hen I was in college I
attended a seminar on "spirituality." The lecturer claimed that the best
way to learn about spirituality is to talk about the subject with others.
People have different ideas about god, morals, worship, mystical
experience, and so forth. The more we learn of what others believe, I was
told, the more spiritually refined we ourselves will become. The first
question in the lecturer's catechism would have read something like
this:
Q: What is the chief end of God?
A: To glorify Man and serve Him forever.
At the end of the seminar I asked the lecturer why he was so dogmatically committed to one narrow view of spirituality. I noted that he had considered only that sort of spirituality which man ultimately devised, the kind in which each person would follow whatever path he thought best in order to reach whatever end he thought desirable. I asked him to consider another kind of spiritualitythe kind that deals with an absolute God who makes Himself known to lowly man, the kind in which man hasn't the slightest idea about God's truth unless God reveals it to him, the kind in which the man left alone to pursue truth on his own steam is utterly lost and without hope.
He told me that I had asked an interesting question, then he adjourned the seminar.
This article is the first in a series on basic theology (the study of God). Before moving further, we must first decide how it should be approached. Is it best to learn about God the way the lecturer had claimed: by searching our own desires and feelings, and seeing where they lead us? Many people today believe this to be the only way to go about it. But there is an alternative. Wouldn't it be better to learn about God by receiving what He has told us about Himself, coming to Him on His terms?
Consider the first option for a moment. We humans are limited, and we are sinners. We frequently make mistakes. Oftentimes we don't want what is best for ourselves. We can also be lazy and do things halfheartedly. If we went about theology in whatever way we wanted to, at our own pace, according to our own standards, would we arrive at something worthwhile? Should we humans fix the conditions by which God must present Himself to us? Whatever god we come to by this method would simply be a projection of ourselves. We will find that the god we might have discovered in that way really wasn't worth discovering in the first place.
The second option is quite different from the first one. It is the option that is truly Christian, for it exalts God above man rather than the reverse. We see this illustrated in Acts 17, when Paul addresses the Greek philosophers in Athens. When these men saw that Paul's spiritual ideas were different from their own, they were eager to hear from him. In line with my college seminar, the philosophers took this opportunity to hear a new viewpoint. It was for them a chance to develop themselves spiritually (cf. v. 21).
Paul began his speech by relating that he had toured many of the objects of worship in Athens: statues, altars, and the like. The Athenians had grown accustomed to many different objects of worship and expected Paul to present them with yet another one. But Paul told them that the God he proclaimed could not be considered as one god among many; He was not one of many legitimate paths to spirituality. Paul claimed that his was the only true God, and noted that all of their objects of worship were wrong. Why were they wrong? Because they all were products of man-led spiritual searches. "Since we are the offspring of God," Paul charged, "we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man's devising" (v. 29). In his claim that the divine nature was not shaped by man's devising, Paul repudiated all spiritual discoveries that are attained by man-led searches. To the Athenians, this meant that they must repent of their false ways of worship which were regulated by man.
This ungodly approach to theology has a subtle appeal, so we must be especially careful to guard against it. An illustration can make this point clear. Suppose a man sets out on a path of spiritual discovery on his own steam, following whatever notions make sense to him. His search leads him to worship a gold statue of Zeus, believing that he has discovered the divine nature. Would Paul think this fellow has arrived at a true understanding of divinity? Of course not! Now suppose another man sets out in the same way that the first man does, driven and guided by himself. But unlike the first man, this second man ends up in a Christian church, believing that there is a triune God who sent His Son to die for sinners. Would Paul have thought that this second man has come to a true understanding of the Divine Nature? Again, the answer is no, as in the example of someone who holds to an orthodox creed but whose procedure vitiates everything. Like Zeus, this man's triune, redeeming god is a god fashion ed after his own devising.
Paul's address to the Athenian philosophers reminds us that we must not think of the Divine Nature as something that we ourselves can fashion. Thus the method by which we study theology is important: we must believe God as He presents Himself, on His terms, and not on ours.
