God’s Love for Us vs. God’s Love for His Glory: Platt really shows his Reformed cards throughout the book when he discusses his understanding of God’s motivations for saving the world. After citing Ezekiel 36, Platt goes on to say, “What a statement! God goes so far as to say that when he acts among his people, he doesn’t show his grace, mercy, and justice for their sake but for the sake of his holy name among the nations.” (68).
There is much to be said about this, but one of the conclusions one must come to when Platt’s words are traced throughout his book is that the God he worships is a God who is self-centered and self-serving – He’s a God who seeks his own glory above everything else and is self-referenced in all of His actions. Indeed, Platt even says this, “God centers on himself.” (71)
The problem is, when I look at Jesus on the cross, I see there a God who took on shame, not glory. I see a God who acted in love for sinners. I see a God who gave up his own glory for death.
Platt would criticize my understanding of Jesus’ death, to be sure. Beginning on page 70, pay attention here(!), Platt argues that, “‘God loves me’ is not the essence of biblical Christianity. Because if ‘God loves me’ is the message of Christianity, then who is the object of Christianity?….me.”
Now, here’s the thing: First of all, I understand that we have a very self-referenced understanding of Christianity. And this self-referenced understanding needs to be criticized and we need to repent of our “me” focused religion. But this is much different than what Platt is arguing.
For when I say, “God loves me,” who cares if I’m the object? Because God is the subject! It doesn’t take glory away from God for him to love me. It doesn’t take away his centrality to the gospel story for him to love me! Rather, it magnifies it! I didn’t love him first, he loved me first! I didn’t make the move toward knowing him, he made the move toward saving me! Yes, I am the object of God’s affection! But God is the subject of the sentence and the subject of creation and redemption! Let’s stop laying this either/or game. God is both glorious and great. And God loves me enough to give up that glory for me and you and all of creation. That’s what love means – it is self-giving and finds glory in the ‘other’!
In the end, Platt wants to argue that God is the object of God’s affection and love, not me.
This is a really complicated discussion that I will take up in the final section of my review. But in the end, it’s just another one of his false dichotomies. God loving me and God seeking to make his name great among the nations are not antithetical. In fact, quite the opposite, it is through his great love for me/us that he makes his name great among the nations…so that he might love them too, and they might love him! His love for us does not put the focus on us. His love for us puts the focus on his self-giving (not self-serving!) nature! There’s no theological reason for Platt to separate God’s love and His glory. Neither his love nor his glory end with us; they are always to be offered to the world for the sake of His great name and love being given to all people. (Please see my final section, “What was missing” for further reflections on this subject.
Amen, dude.
I have not read Radical yet, but enjoy listening to Platt’s messages. This review has defiantly got me wanting to read it asap! I think you and Platt are basically saying the same thing, but going at it in different angles. God is a God who is focused on His own glory; the ways He brings glory to Himself is redeeming us through His Son.
Austin,
I don’t think we’re saying the same thing. I don’t think God is focused on is own glory as an end in itself. I think God is glorified in God’s self-giving, not his self-focus.
The distinction may be subtle, but it’s worth noting. And I will flesh it out in my final post a bit more when I discuss the Trinity. But inherent in God’s glorification of himself is that the persons of the Trinity glorify seek the glory of the others in displaying love for each other. This is the root of the ‘others’ focus, and Platt fails to get at this in any meaningful way, I think. And it makes his God seem self-centered, not self-giving. In other words, I contend that he’s out of balance.
I will be looking forward to reading the post on the Trinity. Thanks for the reply!
Thanks for reading, man! Do you have your own blog?
No problem. I do have my own blog: austinmccann.wordpress.com
Hey Tom. I’m not that well-read in the Reformist vs. Armenian debate. And, I haven’t read this book or listened to Platt speak. So, I am commenting based on that knowledge, or lack thereof. I know what I believe based on my personal study of scripture as I understand it.
I’m not sure how Platt reconciles his statements as you listed them here with Ephesians 2. I can’t reconcile this and numerous other passages like it with what Platt seems to be saying.
Additionally, according to what you’re saying above, the statement from Ezekiel, “I am not doing this for your sake, but for the sake of my holy name,” could actually be interpreted as, “because I love everyone from every tribe nation and tongue, I am bringing you into right relationship with myself so that they can see who I am and come into relationship with me as well.”
It seems to me that if God’s chief motivation is to glorify Himself, he could do that in much simpler ways than being flogged, spat on and crucified.
Am I completely off track here?
Nope. You’re right on track. That’s exactly what I’m saying. And it is the glory of God that he was spit on, flogged, and mocked. God’s glory is not self-centered. It is self-giving. You’re right.
I don’t know who you are, Juliece, but you’re awesome.
Thanks, Scott! Appreciate the encouragement!
Tom,
Thanks for you post. I was back in the States for a little while, saw this book, heard a buzz, and figured I should read it. You do a really good job pinpointing something that just doesn’t jive in the reformed tradition. I see it in all of these more popular theologians. Thanks for your insights. I can articulate this better now myself.
Your blog is great man. Keep posting. I appreciate it.
Fantastic, David! Thanks for the word of affirmation. I am glad to be of service!
Good review. I saw the exact same problem with his theological perspective. It shocked me. I appreciate where David Platte is heading personally, but the purpose of God’s love cannot be for selfish motivation. It would make all of Jesus’ teachings false and his sacrificial life manipulative.