Click here for more interviews

First interview with Dr. Gary Deddo

JMF: Welcome to another edition of “You’re Included.” I’m Mike Feazell. Today our guest is Dr. Gary Deddo. Dr. Deddo is Senior Editor at InterVarsity Press. He is also founding President of the T.F. Torrance Theological Fellowship, and an ordained pastor in the Presbyterian Church, U.S.A. Dr. Deddo earned his PhD at the University of Aberdeen in Aberdeen, Scotland under Professor James Torrance. He is author of numerous articles and books including Karl Barth’s Theology of Relations and George McDonald: The Devotional Guide to His Writing. And he has a keen interest in the integration of faith and everyday life. Dr. Deddo, thanks for being with us.

GD: I’m very happy to be here.

JMF: We appreciate the time very much.

GD: Great!

JMF: I’ve heard you talk about the essential theological question. What is it?

GD. Yes, when people hear the word theology, what I find is, it has a really negative connotation. People usually start out, “I don’t want to have anything to do with theology. It’s nothing but controversy, abstraction, and only kind of, for only "egghead" types of people.

JMF: And those are the people who like it.

GD. Yeah, could be. And theology has a bad name. And actually I think it probably deserves it. No one should be interested in bad theology. And I think an awful lot of what people have heard over the years and how it’s conducted, you know, it does give them that type of impression. So I don’t blame people for having that kind of a negative attitude or stand-offish attitude about, about theology. But a simple way to say it often, the primary questions where people who do want to talk about theology, have to do with kind of, what God is, or how things operate in God’s universe, or in salvation. Or sometimes theological questions often have to do with why things are the way they are? or why they go the way they do. And they surround those kind of the “what,” “why,” “how,” “where,” “when” questions.

JMF: Kind of the stand-offish – it’s there, I’m over here – kind of questions.

GD: Right, it’s an object for a study, for analysis, for debate, this is what... an endless debate, and of course, this exhausts people and they don’t understand the terms of the debate – they don’t see any relevance to it. And this is not only informal theology but formal theology.  Often, those are the questions that people are trying to answer. But in my view, and I’d say it with James Torrance, he used to emphasize this with us over and over again, is that the primary theological question is not any of those. The primary theological question is who – who is God?

JMF: You know, that’s a relational question.

GD: It’s very relational. It means who is God in himself, and also who is God in relationship to me, and who am I in relationship to God? So it’s very... yes, it has to do with the whole of reality and therefore it is personal – who? – it has to do with identity. Who is this One that we’re talking about? And what it has to do with “who I am?” So, yes, it’s much more concrete, it’s much more personal, it’s much more... has to do with interaction.

But you know, it’s not just a question that some theologian somewhere dreamed up and said, “Hey, let’s start with the ‘who’ question.” And what I realized years ago is that Jesus himself pressed this into the minds of his disciples. And of course, I know you’re familiar with, and many are, that it’s the very center of the gospel of Mark. As you recall, Jesus says to them: “Who do men say that I am?” So, he asks... he goes... after... let’s say, perhaps half of his ministry with them – the question he wants to press on their minds and hearts is: “Who?” The “who” question – Jesus is the one himself who puts it at the center.

And then of course, the first is about, “Who do they, those have been listening to me?” And they consider that. Well, some say, “Elijah,” and some say, “the Prophet,” some say, “John the Baptist” – this and that. Umm, but Jesus also, he allows them to give that answer to, I think, warm up their thinking and their reflection. But then he presses then even more deeply, right? – when he says this: “Ok, now that we’ve covered that, now who do YOU say that I am?” So now it’s very personal, very, very direct. And very, even, intimate. “Who do you say... you’ve been with me a year and a half, two years – night and day literally. Who do you say, that I am?” In my view, we could say that Jesus is being a theologian there. That is, he is directing our thoughts, he is directing our reflection – he is sorting out what the most important and crucial and even central issue is, where our starting point proceeds from. So who do you say... and of course, that gets Peter rolling, as you know.

JMF: He gives a great answer.

GD: Well, you are... yes, you are the Christ – the Messiah. But oddly enough, Jesus is not all that impressed with that answer. There is something wrong about it, because Jesus then has to indicate – well, this is gonna involve rejection by certain people and suffering and death, and then resurrection. And Peter... this really disturbs Peter. Apparently Peter had the right label for Jesus. Jesus does not deny that he is God’s Messiah – the Christ. But he can’t really affirm it. And I think, the reason why is, is that Peter has the right label, “Messiah” but he’s filled it with content that doesn’t really fit. It isn’t accurate. It isn’t true, and in the end doesn’t really glorify who Christ is, because he thinks this is gonna have to exclude suffering and rejection and death and crucifixion. Where Jesus recognizes, this is going to be essential to who I am and what I’m here to do.

