So here we confront the heart of mystery: mystery is not that which is unclear, neither is it that which is done away with by an answer (like solving a murder mystery); rather, like a name of God, mystery invites us further into God it has has infinite layers of meaning (I'm told this is Richard Rohr's understanding of the word).

Scripture has been described as shallow enough for children to paddle in but deep enough for theologians to dive into without ever touching the bottom. If we can swim in it but cannot touch the bottom, does this then not mean that the pool is simultaneously an example of clarity and of mystery? It is clear because we can swim in it; it is mysterious because we cannot touch the bottom. Since it is clear we can say definite things about it, but must realise that these things must always be up for review in light of its depth - its mystery.

Who is God?
"God is love." That's our answer - and the answer is clear. But that answer now invites us deeper: if God is love then he loves me. If He loves me and wants to transform me to become more loving - to become like Him - and, for some reason, doesn't complete this transformation instantaneously (the already/not-yet tension), then I am invited into a relationship with Him: a relationship between me, a time-binding class of life, and God, a Being outside time (explain that!!!). So we have this dynamic that instead of the mystery of God being solved by an answer, that very answer leads us deeper into Him. The purpose of mystery is not to confuse us, but to let us realise that God is beyond our understanding (and that the things we say about God must always be held up to review in light of his unfathomable nature), and yet we are invited into relationship with the One who is beyond our grasp.

Technorati Tags: clarity, emerging church, mystery, Richard Rohr, Scripture

Can I recommend a book that I think might have quite a significant impact upon this conversation. Mark D. Thompson has written a book entitled, 'A Clear and Present Word: The Clarity of Scripture' you can read a review of the bookhere. It comes out of that "New-School Reformed" Tradition that I've been talking about.

Posted by: Stephen 12 Sep, 2007 - 12:01:33

Roger - your post is both clear and inviting.

Much of the anxiety about clarity comes from modernism with its scientistic emphasis on uncovering and explaining.

The contemplative (/premodern) traditions seem more appropriate than "systematic" theologies at the moment, as they generally hold a deep regard for mystery.

Posted by: nic paton 12 Sep, 2007 - 13:10:51

Steven
"I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things."

"Neither do men pour new wine into old wineskins. If they do, the skins will burst, the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved."

2 passages off the top of my clipboard... In the first, does seeing G-d as creating disaster and darkness clarify things for us? In the second, is Jesus concerned more about the New Wine, or the Old?

I'm not trying to trip you up in any sinister pharasaic way, but I really do not see "clarity" as hallmarking such deeply paradoxical texts.

Posted by: nic paton 12 Sep, 2007 - 13:20:31

Nic I take your point - and I'm not trying to underplay the interplay between mystery and clarity by downnplaying mystery (jeepers how's all the 'playing' in that sentence!). Mark Thompson doesn't downplay mystery either in his book. What I am wanting to point out though is that the Reformed tradition has actually historically believed the basic thrust of Roger's posts (the ones on mystery/clarity) - and whilst it might want to stress some qualifications as well it is not completely at odds with what Roger is writing, as some would think.

With regard to those texts: I don't want to claim a model answer understanding of them that must be adopted by all. But at the same time I want to suggest that some detailed study in the area of God's sovereignity through the whole of the Bible storyline might shed MORE (not necessarilly complete) clarity on that first verse. At the same time some detailed study of redemptive history and particularly the relationship between the covenants might shed MORE clarity on the second verse.

I have formed basic understandings (which I hold with humility) in my head of both those verses - but I didn't just read the verses and the light went on: perfect clarity. Instead I've developed these basic understandings from the above mentioned studies over a number of years. And today I study on looking to constantly adjust those basic ideas should they begin to sit too inconsistently with clarity I'm seeing elsewhere in Scripture.

Posted by: Stephen 12 Sep, 2007 - 16:08:40

Hi Stephen
First sorry about misspelling your name before.
Well I agree with what you are saying. Firstly that you had to muddle through the years to get the clarity - it is hard won, not cheap.
Secondly, that you "hold" difficult verses. You compare them to the general tenor of scripture.
How many are fond of coming to premature conclusions with difficult verses, merely going in the direction of their current prejudice.
As a mysterymonger I need to be aware that I have already undergone 30 years of clarity-mystery to-and-froing, we do need foundations and disciplines to appreciate freedom and mystery.

Posted by: nic paton 13 Sep, 2007 - 08:23:47