Starting with a blank slate
The contrast between hidden God and revealed God theology begins in the worldview of an infant, in the ways by which one first develops any notions about right and wrong, good and bad. The infant begins with no such concepts. She or he is, for the first several months of life, utterly amoral and 100% selfish. This is, for that time, an appropriate and necessary, God-given role.
No instruction has as yet been given, no mitzvot learned.
The infant, at this stage, learns through what is called a consequentialist ethic. The rightness-wrongness, goodness-badness, of any act, is determined wholly by its consequences.
If I do the right things,
then Ill get what I want.
Conversely:
If I dont get what I want,
then someone did something wrong.
Also:
If I get what I want,
then Ive done the right thing(s).
Revealed God theology tends to express itself, or be expressible, in if-then formulations. I owe my awareness of this to Robert Jenson and Eric Gritsch. I will later on discuss the contrasting thought-form that typifies hidden God theology.
For example, a particular Dennis the Menace cartoon stands out in my memory. For reasons Ive never figured out, the practice in the Mitchell household is that the cookie jar is kept on top of a kitchen cabinet, and only maybe once a day is Dennis allowed to have a cookie. Well, hes always been determined to get them more often than that.
Here is Dennis, kneeling on top of the kitchen counter. He reached up and grabbed the cookie jar which slipped. Now hes looking down at the shattered remains, of jar and contents, on the kitchen floor beside him; and says, Thats the way the cookies crumble.
What are right, wrong, good, evil, righteousness and sin, here? In the infants mind, in Denniss mind, reaching up for the cookie jar is now known to have been wrong. Why? Because the jar got smashed. Being caught, and spending some time in the famous little rocking chair facing the corner, are now foregone conclusions, too.
Bad, bad, bad.
Suppose a different outcome; suppose he had succeeded. In the end: cookie jar safely back up on the shelf, cookie (or cookies) in hand, he climbs down off the counter. Not much likelihood of getting caught. Here, reaching up for the cookie jar is now known to have been right. Why? One got what one wanted.
Good, good, good.
Motives arent in the picture. Neither are feelings. Neither are goals. He tried to do the right thing, but it didnt work out from this POV, thats nonsense. If it didnt work out, then what he did was not right.
By this means, this POV says, one can identify the righteous and sinners.
Righteous people get whatever they want.
Sinners get what no one wants.
Righteous people get sunny days, gentle nighttime rains, wealth, good looks, etc.
Sinners get Katrina.
Righteous people grow tall, get educated, and have lots of children.
Sinners have strokes.
Thats revealed God theology in a nutshell.
P.
The contrast between hidden God and revealed God theology begins in the worldview of an infant, in the ways by which one first develops any notions about right and wrong, good and bad. The infant begins with no such concepts. She or he is, for the first several months of life, utterly amoral and 100% selfish. This is, for that time, an appropriate and necessary, God-given role.
No instruction has as yet been given, no mitzvot learned.
The infant, at this stage, learns through what is called a consequentialist ethic. The rightness-wrongness, goodness-badness, of any act, is determined wholly by its consequences.
If I do the right things,
then Ill get what I want.
Conversely:
If I dont get what I want,
then someone did something wrong.
Also:
If I get what I want,
then Ive done the right thing(s).
Revealed God theology tends to express itself, or be expressible, in if-then formulations. I owe my awareness of this to Robert Jenson and Eric Gritsch. I will later on discuss the contrasting thought-form that typifies hidden God theology.
For example, a particular Dennis the Menace cartoon stands out in my memory. For reasons Ive never figured out, the practice in the Mitchell household is that the cookie jar is kept on top of a kitchen cabinet, and only maybe once a day is Dennis allowed to have a cookie. Well, hes always been determined to get them more often than that.
Here is Dennis, kneeling on top of the kitchen counter. He reached up and grabbed the cookie jar which slipped. Now hes looking down at the shattered remains, of jar and contents, on the kitchen floor beside him; and says, Thats the way the cookies crumble.
What are right, wrong, good, evil, righteousness and sin, here? In the infants mind, in Denniss mind, reaching up for the cookie jar is now known to have been wrong. Why? Because the jar got smashed. Being caught, and spending some time in the famous little rocking chair facing the corner, are now foregone conclusions, too.
Bad, bad, bad.
Suppose a different outcome; suppose he had succeeded. In the end: cookie jar safely back up on the shelf, cookie (or cookies) in hand, he climbs down off the counter. Not much likelihood of getting caught. Here, reaching up for the cookie jar is now known to have been right. Why? One got what one wanted.
Good, good, good.
Motives arent in the picture. Neither are feelings. Neither are goals. He tried to do the right thing, but it didnt work out from this POV, thats nonsense. If it didnt work out, then what he did was not right.
By this means, this POV says, one can identify the righteous and sinners.
Righteous people get whatever they want.
Sinners get what no one wants.
Righteous people get sunny days, gentle nighttime rains, wealth, good looks, etc.
Sinners get Katrina.
Righteous people grow tall, get educated, and have lots of children.
Sinners have strokes.
Thats revealed God theology in a nutshell.
P.
