Ben Witherington has stuck his finger in the Truly Reformed eye of many readers of Godblogs with his recent post “For God so loved Himself?” Is God a Narcissist? The essence of Witherington’s argument is that in saying that God’s glory is His highest motivation and greatest purpose, some authors are unintentionally (my word, not his) creating God in their own image of narcissism. Referring to what one (presumably Reformed) theologian had written, Witherington says:
. . . the more one read, the more it appeared clear that God was being presented as a self-centered, self-referential being, whose basic motivation for what he does, including his motivation for saving people, is so that he might receive more glory. Even the sending of the Son and the work of the Spirit is said to be but a means to an end of God’s self-adulation and praise.
What’s wrong with this picture? How about the basic understanding of God’s essential and moral character?
This is an important subject to discuss: the nature of God is at the heart of this matter since, if Witherington is correct in his assessment of others’ writings, God is being maligned and perhaps even His name is being taken in vain (i.e., attached to something He is not associated with or involved in). There is a need to balance or correct the implication in the writings Witherington adduces, for the Christian hedonists among us may be unwittingly bestowing a new attribute upon God: narcissism.
I am arguing Christ, the perfect image of God’s character, reveals that God’s character is essentially other directed self-sacrificial love. God loves people, not merely as means to his own ends, but as ends in themselves.
Like so many discussions online, however, critical terms are left undefined. In this case, there are at least two: glory and narcissism, the former a biblical concept and the latter a psychological description. Perhaps a rudimentary definition of each will push the discussion or thinking in a more profitable direction and prevent arguments stemming from unshared assumptions.
Glory, as Withington points out in one of his comments, is a translation of two words found in Scripture, the Hebrew word transliterated as kabod and the Greek word rendered doxa. Of the former, VanGemeren says:
Nom. kabod. The nom. kabod is related only to the sense (c) of the vb. (contra HALAT, which includes weight as sense I.1, cf. THAT 1:798; but these passages, Isa 22:24; Nah 2:9 [10], are better understood as using wealth as emblematic of honor) and can be rendered honor or glory. According to context, the honor or glory can be that associated with dignity, wealth, or high position; respect or reverence from others; or the object of respect. Two specialized uses, discussed below, are the glory of the Lord as a technical term for his manifest presence, and “my glory” as a way of referring to oneself. This gives a simpler arrangement of the senses than either that of HALAT or BDB.
Harrison (in Elwell) adds that kabod,
denoted the manifestation of light by which God revealed himself, whether in the lightning flash or in the blinding splendor which often accompanied theophanies . . .
The word might be rendered in this instance ‘moral beauty’ . . . God’s glory is not confined to some outward sign which appeals to the senses, but is that which expresses his inherent majesty, which may or may not have some visible token
The Greek word for glory, doxa, was typically used in the Septuagint to translate kabod. Colin Brown observes that
doxa in the sense of God’s glory, majesty and power is pre-eminently the inheritance of the OT. . . . The meanings honour, fame, repute and in the case of the vb. to honour, praise, and the special uses to seek honour (Jn. 7:18; 8:50; 5:44; 1 Thess. 2:6) and to receive honour (Jn. 5:41, 44) belong to general Gk. usage.
doxa in the sense of God’s glory, majesty and power is pre-eminently the inheritance of the OT. The attempt to link it with Hel. usage (cf. Arndt. 202 f.) is untenable, for the magical texts quoted have themselves been influenced by Jewish thought. God is “the God of glory” (Acts 7:2), “the Father of glory” (Eph. 1:17), “the majestic glory” (2 Pet. 1:17). The expression “the glory of God” is frequent (e.g. Matt. 16:27; Acts 7:55; Rom. 1:23; 6:4; Eph. 3:16; 1 Tim. 1:11; Rev. 15:8). The power of God can be mentioned along with his glory (Matt. 5:13 [many MSS]; Col. 1:11; 2 Thess. 1:9; Rev. 19:1). The concept is also applied to Christ: to his earthly life (Lk. 9:32; Jn. 1:14; 2:11; 1 Cor. 2:8), his exalted existence (Lk. 24:26; Jn. 17:5; Rom. 8:17; Phil. 3:21; 2 Thess. 2:14; 1 Tim. 3:16), his return (Matt. 16:27 par. Mk. 8:38, Lk. 9:26; Matt. 24:30 par. Mk. 13:26, Lk. 21:27; Tit. 2:13; 1 Pet. 4:13; Jude 24 [but this latter probably refers to the Father]), to his pre-existence (Jn. 12:41; 17:5) and also as an all-embracing epithet (Jn. 17:22, 24; 2 Cor. 3:18; 4:4, 6; 2 Thess. 2:14; cf. 1 Cor. 2:8).