So I think Jesus is actually leading Peter here and the rest of the disciple as they are listening, in theological reflection, because in a sense, he’s saying, “you got the right label but you don’t have the right meaning.” So that is... as a matter of fact, and he sees that Peter is actually being tempted by the devil himself, to misunderstand this label so that it actually – if Peter hangs on to that definition of “Messiah,” which excludes suffering and rejection and death – he’s actually gonna exclude Jesus himself.

JMF: It’s like the Bible trivia question, “to whom did Jesus say, ‘get thee behind me, Satan’?” And everyone goes, “Well, Satan, obviously.” No.

GD: Yeah, it’s Peter under serious temptation. So Jesus is leading Peter in theological reflection, because what he has to do is fill that proper label, “Messiah” with the proper meaning that corresponds to “who Jesus is.” This is all in response to “who am I?” A label is not enough – and it does seem to me, if theology can be of help to any of us, what its job is, what its purpose is, is to take appropriate names and labels – Jesus is the Son of God, God is infinite, or omnipresent - Jesus is the Savior or Lord – all these things are names, labels. But we’re not done just because we have a name and a label. Theological reflection is to try to help us have a proper content to give a most faithful meaning to those name and labels.

JMF: That has something to do with experience then. If you’re going to have content to a “who” question, there has to be some kind of experience of that “who.”

GD: Well, you’re right, and in this case, of course, what God in Christ is doing is meeting us face to face. Just like we’re meeting face to face... I have to come here from Chicago and show up. We hadn’t met face to face. Now, we have various e-mail interactions and such and phone conversation and things like this, so we could say, yes, in some ways we’re getting to know each other. Not in falsehood, I mean we weren’t lying or deceiving each other, but I think after our time together, we’re going to know each other in a very different way face to face. And this is what God has done in Christ – showed up in person, face to face. So that now the “who” is actually with them.

And this is what we find the Scripture... Jesus is Immanuel – God with us. So now all their ... they’ve had names and labels and various discussions – they have the whole Old Testament – leading up to this time. But now when God himself arrives in person with a name and a face, now, they have an opportunity to re-fill all those names and labels and all those, as it were, phone calls, and e-mails and discussions they’ve had up till now. Now, they have an opportunity to re-fill all those with the deeper truth – because they’ve had a face-to-face revelation  - as John, the Gospel of John, tells us is, in Jesus - this is God’s self-exegesis, his self-interpretation.

So now as Jesus deals with Peter, he’s going to try to help him fill that proper theological label, “Christ,” “Messiah,” with the meaning of who he really is. And if Peter will let him do that, then, then his words and concepts and ideas and responses of who Jesus will be more faithful. Ah, so it puts Peter and the disciples and even us, at a certain crossroads. Will we let Jesus himself take our names and labels and fill them with the true meaning? Or will we hold on to even proper names and labels but hang on to a certain context?

You know, the Pharisees had the same problem. They understood God in terms of their ascertained view of the law. And when Jesus comes, the question is, will they hang on to their view of the law and interpret Jesus in terms of the law? Or will they let Jesus, as it were, be the one who interprets for them the law to them? So when it comes to the Sabbath, we have the same problem – is they believe Jesus is violating the Sabbath when he heals or allows the disciples to pluck their wheat or heal on the Sabbath. But Jesus’ response is, I am the Sabbath. I’m the one who created it. I’m here to interpret to you what that’s all about. So, don’t interpret me in terms of the law. Interpret the law in terms of me. I’m the source, I’m the creator of it. I’m here to tell you what it’s really all about. And not only to tell you, but to be that Sabbath.

So theology actually is very personal - it involves repentance. We have our piety over here, right? In repentance, we really think, stop doing actions, start doing why – as an action. But you know, the word for repentance in the New Testament, metanoia, it essentially means a whole transformation of mind, meta – change, mind – noia, metanoia, a change of mind, that’s what we translate repentance. Repentance is actually, its such a thing as theological repentance where we throw away inadequate ideas and concepts and even stories and illustrations.

So theology is actually, in my view, a spiritual discipline, where, when properly done, it brings you to repentance. It has everything to do with piety – with a living faith, in a living God. Now, sometimes, we might not like theology because we don’t really want to repent. We’ve already done enough of that over here with this action or with this attitude. We don’t have to repent again. But you notice that, back to Peter, Jesus is calling Peter for theological metanoia. Peter, you got to throw out your understanding of the meaning of “Messiah” – you got to repent of those lesser ideas that don’t really allow the glory of who I am to come through, because it will include rejection of this particular people – suffering, death, but also resurrection.

