So a week ago I got Samir Selmanovic’s new book, “It’s Really All About God: Reflections of a Muslim Atheist Jewish Christian” I’ve nearly finished it and have some more thoughts on his from what I have already posted.
After reaching the half-way point I decided to pop off a tweet that summarized my thoughts, which resulted in a responding tweet from @SamirSelmanovic and another reply from me. Here is the tweetory (that’s tweet history)
- 11.20 @bouma: My response to @SamirSelmanovic: it is NOT really all about God; it’s really all about Jesus.
- 11.20 @SamirSelmanovic : @bouma To Jesus, it was not all about Jesus. He lived and died for something larger than himself.
- 11.23 @bouma: @SamirSelmanovic the problem I have is this: Barth makes clear what the scripture does: God is wholly and only revealed in Jesus Christ.
While tweeting is certainly not an ideal platform to share ideas, what do you think about his tweet?
In my “first impressions” post I said:
While he uses the Christian religion as a rhetorical device to argue against “theo-containment,” the One God as described in the Holy Scriptures is exclusively revealed in the very human, very divine Jesus Christ. This is why I insist it really is NOT about God—as a general, abstract World Spirit (thanks’ Fredrick Schleiermacher). It’s really all about Jesus Christ.
My point is that while @SamirSelmanovic believes “God” encompasses (at least) the religious traditions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—insisting ““to say God has decided to visit all humanity through only one particular religion is a deeply unsatisfying assertion about God.” (IRAAG, 9)—the Holy Scriptures and Rule of Faith of historic Christianity insist Jesus Christ is the definer of God and faith in Him.
Theologian Karl Barth argues this very point when he writes, “[God] is wholly and utterly in His revelation in Jesus Christ.” (CD, II,1:75) Furthermore, Barth makes clear that what he describes in his Dogmatics is the knowledge of God as found in the knowledge of Jesus; unless Jesus is the reference point for the revelation of God, “we have not described it in faith, or as the knowledge of faith, and therefore not in any sense as the true knowledge of God.” (CD II,1:252). Finally, as Barth reminds us, “Any deviation, any attempt to evade Jesus Christ in favour of another supposed revelation of God, or any denial of the fulness of God’s presence in Him, will precipitate us into darkness and confusion.” (CD, II,1:319)
And this is exactly why I insist that it isn’t really about God, it’s about Jesus Christ. Thanks Karl!
It seems like you’ve got a false dichotomy going here. To say God is “wholly” revealed in Jesus does not mean that God is “only” revealed in Jesus. Why could one not believe that God is revealed as he is in Jesus, and that Jesus is the truest, best, most satisfying picture of God we have, and yet still also be free to find God in music, in the sunset, in the lives of the people around us?
God being “wholly” revealed in Jesus doesn’t exclude Him from being ‘revealed’ in a myriad of other ways. We must be careful not to confuse ontology with a particular mode of revelation; while we can rightly say, “God is revealed in music & etc,” we can’t say, “God IS music & etc.” However, (and this is why there’s no false dichotomy) we can rightly say, “Jesus reveals God,” because ontologically speaking, orthodoxy screams from the top of its lungs, “Jesus IS God!” I’d say it like this, “God reveals Himself through the text, good wine, & so on, but God IS Jesus”…if ya feel me.
Colossians 1:15,