I think that there's something in the Names > Concepts > Properties surrounding the Essence move that points to mystery and I like that.
Glory that is visible and objective like authority and wealth is a temporary glory that is not really glory. It's something approaching exaltedness, but one that fades away and can fail. True glory and exaltednesd needs to avoid the appearance of glory and not be a facsimile of glory.
Returning to mystery, I think we use language of glory because we only have concepts that point to something beyond what we can describe. I guess I'm arguing for an apothatic approach to glory, saying that we try to use metaphor and concept to get at an understanding that is beyond our experience. We use cultural concepts that get close but fail to fully describe.
It's why postmodern theology is looking at weakness instead of the early church concept of power to describe God's glory. It's trying a different metaphor to get at the same thing that is inaccessible.
I don't agree that glory that is visible and objective like authority and wealth is not really glory (the glory in Isaiah 61:10-62:5 is something that the nations will *see*). Instead, I think the distinction we see most often employed in the Bible is between glory that is given by God vs glory that is not. Glory that is not given by God is temporary. Glory given by people is still a kind of glory; it's just not the kind of glory that we should put our hopes in (that's the pattern I pointed out about Jesus and glory in John's gospel in my last post). God may so choose to give us glory on this side of the eschaton, but the problem with that isn't that we have it *this side* of the eschaton, but that we treat it as if it were on the *other* side, a kind of final glory. I suspect that is why Jesus criticizes the Pharisees in the Sermon on the Mount by saying that they have their reward (i.e., glory) here and now. He's not saying it's not actually glory, but it's not glory from God. If we get glory here and now, then we should be content when God takes it away. In my sermon, I used the example of Maya Moore Irons. She was one of the greatest women's basketball players ever, and she left it all at the height of her career to devote her time to helping a man who was wrongfully convicted get out of prison. She had real glory, but she didn't try to hold on to it.
I have a slight soap box about the common tendency in current theological circles to void concepts of their meaning by trying to argue that they actually mean the opposite because the gospel is subversive/counter-cultural/revolutionary/etc... (I have plans to write a post about this in more detail). In this reading, the glory that we all think is glory isn't *actually* glory, but weakness is actually glory. But if that were the case, then Jesus shouldn't have healed the blind, the lame, the sick, or the demon-possessed because he is taking away people's weakness. It preaches nicely, but it leads to too many other problems. Instead, we should let glory mean what it means, but instead distinguish between glory that is given by God vs glory that is given by people, with the ultimate glory for us coming at the resurrection.
I wasn't agreeing with the postmodern theology as it does preach and read well but misses something. It leans too hard in the wrong direction and reacts by going to an extreme.
I think that we agree that there's something different about temporal glory and God given glory that subverts our understanding. In your examples, people think one thing is glory while missing the point. Both examples are signs of the upside down kingdom where glory shines when temporary glory is shunned.
The hard part is that many Scriptures point to a fulfillment of covenant responsibility as glory, meaning that the faithful are blessed with a rich and thriving life. I'm just not sure that there is any agreement on what glory truly means.
Ah, thanks for the clarification. I still keep falling back into the habit of conflating glory the exalted status. Sorry. I want to say that the exalted status which glory points to is univocal, especially as Jacob argues that being conformed to the image of the Son is speaking about the elevation of our status to that of a sovereign over creation through participation in the universal rule (kingship) of the Son. Someone who is seeking to rule the world, is seeking the same thing. The difference is only God, as the creator of the universe, can give that status.
If glory refers to the “things around” that exalted status (power, wealth, authority, character, etc), what you are saying is that the visible signs of our exalted status will not be identical to the visible signs of our megalomaniac friend who wants to rule the world. A megalomaniac might consider a pile of dead bodies as glory whereas a Christian would point to self-sacrifice. Am I tracking? If so, I think I would say that yes, but not in a necessary sense. As we see with the Queen of Sheba story, the outward signs of Solomon did match up with his status. However, it is only at the resurrection that the outward visible signs will necessarily match the inward spiritual reality. God may give to us here and now outward visible signs that overlap with our current spiritually exalted status (e.g., the honor Maya Moore Irons received as a skilled athlete), but he may also take them away. I guess what I’m trying to say is that what the world counts as glory might differ from what the Christian should count as glory, but there will also be overlap on some things (as we see in the testimony of Scripture).
