Pete Gall's Pulp Theology

I think the Westminster Catechism got it wrong.

It begins by asking, “What is the chief end of man?”

Whatever answers come from that question are highly likely to miss the point altogether. The question assumes that we are here as a product, a resource, a tool to achieve a chief end. And most Christians have spent their lives with this weird split between “love” and identity found in performance as a resource. This is deep-rooted error in our tradition, but it doesn’t have to be something we keep around.

The Westminster Catechism. A good drilling & recitation tool to teach religion. Not as useful for relationship with God.

Zoom back, before the latest church gossip, before the Church, before the Romans, before the Israelites, before the Garden of Eden. Zoom back to before creation, to a time when all that existed was God.

Whatever you picture when you picture, “when all that existed was God,” we know He’s not a single a monadic force, or an old bearded guy drumming his fingers on some cosmic desk trying to think of something to keep himself occupied. We don’t see a lonely guy, desperate to be seen and worshipped.

Instead, we encounter the Trinity. Before creation, there existed the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, delighting in one another. Whole and complete. Lacking nothing, and yet, because God is a relationship, God is not, as Aristotle claimed, “An unmoved mover.” God is not a wooden-faced, concept-driven force.

When St. Augustine described the Trinity, he spoke of the Father as the lover, the Son as the beloved, and the Spirit as the searching love that passes between them. There is enough space for love, longing, delight, and choice to exist within even the Godhead. It is exactly this space that we’re invited to enjoy – to abide in. Aristotle did not conceive of a God that could be three-in-one, and so he concluded that God, as unmoved mover, could not have desires, because to his way of thinking, desires were the same thing as deficiencies, and deficiencies would by definition make God not God.

Aristotle was mistaken.

Aristotle

Before creation, God existed in triune form, very happily.

The Westminster catechism leads by addressing the question, “What is the chief end of man?” It’s mostly the same question as “why am I here,” except that the Westminster question sets the entire discussion on the path of purpose, output, and utility. It’s actually a less honest question than “why am I here,” because “why am I here” can still be answered by the God who actually is.

The question should never start with us. Far better than “what is the chief end of man” would be “why would God create us.” Here’s what I think, and I’m far from the first to think it.

We exist because God, in delighting triune form, thought it would be awesome to create more stuff to love. That’s what love does – it finds more things in which to delight. The Puritan Richard Sibbes once wrote, “God delights to spread His goodness.” That’s it. We’re here because delights in us.

Richard Sibbes

This is a pretty radical jump – perhaps more than one may notice at first – from nearly all Christian doctrine in the world today. But it’s no leap at all when you consider the same question applied in most families. Imagine how foreign the Westminster line of reasoning would sound in an interview with your average mom on the street.

“Thanks for agreeing to speak with us, Mrs. Jones. Will you tell us, please, what is the chief end of your child?”

“Excuse me?”

“Your daughter. What is the chief end for which you’ve chosen to bring her into this world?”

“Seriously?”

“Yes, please.”

What is the practical purpose - the payoff - the chief end - of these kids?

“My husband and I are in love, and we wanted to have a child to love together. A product of our love, and a recipient of our love. We want Sarah to be happy, whole, to know that she is loved, and to live a life of joy and adventure – whatever specific path she may choose.”

The mom sounds about right to me. And, to me, the questions sound not just odd, but kind of predatory.

You and I exist because God thought it would totally kick ass to have us around. There are no strings attached. We are not here to accomplish anything, to toe some line, or to pay Him back. The Westminster Catechism misses this in its answer, too. It says, “the chief end of man is to glorify God, and to enjoy Him forever.”

It’s a pretty good attempt to bridge the gap – there is almost love involved in the idea of “enjoying Him” – but the whole framework of question and answer sure makes God sound a lot like some pre-adolescent kid with his plastic army figures arrayed before him in coerced worship. God is not like that.

Is God glorified in us? Sure. But try the parallel of the mother and her daughter on again. What relationship between them, and what life chosen by the daughter, would cause you to think most highly of the mother? What would make you most want to know the mother?

You and I exist because God thought it would totally kick ass to have us around. There are no strings attached.

What do you think? Is that what you’ve been taught? Are there aspects of that statement that cause you to wince?