The Evangelical Universalist Forum

What's the proper role for “mystery”??

Theology Philosophical
#1

All:

Maybe someone here can guide me into a more proper understanding, and use of, the term, and concept, of “mystery” as it applies to our comprehensions of God.

I’m quite aware of the potential value of such a concept, yet at the same time find it is often used to obscure and obfuscate. Thus, I am of two minds when it comes to employing the idea of “mystery” when speaking of God and His interactions with His creation.

On the one hand, I’ve known many who explicitly state a certain understanding about God – say, for example, for the Penal Substitution model of the Atonement (which I find useful only as a metaphor) – and you present a problem with their articulations and their answer is “Ahh; it’s a mystery!” Well, which IS it I want to ask; is it the explanation you just offered, or is it mystery?

That is, mystery, when used as explanation, is just a dodge. A dodge used to protect one from accepting logically difficult implications of their own beliefs.

On the other hand, I find it most appropriate to use the term mystery as a way of humbly confessing that one does not have complete (as in I have full knowledge about this and thus can learn nothing more about it…) knowledge of the matter. Thus even God Himself can be described as “mystery” when one employs it at admission that his understandings of God are necessarily incomplete. That is, we expect to learn more – much much more – about God in the future. Nonetheless, that does not restrain me from stating with confidence certain things about God. He is Infinite, and personal, and is Love. HOW it all works together will be the delightful task of eternity – and does contain real elements of “mystery”.

So… very different to use mystery to end an argument (by simply rubber stamping current dogma with “mystery”), or to use it to express that reality that the conversation is circling deep truths which yet remain to be grasped by our finite minds.

And as an aside, I’ve not really heard anyone use the term mystery when defending their personal belief in UR; yet surely there really is a place for the idea of mystery involved in any great truth about God – including UR.

What do you think?

TotalVictory
Bobx3

#2

Mystery … it’s the last-resort argument of choice. LOL God’s ways are higher than ours, so that’s why they don’t make sense to us–or so they tell me. :wink:

Yet, God treats us as if we’re accountable for knowing what is right and wrong. We’re called to righteous judgment and mercy. OT prophecies rail against the injustices and unrighteousness practiced by the people–and they could not justly be rebuked for something they were incapable of knowing.

I do agree that there’s a good place for mystery, and I think you said it well, Bob.

Excellent!

Paul talks a lot of mysteries–the mystery of the Gospel, the mystery of faith, the mystery of the ages, the mystery that the nations are fellow heirs of the promise. Mystery encompasses all the things don’t yet know, and wrestle with in our attempt to understand. My 3yo wrestles right now with “Did God make us?” and “Why is he not done making us yet?” He keeps asking, to see what I will say.

To call something a mystery, is not the same as saying “we can never understand it” (while we uncomfortably push it into some dark corner, so as not to be bothered by it). We do this when we are afraid of what something might be. An identified ‘mystery’ should be a heads-up to us that here is something to find out about – let us hold this strange thing up to the* light* of truth and examine it to see what it might be.

I love this picture you have here:

Sonia

#3

A Christian friend of mine is reading a book on Eastern orthodoxy and he made an interesting observation. He said that mystery plays a much more prominent role in their theology – he specifically mentioned the atonement. So they believe that YES! the death of Jesus on the Cross saves us, but the precise ways and means and mechanisms remain mystery. The fact of salvation thus is not obscured by mystery but rather enhanced. And a very important side effect of this way of using the idea of mystery is the absence of the sort of fracturing into all manner of denominations that we see in Protestantism.

What makes me most uncomfortable I guess is when the idea of mystery is used to “explain” away what would otherwise be seen by any rational person as very negative aspects of God’s character. I’m thinking of a book written by two women in our denomination defending God’s right – and obligation – to annihilate (our church never has taught hell) reprobate sinners in the end which they titled “A Deep and Dazzling Darkness” (or something like that). And they frequently called on mystery as defense. I found the title, (as well as the book) insulting and silly and illogical. Darkness does not dazzle, and is used to describe our condition PRIOR to the Advent where Christ is called the LIGHT who dispels that darkness. Just calling it deep and dazzling and mystery fails to make it so to my mind.

And so of late I’ve been contemplating the proper place for mystery in my belief in Universal Reconciliation. It is a certainty (UR) for me, but exactly how God brings it all to pass remains sketchy at best; a mystery.

TotalVictory
Bobx3