The Father Loves the Son

Why would an eternally happy God create the universe? Without the Creation Jesus would never have had to suffer. The Father would not have had to turn away from his own beloved Son. The Spirit would never have been blasphemed and offended. They could have been eternally happy together without us!

In my book, Covenant and Community, I take some space to emphasize that the central motive (from the Father's perspective) behind the creation of the universe, creation of humanity, human history, the sending of the Son to Earth, the crucifiction and resurection, and the marriage supper of the lamb~the central motive of it all is the Father's love for his Son. This whole grand creation is a means whereby the Father can bring glory to his Son, shower his love on his Son, elevate his Son. I hesitate to give citations for this doctrine, because that makes us think that we only believe what is stated catagorically, whereas this fact is attested to throughout the New Testament as a constant theme that is being developed but not always explicitly stated. But if you insist on catagorical statements, look at the first chapter of Ephesians, the middle portion of John 5, the first few and last few chapters of Revelation.

Jesus insisted that his own actions, both those that made the crowds love him and those that lead to his death, were proof that the Father loved him. You may answer, "For God so loved the WORLD. . .." Yes, that is true. Jesus came into the world because of the Father's love for the world. But why was there a world to love? What motive was there to create in the first place? I think that the consistent thrust of Scripture is that the motive for Creation is "For the Father so loved the Son. . .." That love was prior to and always has priority over his love for us.

Consider Jesus' words, "If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him." The Father loves us for the Son's sake. He loves the one who loves his Son.

If this is the starting point for God, should it not also be our starting point? Should not the Father's love for the Son be at the very center of our understanding of what the Gospel is? Should it not even be the starting point in our evangelism? Jesus repeatedly said that the things he did and the things he said were so that people would know that the Father sent him, hears him, loves him. He wanted us to see their relationship.

(This is a very truncated explanation. In its full scope it should acknowlege that the Father's love for the Son is fully reciprocated and the Son is using the Creation and his own incarnation to heap up honor to his Father. Also, their relationships with the Holy Spirit display more intricacies of loving communion. This is gone into in more detail in Covenant and Community.)

Should not all of our faith, doctrine and conduct begin with the relationships of the Father, Son and Spirit, for it is those relationships that prompted even our very existence.

Triocentric???

OK, so triocentric isn't really a word, but it could be. The Lutheran Church is emphatically christocentric, which is a word, because they seek to make Jesus Christ the absolute focal point in all of their theology and worship. Doctrines are typically defined in terms that point back to Jesus. Lutheran sermons typically begin with law and end with grace, that is with Christ. Thus they are christocentric. Pentecostals and charismatics are pneumocentric, focussed almost exclusively on the Holy Spirit. Thus their sermons and worship are focussed on seeing the Holy Spirit work. But I would rather be triocentric, focussing not on one or another member of the Godhead to the exclusion of the others, but worshipping all three. Doctrines can and should be defined in terms not of Jesus only but in terms of the Trinity. For instance, what is the Law? In other words, how do we Christians understand the Mosaic Law that was given on Mt. Sinai? Well, those reading the Law from a christocentric perspective generally will think of it as the Law that we are unable to fulfill, the Law that makes us transgressors. And we have and it does. But allow me to suggest that this is not enough. This is, I think, a shallow understanding of the Law. For the Law is not just rules by which we are to live but it is much more a revelation of the character of our three person God. God did not make up new rules for us but he explained in the ten commandments how we may imitate the community of the Trinity. He does not command us to do what he himself does not do. In keeping the Law perfectly we would become the image of God, and that is what the new testament tells us that we will be, for we are being transformed into his image day by day, and that by God's power and will as well as by our struggle and desire. But because the Law is a word-painting of God's image and God's likeness, a depiction of how the three who are God live in perfect unity, the Law is also a promise. From the beginning God set out to make us to be his image, a work that is not finished. But what God sets out to do, he will do! So we know that we will be his image at the proper time. Therefore we should think of the Law not as a list of rules that damn us, but as a menu of glories in which we will live together with eachother forever. The Law is our hope, it is our joy, it is our fervent desire and hunger. Or at least it should be if we took a triocentric view of the matter rather than a christocentric view. Therefore, I will call this page TRIOCENTRIC. Hope to see you here. Doug