I can agree that the largest and broadest definition of glory as you describe it would be univocal but interpreted in different ways and different metaphors would be used in trying to express it.
I think that we will be glorified in the new earth, post-ressurection, but have a sense that glory then becomes moot.
There are signs of glory here and now, which I want to unreflectively equate with the fruit of the spirit but I am not sure if that tracks. The fact that God blesses the righteous and the wicked make me not want to equate glory with anything temporal or visible.
Right. Jacob talks about it a bit in her book, but the exalted status post-resurrection will be in relation to creation and not other people. She focuses on a kind of creation care idea, which we can participate in now, but as I said in my first post, I think there is also a worship aspect to it as well.
Including the fruit of the spirit is an interesting direction to take. We have this exalted status by participating in the Son who pours out the Spirit into the heart of those who participate in him (pretty much Galatians 3). The fruit as a manifestation of the presence of the Spirit is an indication of the inward transformation of the heart given to those who are in the Son. Because I don't want to necessarily bifurcate status from ontology, I'm willing to see a connection here between the fruit of the Spirit and glory (just perhaps not in an exclusive sense).
I was just spotballing and trying to figure out a better way to talk about glory and perfection here and in the eschaton. There might be something to explore there that is missed.
If pressed, I think that my logic would be that to be glorified is to be made more like what you're supposed to be and not made into something more than you were meant to be. So I'm thinking about Bonhoeffer's reliance on the sermon on the Mount and the beatitudes and how they shape us to be more and more Christ-like which then leads us to be glorified when we live that out and manifest the fruits of the Spirit.
I think that there's something in the Names > Concepts > Properties surrounding the Essence move that points to mystery and I like that.
Glory that is visible and objective like authority and wealth is a temporary glory that is not really glory. It's something approaching exaltedness, but one that fades away and can fail. True glory and exaltednesd needs to avoid the appearance of glory and not be a facsimile of glory.
Returning to mystery, I think we use language of glory because we only have concepts that point to something beyond what we can describe. I guess I'm arguing for an apothatic approach to glory, saying that we try to use metaphor and concept to get at an understanding that is beyond our experience. We use cultural concepts that get close but fail to fully describe.
It's why postmodern theology is looking at weakness instead of the early church concept of power to describe God's glory. It's trying a different metaphor to get at the same thing that is inaccessible.
Thanks for commenting!
I don't agree that glory that is visible and objective like authority and wealth is not really glory (the glory in Isaiah 61:10-62:5 is something that the nations will *see*). Instead, I think the distinction we see most often employed in the Bible is between glory that is given by God vs glory that is not. Glory that is not given by God is temporary. Glory given by people is still a kind of glory; it's just not the kind of glory that we should put our hopes in (that's the pattern I pointed out about Jesus and glory in John's gospel in my last post). God may so choose to give us glory on this side of the eschaton, but the problem with that isn't that we have it *this side* of the eschaton, but that we treat it as if it were on the *other* side, a kind of final glory. I suspect that is why Jesus criticizes the Pharisees in the Sermon on the Mount by saying that they have their reward (i.e., glory) here and now. He's not saying it's not actually glory, but it's not glory from God. If we get glory here and now, then we should be content when God takes it away. In my sermon, I used the example of Maya Moore Irons. She was one of the greatest women's basketball players ever, and she left it all at the height of her career to devote her time to helping a man who was wrongfully convicted get out of prison. She had real glory, but she didn't try to hold on to it.
