| Believing in God or hearing
the word of God?
The word of God speaks of what humans do not want to know. Only by speaking of what humans resist—exposure of self-compromise and unrighteousness—can they be addressed with a word of grace that heals what is compromised and unrighteous. As God creates, so God heals humanity by a word. If this word is not accepted, there is no other word by which humans can be healed. Trusting the word of God is crucial to the gospel of God becoming a reality in human life. This word concerns the initiative of God in love, calling a people to distinction and testimony in the midst of creation. The word of God exposes compromise in Israel as it also gives expression to the discipline of Israel in the faithfulness of covenant love. The word of uprooting and planting in judgment and discipline is a word that brings healing and soundness or redemption—if this is so in Israel, how much more then, in the gospel for the nations in the mission of the Son. Professing to be wise, humans regard the word of God as folly. Human opinion concerning self-standing does not easily admit to its inability to hold life together as meaningful and uncompromised. Yet the phenomenon of conflicted and compromised human activities in history and society falsify any claim to self-standing righteousness. Any such word that makes this apparent is spurned. v A crucial issue concerning biblical testimony is whether the gospel of God will be believed? That is, will the word of God be accepted in faith? This is not an issue of believing in God but of trusting the word of God. Will the word of God be heard and trusted concerning human self-compromise and God’s righteousness as gift and salvation in recognition of such compromise? If God is the source of our possibilities for goodness and life, will the word of God be accepted as the source of veracity for integral human possibilities? People generally think about God in ways that correlate with their own experiences and perceptions, even as unlike these in terms of perfection. Either by analogy or by contrast, God is viewed by reference to human perspective. Comparison by reference to human perspective may seem plausible; after all, how can we know anything about God if we cannot correlate God with our own experiences and perceptions? Yet what are the implications of this if the word of God contests our experiences and perceptions, for example, concerning unrighteousness, or much more, concerning self-righteousness? Even within contrasting comparisons, humans protest that God is unfair to judge humans for unrighteousness if their unrighteousness shows the nature of God’s righteousness (Rom. 3). Comparison only accentuates resistance to the word of God in a pique of protest against such comparison being used against humans in judgment—like a convicted robber pleading exemption for confirming the legitimacy of laws against theft! Paul refuses to make any correlation between God and humans as to righteousness, even by contrast. Humans are not in a position to contest the righteousness of God, even if their unrighteousness does confirm God’s righteousness. Paul refuses human comparisons with the word of God. Comparison is constructed from human possibilities; the word of God is unique and creative beyond human possibilities. This does not discount the disclosure of a word otherwise being articulated in human words and images. Yet precisely as the word of God, it speaks otherwise than existing possibilities conjectured by use of comparison or analogy. Creation as God’s gift, the call of a particular people to distinction and incarnation as God’s initiatives, are the premises for a word that addresses human life, yet otherwise than human conjecture. v It is one thing to believe in a Supreme Being; it is another thing to hear the word of God. To believe in a divinity by conjecture seems plausible. To hear the word of God concerning unrighteousness and even more so, self-righteousness is to hear a word of accusation. Speculative correlation between God and human righteousness is turned into resentment and deceit in shielding the self from an unfavourable word that is regarded with annoyance or protest. Instead of hearing and trusting the word of God, the word of God is skewed and convoluted, surreptitiously to accuse God instead. The word of God can be turned into words of implicit hostility toward God. This is why it is amenable to believe in God but not to hear the word of God. God can be the object of speculation and conjecture that justifies human perspective. Yet the word of God accuses humans in their tacit contrariness concerning God. God of biblical testimony is presented by the word of promise, judgment, faithfulness and life. The word of God creates, invokes, resists, accuses and heals. This is the testimony of Israel. To relinquish speculation, which gives with one hand but takes away with the other, is to begin hearing the word of God that both kills and makes alive or takes away before giving in excess. The word of God alone is a source of healing toward integral human possibilities before God. To relinquish speculation about God is to become a hearer of the word of God in the only possible stance to which the righteousness of God can be truly engaged. The righteousness of God is affirmed by relinquishing any claim to our own perceptions and assertions of righteousness, while finding in God’s righteousness, the source of our righteousness through faith in Christ. This possibility can only occur in repentance and humility that trusts the word of God. This word declares that our righteousness is Jesus Christ. The gospel of God calls forth our trust in the word of God. The word of God speaks of human dilemma and compromise in our attempts to stitch together meaningful life. Yet in the absence of the word of God and without heed to its imperatives as our source of fidelity, we are exposed to endless conjecture and fabrications that fortify pride in our own inclinations. In confession of need for God and in acknowledgment of God’s righteousness as the source of integral life, we can hear the distinctive call of God to faith. v The crucial difference between believing in a divinity and heeding the word of God is receiving the word as vocative and personal. The word of God addresses human hearing in calling for response. The word calls for decision, responsibility and accountability; it solicits trust as acceptance of another’s word. As vocative, appealing for personal response, the word of God invokes decision not speculative conjecture. Decision requires risk and commitment as a specific response and tangible responsibilities. Conjecture can be made among and with others, yet not change anything. Decision can only occur as a personal response, even if a decision is made with others who also each affirm a personal response. To decide is to act; decision inducts a new possibility for the person who decides. A decision of trust in the word of God that calls human life to particular commitments enables something new and unique to occur from resources otherwise than our conjuring. To believe in God as a focus of speculative conjecture is not the same as hearing the word of God in invitation and imperative to respond. This is the difference that the gospel of God, at first in Israel, now in Christ, distinguishes as it calls for response in faith.
Selected
sources: Ebeling Word and Faith; Luther Romans |
