Thick Theology: More Than Mere Anthropomorphism

Some of us Christians have the tendency to teach doctrine and theology like fast-food. We respond to the market; people don’t have time for something too deep and tasty, so we squirt a little ketchup on the bun, do a quick-wrap, and pass it forward before moving on to another skeptic, critic, or friend. Difficulties in or questions of the Bible are given bite-sized, microwaved, ultra-processed answers. Sigh. I can’t count the number of times I’ve fallen for this imposter of real apologetics. And, of course, the real tragedy is that in the process of doing a favor (to avoid “hair-splitting”) for the person seeking the truth, we sometimes distort the truth.

To the problem of evil and suffering, “well, hey man, it’s all just gonna glorify God. Don’t worry. God reaches a higher good through the use of evil. If you don’t like it, take it up with Him.” Moving on. To the problem of God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility, “we’re not robots and God is always in control. It’s mysterious, so, we can’t learn any more than that.” Next. And to God’s attributes and verses like “The Lord relented”  and “God changed His mind” (Ex. 32:14), we simply say “it’s anthropomorphism; God is just taking on human characteristics (i.e. God “stretched out his hand”) but really isn’t like that in reality. God is not literally changing his mind.” Piece of cake. Theology and apologetics is easy.

We short-change the whole truth, the raw and multi-angled approach so inherent to God’s Word. We don’t realize that while we can make true statements, it doesn’t mean those listening will grasp the concept through such condensed packages. Sometimes the truth, to be truly understood, must be unprocessed, unwrapped, and expanded. Indeed, there’s a reason the Scriptures contain virtually every genre imaginable and not a mere outline of systematic propositions or a series of short stories with the same repetitious theme: truth is true, yes, but truth is rich, inexhaustible, deep. A three course meal is so much more healthy and enjoyable than a can of Red-Bull that contains the same amount of “energy.” Sadly, many in our generation don’t even know what that kind of meal is like; we are being raised eating instant-theology. In fact, we don’t even know how to cook; we’ve never been taught exegesis or the basics of church history and theological and apologetic method.

Yet, God gives hope. While many Christian authors and thinkers are hopelessly trying to gain approval from the world by promising huge gains with no work required, K. Scott Oliphint indirectly encourages Christians to keep their theological appetite high in “Most Moved Mediator” (Themelios 30/1) just by way of brief correction:

A brief word of warning is in order, to myself, and to others who want to set forth and defend the orthodox view of God and his relation to the world. Among defenders of the orthodox view, there seems to be to be some confusion over the concept of “anthropomorphic.” It is thought that, for example, when Scripture speaks of God changing his mind that we are to read that anthropomorphically, but that when Scripture says that God is not a man that he should change his mind, we are to read that “literally.”

It could perhaps be more helpful if we were to begin to see that all of God’s revelation to us is anthropomorphic. Or, to use the more classic terminology, all of God’s revelation to us is ectypal. It is, then, essentially accommodated revelation; it is revelation accommodated to our mode of being and our mode of understanding.

Because all of God’s revelation is ectypal, however, does not mean that every truth given to us in Scripture automatically and immediately refers to God as accommodated. To paraphrase Kant, though all of our knowledge begins with God’s accommodation, it does not follow that all our knowledge arises out of accommodation. Our knowledge of God presupposes his accommodating himself to us, but the very knowledge that he gives us can and does refer at times to that which is non-accommodated, that is, to God apart from, “outside of,” or “before” creation.

It may be best, therefore, at least in these discussions, to drop the locutions of “literal” and “anthropomorphic” when referring to God and our knowledge of him, as if some of what we know of God has a direct reference point, and other things that we know are simply metaphorical. When Scripture says that God changes his mind, or that he is moved or angered by our behavior, we should see that as literal. It refers us to God and to his dealings with us. It is as “literal” as God being the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. But we should also see that the God who literally changes his mind, is the accommodated God, the “Yarad-cum-Emmanuel” God who, while remaining the “I AM,” nevertheless stoops to our level to interact, Person-to-person, with us. His change of mind does not affect his essential character, any more than Christ dying on the cross precluded him from being fully God. He remains fully and completely God, a God who is not like man that he should change his mind to accomplish his sovereign purposes. What else should we expect, when we realize the implications of what it means that God took on human nature for the sake of his people in order, as God, to accomplish their salvation?