I have a slight soap box about the common tendency in current theological circles to void concepts of their meaning by trying to argue that they actually mean the opposite because the gospel is subversive/counter-cultural/revolutionary/etc... (I have plans to write a post about this in more detail). In this reading, the glory that we all think is glory isn't *actually* glory, but weakness is actually glory. But if that were the case, then Jesus shouldn't have healed the blind, the lame, the sick, or the demon-possessed because he is taking away people's weakness. It preaches nicely, but it leads to too many other problems. Instead, we should let glory mean what it means, but instead distinguish between glory that is given by God vs glory that is given by people, with the ultimate glory for us coming at the resurrection.
I wasn't agreeing with the postmodern theology as it does preach and read well but misses something. It leans too hard in the wrong direction and reacts by going to an extreme.
I think that we agree that there's something different about temporal glory and God given glory that subverts our understanding. In your examples, people think one thing is glory while missing the point. Both examples are signs of the upside down kingdom where glory shines when temporary glory is shunned.
The hard part is that many Scriptures point to a fulfillment of covenant responsibility as glory, meaning that the faithful are blessed with a rich and thriving life. I'm just not sure that there is any agreement on what glory truly means.
Ah, thanks for the clarification. I still keep falling back into the habit of conflating glory the exalted status. Sorry. I want to say that the exalted status which glory points to is univocal, especially as Jacob argues that being conformed to the image of the Son is speaking about the elevation of our status to that of a sovereign over creation through participation in the universal rule (kingship) of the Son. Someone who is seeking to rule the world, is seeking the same thing. The difference is only God, as the creator of the universe, can give that status.
If glory refers to the “things around” that exalted status (power, wealth, authority, character, etc), what you are saying is that the visible signs of our exalted status will not be identical to the visible signs of our megalomaniac friend who wants to rule the world. A megalomaniac might consider a pile of dead bodies as glory whereas a Christian would point to self-sacrifice. Am I tracking? If so, I think I would say that yes, but not in a necessary sense. As we see with the Queen of Sheba story, the outward signs of Solomon did match up with his status. However, it is only at the resurrection that the outward visible signs will necessarily match the inward spiritual reality. God may give to us here and now outward visible signs that overlap with our current spiritually exalted status (e.g., the honor Maya Moore Irons received as a skilled athlete), but he may also take them away. I guess what I’m trying to say is that what the world counts as glory might differ from what the Christian should count as glory, but there will also be overlap on some things (as we see in the testimony of Scripture).
I can agree that the largest and broadest definition of glory as you describe it would be univocal but interpreted in different ways and different metaphors would be used in trying to express it.
I think that we will be glorified in the new earth, post-ressurection, but have a sense that glory then becomes moot.
There are signs of glory here and now, which I want to unreflectively equate with the fruit of the spirit but I am not sure if that tracks. The fact that God blesses the righteous and the wicked make me not want to equate glory with anything temporal or visible.
Right. Jacob talks about it a bit in her book, but the exalted status post-resurrection will be in relation to creation and not other people. She focuses on a kind of creation care idea, which we can participate in now, but as I said in my first post, I think there is also a worship aspect to it as well.
Including the fruit of the spirit is an interesting direction to take. We have this exalted status by participating in the Son who pours out the Spirit into the heart of those who participate in him (pretty much Galatians 3). The fruit as a manifestation of the presence of the Spirit is an indication of the inward transformation of the heart given to those who are in the Son. Because I don't want to necessarily bifurcate status from ontology, I'm willing to see a connection here between the fruit of the Spirit and glory (just perhaps not in an exclusive sense).
I was just spotballing and trying to figure out a better way to talk about glory and perfection here and in the eschaton. There might be something to explore there that is missed.
If pressed, I think that my logic would be that to be glorified is to be made more like what you're supposed to be and not made into something more than you were meant to be. So I'm thinking about Bonhoeffer's reliance on the sermon on the Mount and the beatitudes and how they shape us to be more and more Christ-like which then leads us to be glorified when we live that out and manifest the fruits of the Spirit.