I actually wrote this some time ago on my blog. Apparently the issue that “inspired” the post is rearing its ugly head again. In an effort to combat universalism, easy-believism, and any number of other touchy-feely, warm-fuzzy brands of religion out there, the baby is too often thrown out with the bathwater. Downplaying an attribute of God is no way to argue against those that overplay it.
========================
I have to wonder if there even exists a word or phrase in any human language that can properly and fully express God’s love.
Scripture tells us (Exodus 33:20) that no man can look on the face of God and live. Moses wanted to see God’s glory, and God told him that he couldn’t handle it. God gave him a small glimpse of His back, and just that brief instance along with talking with God in general, made Moses’ face shine so brightly that other people couldn’t even handle that (Exodus 34:29-35).
I know of no one who claims to be a Christian who would dispute this story or its application. God is glorious — so much so, that we can’t handle it. Yet somehow, there are those who would dispute the intensity of other attributes of God — and none more often than His love.
Why is that? Why would we somehow seek to diminish any attribute of God? “Well, yeah, man can’t handle God’s glory, but I’m manly enough to handle His love.” No, you’re not. To paraphrase Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men:
YOU CAN’T HANDLE THE LOVE
Do you understand that God is incessantly dialing it back so that our finite brains don’t explode? Oh great, that means He loves us even more, that He’s willing to shield us from the full force of His love. 
In the never-ending “worship wars”, one of the allegations of the hymns-only crowd is that too many contemporary choruses focus on God’s love (and conversely, not enough focus on His other attributes). I won’t bother expounding on the fact that their examples are cherry-picked and their approximations greatly exaggerated. But, regardless, God’s love is the primary attribute that allows man to have a relationship with his Creator. Many of His attributes, while not contradictory to His love, are such that — in and of themselves — they leave man in a really bad state. So pardon me if I focus a bit too much for your taste on the boundless love of God. You can write about it; you can sing about it; you can read about it, but ultimately:
YOU CAN’T HANDLE THE LOVE
Another issue that is often expressed is that worship and teaching in general focus too much on God’s love — and this leaves the typical American male cold. (Oddly, this concern is often raised by those who regard any type of seeker-sensitivity with great disdain.) Steve Geyer used to joke that — on the rare occasion when two men will hug each other — they pat each other’s backs three times — once for each syllable of “I’m not gay”.
What are we afraid of? God’s ways are foolishness to the natural (unsaved) person — he cannot comprehend them (1 Corinthians 2:14). Surely we don’t dispute that. So why do we balk at an image of God — Who is most often described as male — as loving men, simply because of the connotations that fall within the bounds of the understanding of the natural man? Is it not enough that God’s love for us is unfathomable, that we have to further complicate the matter by confusing the issue of a God-man relationship with that of a man-man relationship?
YOU CAN’T HANDLE THE LOVE
The disparity between God’s infinite holiness and our finite selves wrapped in total depravity is such that only an imcomprehensible love could bridge the gap. It’s not an issue of getting to a point of “arrival” at which you can comprehend it. It’s simply not going to happen — at least, not on this side of heaven, and maybe not at all.
YOU CAN’T HANDLE THE LOVE
And if you’re smart, you’ll thank God every day that this is the case.
21 Comments(+Add)
A good reminder that as with so many things, the extremes are to be avoided.
Some seem to think God’s love will trump everything else…
Some seem to think “God is Love” – but only if you are the same type of Christian they are…
‘Tis a mystery (with apologies to those who have God figured out) sure – both the holiness and love of God.
Great post, Brendt. You have identified my issue with those who may agree with me on the heaven/hell issue. I reject all the self righteous projection of the more unpleasant attributes (as we see them) of God. It is unseemly to suggest you are a “truth warrior” because you believe in eternal punishment and you take some praise for the “courage” you have in “standing” for truth.
God’s justice, however it will be meeted out in eternity, is nothing for gracians to gloat over, it something that should break our hearts. And God’s love? Oh my, this song captures are helpless attempts to describe it:
“Could we with ink the ocean fill,
And were the skies of parchment made,
Were every stalk on earth a quill,
And every man a scribe by trade,
To write the love of God above,
Would drain the ocean dry.
Nor could the scroll contain the whole,
Though stretched from sky to sky.”
BTW – Brendt, I am not gay (repeat 3x)
These sorts of caricatures only serve to highlight the level of ignorance surrounding christian universalism.
