or by divine intervention. Not that Christians haven’t been raped, but if they are it is seen as heinous and of no benefit and that all efforts should be made to prevent it.

Man, I’m so disappointed.

Iraq had a lot of problems, including stories of WMD and possible oil interests. But it must be seen in light of 9-11 and al qaeda. Notice he didn’t mention Afghanistan in his list. One could say that justly fighting in a war mandates unselfish motives or self-defense. It is true Christ did not offer self-defense, but you have to consider context. His time had come. He offered himself at that moment. He was protected at other times. You’ve got to know when to hold em and when to fold em in Kenny Roger’s words. There is a time for peace and a time for war if you want to get Ecclesiastical. Good grief. Lefties can be so simplistic. Let’s have an open door, open arms, blind policy of self-giving. Go for it. Bye.