A former student of mine once asked me what would be my emphasis in my preaching if ever I get to land myself on a pulpit as God's holy priest. Would it be heaven? salvation? damnation? I chuckled to myself and readily replied to him, "Love." Hahaha... After all these years of sacrifice for that damned subject, why should I veer away from it come the time I don the priestly vestments? After all, is not Christianity about love becoming flesh? Forget heaven and hell if you cannot even remember to love your neighbor for love's sake (which means for God's sake in the New Testament, since it categorically declares: "God is love" (1 Jn. 4:8).
Speaking of God being love, I've been imagining a heresy that I hope to incorporate in my book. I'm calling it Anti-predicationism, and according to it, God cannot be used as a predicate, only as subject. For example, for them, it is alright to predicate love to God, i.e., "God is love", but not the other way around, viz. "Love is God." It seems reminiscent to the transcendentalist view of the Muslims, who claim that God's mysteries are not a matter of human study. The pillar of Shahada seems to justify my opinion, as it unequivocally states that there is no God but Allah, and thus he cannot be equated to anything. Of course, I've definitely extended my little understanding of Islamic theology here, but I think it does present points to reflect on when we express God in human language. Linguists, O linguists, come to my rescue.
No comments:
Post a Comment