I want credit for restraining myself from creatively reconstructing that sentence.
Chad, I wrote this well before you said anything about Christian universalism, and I purposefully kept generic most of the descriptors. The two issues weren’t tied together before your comment.
I think everyone should stop talking about universalism until they read the book:
The Evangelical Universalist.
Makes an argument from scripture…
just FYI
In fact…everyone should do a book study together on it…not with the intent of refuting the book, but to understand the argument…
It might be a great space for people here to get on the same page so that a debate can happen without the baggage that seems to consistently come up.
just a suggestion
nc – I happen to understand evangelical universalism, and if it were not for the clear teaching of Scripture. I do not question Chad’s (for instance) motives or sincerety, I just forcefully disagree.
“I think everyone should stop talking about universalism until they read the
bookBible.”I can’t help myself sometimes, just some humor.
At the risk of furthering the derailment: reading the comments at Amazon I wonder how “evangelical” is defined in the context of “Evangelical Universalism” – since it’s written under a pseudonym (no context for the author) and the the accolades come from schools that are not evangelical stalwarts.
#7 – I meant to say if it were not for the clear teaching of Scripture I would find universalism quite attractive and defensible by the love and grace of God.
One of the problems here is that agape love is often confused with sentimentality. The majority of men naturally balk at that. But God’s love is not sentimentality. Even though the greek language is very robust with many different words for the various kid of love the Apostle Paul co-opted the word “agape” and redfined and made it his own. Agape can best be defined as “benefit to others at my expense”. It can be executed by force of will instead of the nebulous source of eros (erotic love) or philos (brotherly love) which are recripical and often dependant on the response of the object being loved. However, agape love is unilateral, able to love (i.e., benefit) others even in the face of overt hate. Hence to love our enemies is not to have sentimental feelings or fond affection for them, but to benefit them. Again, agape is a decision and action, not a feeling. Obviously God also exhibits tender affection to His children, but that is not agape love.
Christ is the ultimate example of God’s (agape) love. So to gain any understanding of God’s love we must start and end at Calvary. God’s love will never be demonstrated in any greater fashion than in His incarnation and death on the cross, even in eternity.
I think the pseudonymous writing is more indicative of the general “hard-turn” in evangelicalism that Scot McKnight bears witness to.
You have to write under a pseudonym when people will destroy your livelihood rather than read your serious, reasoned work wrestling with Scripture.
Seriously. Ya’ll should read it.
It’s not heavy handed or doctrinaire. It’s an honest argument–honest about it’s limitations, it’s historical status as a minority report in theology, etc. etc.
We wouldn’t want to write off books based on their endorsements or who is footnoted, would we?
That might be a little too much like…
nc,
I agree, my point was not to write it off, or even questions its value, and I understand the need for a pseudonym (although, if this is what he believes who is he hiding it from?), I just meant that it’s not obvious what “evangelical” means in this context based on the factors I mentioned.
Neil (#8):
At least it wasn’t written by Ed Itor.
John H (#10), well put. Good expansion on the points that I made in the next paragraph (re: foolishness, etc).
Or his brother, Jan.
Neil,
My theory is that the writer is a prof. at a school where if he was open about his particular perspective on soteriology he would be punished for it…and without regard to his arguments, or the fact that he’s not a doctrinaire, once and for all kinda person in his articulation of his views.
We all know what a couple zealous people with a “ministry” can do with a blog to academic freedom and theological discourse.
This isn’t a time where charitable discussion is a forte of evangelicals…no matter how you define it.
People should just read the book.
It certainly was enjoyable to read, raised good questions, and struggled honestly with objections to the position.
would to God more people actually did that…
another possibility is that his job is not threatened, but the writer’s other relationships could be.
either way, it’s an indictment of christians.
On the one hand it may be an indictment… on the other hand, if he’s employed by a school and his views are not in line with their stated beliefs – he’s being deceptive.
Of course, speculation breeds lots of scenarios – so it’s probably best not to… as I said, I brought up the pseudonym not as a negative, just as a matter of not knowing what “evangelical”context he’s coming from.
That said, I think the time is more charitable than it has been in the past,
Well, Neil, you’re more hopeful than I….
God bless ya!
You think things are more restrictive than previously?
no…I think pretty much anything goes these days…I just think people in the church are pretty combative and more so than when I was growing up…
just my experience…
I don’t know if I really trust where evangelicals are coming from anymore…but I don’t want to rehash all those reasons again…
just my nickel…