For the purpose of the discussion raised by Witherington, glory is perhaps best thought of as the manifestation, revelation, or demonstration of God in one or more of His attributes. Thus, to say that all things are done for the glory of God is to say that all things are done for the ultimate purpose of manifesting, revealing, or demonstrating who God is. It is in this sense that Witherington takes issue with those he feels are reducing God to the ultimate cosmic show-off.
Hence, the word narcissism is tossed about.
Narcissism is a personality disorder; a personality disorder, according to DSM-IV, is
an enduring pattern of inner experience and behavior that deviates markedly from the expectations of the individual’s culture, is pervasive and inflexible, has an onset in adolescence or early adulthood, is stable over time, and leads to distress or impairment.
To say or imply that God is narcissistic is to diagnosis Him with a personality disorder but, as demonstrated by the definition of personality disorders, God does not qualify as having one: it cannot be said that His disposition or behavior is a significant deviation from what might be expected of a god, nor does it result in distress or impairment for Him. God’s character is stable and inflexible - He never fluctuates or changes - and it is pervasive: He behaves the same at all times in all situations. But the latter qualities are true of personality in general and not just personality disorders.
Narcissism, according to DSM-IV, is characterized by “a pervasive pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration, and lack of empathy.” Individuals suffering from it display
. . . a grandiose sense of self-importance . . . They routinely overestimate their abilities and inflate their accomplishments, often appearing boastful and pretentious . . . They may ruminate about ‘long overdue’ admiration and privilege and compare themselves favorably with famous or privileged people.
[They] believe that they are superior, special, or unique and expect others to recognize them as such . . . [and] generally require excessive admiration . . . Their self-esteem is almost invariably very fragile.
Individuals with NPD have a lack of empathy and have difficulty recognizing the desires, subjective experiences, and feelings of others . . . They are often contemptuous and impatient with others who talk about their own problems and concerns.
The DSM-IV does not discuss an important criterion in defining narcissism: are the claims of the individual true? Or, to paraphrases Mohammed Ali, “It ain’t narcissism if it’s true.” With God, of course, the claims He makes are true and the diagnosis of narcissism is misplaced.
The appearance of narcissism in God is not due, I would submit, to the manifestation of His essence but rather the ultimate end of all things due to His being.
In short, all things find their beginning, existence, and end in Him. Paul said of Christ Jesus,
For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him.
He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. - Col 1.16-17
In a sense, therefore, all things are for God’s glory, but that is not the same as saying that God’s primary motivation in every or any activity is His own glory. God’s glory is inevitable because of the nature of creation, but to say that it is God’s motivation is incorrect. If everything inescapably results in His glory, why would it be necessary for Him to be motivated by His glory?
Witherington, in his desire to balance or correct the untoward implications of a glory-centered view of God, makes various observations in his post and comments, some quite good and some not-so good. He writes, for example,
If we go back to the Garden of Eden story, one immediately notices that it is the Fall and sin which turned Adam and Eve into self-aware, self-centered, self-protecting beings. This is not how God had created them.
Is that an accurate statement? Certainly God did not intend Adam and Eve to be self-centered, i.e., more concerned about their own needs than those of one another, but Witherington is saying too much here. While Adam and Eve were not sinfully self-centered, they were self-aware and to some extent self-protective: obeying God was for them, as it is for all of us, a means of self-protection.
Was Jesus Christ self-aware and self-protective during His first advent? Yes, and even more to the point, God Himself is self-aware and quite protective of His own honor and glory. So two of the three post-Fall attributes that Dr Witherington cites are not applicable.
He also writes,
To JPM I would say there is indeed a reason why God loves us that is not simply because of God’s nature. It is because we are all creatures of sacred worth, made in God’s image.
God loves us in one sense for the same reason he loves Jesus– we bear God’s image and are of inherent sacred worth because of this fact. We of course since the fall are only God’s adopted children while Jesus is the only begotten Son, but nevertheless God loves his offspring, like any good parent would.
In other words, it is false to say that God loves us simply because God is wonderful.
This is another instance of saying more than what was intended. To say that God loves us - and Jesus - because we are made in His image is to inadvertently charge God with narcissism: it is maintaining that He loves us and Jesus because He sees Himself in us and, when He sees Himself, He cannot help but love us.
And, while it might be false to say that God loves us because He is wonderful (though it is wonderful that He does), it is not false to say that God loves us because He is love and is loving. God loves because it is His nature to love, unmotivated by what He finds in us or fails to find in us. It is who He is. He cannot do otherwise and remain true to Himself.
Despite its shortcomings, Witherington’s post is an important opening remark in the debate about God’s motivations and purposes in history. While it will most probably fall on deaf ears with the Truly Reformed - who never retreat or back off anything once said or written, especially by one of their anointed - Witherington’s observations may serve the rest of us well in thinking more accurately about who God is and what He is like .
