Awhile back I’d shared the idea that all of creation serves to reveal God. Today I’m struck by how God does this within the context of the family. (All of the following must be understood, of course, as the ideal–as an “ought” rather than an “is.”) Here’s what I mean:
A child‘s parents function as a cohesive unit to display the many attributes and character traits of God himself–for they are created in his image, both male and female. All his attributes are displayed in both, but some are prominent in one or the other. For example, provision, leadership, a healthy fear of authority, protection, guidance–all of these are seen in both father and mother, but seem to be more prominent in a father by design. Likewise comfort, encouragement, nurture, kindness, tenderness–these too are evident in both parents, but seem to be more prominent in the mother by design. In the relationship of the father and the mother, the child can observe intimacy, headship and submission, mutual respect and love, which also portray the inherent attributes of God in some of the “interactions” (for lack of a better term) between the persons of the Trinity. But these are not seen “purely objectively,” he is not an “external observer,” because the child is brought into these relationships and interactions (at some level), though he never becomes a parent but remains “other than,” as still a child.
A father learns from his wife the paraklete attribute of God; as one who comes along side and comforts, supports, encourages, “helps.” He learns from her how he ought to be in submission to his own head, who is Christ. He learns from her, perhaps, the affectionate and tender attributes of God. A mother also learns many things of God from her husband’s example, such as his headship, provision, protection, leadership, strength, etc. And both father and mother learn something even deeper of the nature of God when they become parents. Parents taste the depth of the Father’s love for his Son; they may even taste the immensity of grief at having lost a beloved child. It’s frightening to think that God has, in a sense, given us the power to create offspring–with everything that goes with that. The purpose of this power, I think, is to know the character of God more deeply–more experientially. As parents, we learn the kind and degree of love that He as Creator feels toward his own creation, in how parents would gladly lay down their own life to save that of their beloved children. There is an intellectual knowledge that any student or observer can attain, but the knowledge a parent is (or, I imagine, must be) a knowing of an unfathomably deeper kind and degree.
All material objects and their interactions with one another–whether family relationships, biological systems, environmental conditions, or what have you–are made as “media” to communicate the knowledge of God and his astounding perfections. But I’m not so sure that the family imagery is a mere creation meant to serve as an image or picture of something “higher” that God is. God isn’t “like” a father, he essentially is a Father–the Father. He is the eternal Father, never having not been a father. He is the eternal Son, never having not been a son. He is the eternal Helper (Holy Spirit)–never having not been exactly that. Humanly fathers are, in finity and imperfection, mere shadows of the true “Father.” The family is, or at least ought to be, one of the highest expressions of the nature of God the world may see visibly. (Note that the church is called the “family” or “household” of God in 1 Timothy 3:15 [show] [15]if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth. (ESV)
.)
I’m also thiking about how Frame’s ideas of God apply to the family. There are hints and shadows of the Creator/creature distinction, of Covenant Lordship (control, authority, and presence), and of transcedence and immanence, even in the family unit. There is a fundamental distinction between parents and children that may not be compromised (much like the Creator/creature distinction), but the parents and children are nevertheless in a covenant relationship (parents being in control, having authority, and yet being always present). There is even a shadow of the child’s being ‘created’ by his parents–implying all the rights and responsibilities of a ‘sub-creator’ (of a sort) for the parents in relation to their children, and those of a ‘creation’ for the children in relation to their parents. Also, the parents transcend, in a sense, their children (in authority, control, and for much of their lives, knowledge and wisdom), yet they are also immanent in the lives of their children (that is, they don’t abandon them). (Recall the is/ought caveat above, of course.) I think there’s a lot that could be said here, by way of application, and counseling, parental instruction, etc. By way of application, theology done this way is a study of how to be a godly husband, wife, parent, and/or child. But I’ll have to leave this for some other time (perhaps when I’m, Lord willing, sitting under Frame’s teaching at RTS!).
The lengths that God has gone to reveal himself to us are astounding to me. I’ve only mentioned a few undeveloped thoughts here – not even close to a “full” inquiry into this idea – but nevertheless wanted to share it. It’s an endeavor that must be renewed every day, I think, to exemplify, seek out, and otherwise encourage the immitation of the character of God in all our human relationships. And perhaps most of all in the closest of all our human relationships – the family unit. “…that the World might know.”
Anyway. Just a lazy, rainy, Saturday-afternoon kind of thought.
gmail.com