And so Peter is brought to the point of yes, metanoia, theological repentance – so it’s very personal, very upfront. But that really, it seems to me, only happens if we make the central and controlling question – the who question – the one that Jesus put before us - and if you look back to the Old Testament, of course, it’s really the main question that God is pressing on this whole people of Israel is to who is the Lord. It’s not a new question that Jesus places in front of them. It’s been the one all along. We see this in Moses – wants to know who God is, and if possible, to see him face-to-face. Well, that’s what God finally did in Christ. So, theology is the “who” question and the first response then, is to ask, “who is the God of our Lord Jesus Christ?” That one – that’s the God that we want to know. And any theological reflection has the central question and Jesus himself is the first, central, most concrete, personal and direct answer. It’s God’s own reply. If you want to know who I am, then this is where to look to do that. And so that’s another thing that the... it is dealing with who God is in Jesus Christ. That’s the central question ...

JMF: Now most people don’t think of... in those terms at all – even Christians, that the ten... most people, I think, if we were to go out in the street and ask people who God is, they think of God as a Judge or up in the sky who looks in everything that they do and judges, weighs their good deeds against their bad deed, he’s primarily interested in behaviors and gets offended if you go against his prescribed behaviors and is going to judge you over that, and that’s how God is viewed – he’s the ultimate judge and police force to clean up most the other people’s behavior, but we also worry about our own. It’s not a relationship issue with a person. It’s a relationship with a set of rules that God is the arbiter of. So, how... if you changed your mind, repent about this question of “who is Christ?’ how does it change your view then of this relationship?

GD: Well, it completely rearranges it in the end. I mean, yes, we do tend to think about God in terms of our own practical problems or concerns. Today we may think, well, our society is morally falling apart. Or that what’s wrong with my life is essentially a... doing the right things and not doing the wrong things. And that is a practical problem. But we certainly can’t start with our practical problems and then ask how God fits in to that. But we often start with ourselves and what we think – we even start with our own ideas about who God is. So we’re all faced with the question. But is that who the God of our Lord Jesus Christ really is?

So part of it is, as Athanasius in the 2^nd century indicated to us (in the 3^rd century, indicated to us) that we really have to stop thinking about God out of a center in ourselves and let God tell us who he really is. Now, of course, where that’s going on is in Jesus. God’s saying is: “Let me tell you, who I am. Let me interpret myself to you.” Now, so, what it calls for is a very careful listening and a willingness to set aside [unclear] good ideas. Now is this what we see, is that... this God – present and active and communicating himself or revealing himself, in person, face-to-face. Is this God most concerned about a kind of morality – the rules of right conduct. Now I think for people are wondering, ok let’s say, it’s probably not going to be that God will be concerned for less than that. Ok, we can grant that for the moment – that’s probably gonna come in there somewhere. But is that the central, controlling, guiding and deepest thing about God?

And I think, reading Scripture and concentrating on the person and the teaching and the work of Christ, and all Scripture leading up to that – I don’t think that’s what you find that God is... first is interested in. Now, if we listen to apostle Paul – it came to me many years ago about this – is the apostle Paul tells us the law did not come in till 430 years later. Well, later than what? The covenant. All right, if God is most interested in a kind of the rules of right conduct, isn’t 430 years a little late to get around to it? And wouldn’t it be strange if God was mostly concerned about that, wouldn’t he start right there? So I think, our impression somehow has gotten, it’s as if God created things – Genesis – just got things up and running. And then the very next thing he did as they kind of came out of the garden, maybe, is that... gave the ten commandments. Well, that’s actually not how the Bible story goes.

JMF: It seems as though sometimes we think he created the law first and then said to himself, I need somebody to keep this, this is a darn good law – I need somebody to keep it and it’s been the primary thing on his mind and if anybody steps on it and breaks it, he get angry and wipes them out.

GD: Yes, that’s right. We get that impression, even though that’s not how the story goes. What God essentially does is really make a covenant with people and that covenant can be simply put and is a repeated refrain, “I will be your God, and you will be my people.” And notice God doesn’t really ask permission. And what that means is, I’m gonna be everything for you. I’m gonna be your life. I’m gonna be your future, your hope. Yes, I will be your guide as well. But I’m gonna... use my God-ness for you. And you are gonna belong to me as my people. And this going to be a covenant relationship which is most like marriage, as understood in Scripture. So God is interested in this covenant relationship with Israel.

JMF: And the interesting thing is that even though .. uh, it says... I know you’re not going to keep this covenant, but he has established what.. he said, this is what it’s gonna be, I’m gonna be your God, you’re gonna be my people. And even though you’re gonna break your end of this, I’m gonna pull my end of it, and I’m gonna make you be this good thing that I intend for you to be, in the end, anyway, in spite of you.

GD: Yes, the covenant is a promise. And it’s a promise that’s made from God’s side unilateraly – from God’s side. It really doesn’t... the covenant itself, the establishment of the covenant, the main maintenance of the covenant, and even the fulfillment of the covenant, does not depend upon the response of Israel. Now, if Israel resists the covenant and the promise, that’s gonna be a rocky relationship, isn’t it? And that’s what you see in the Old Testament. It is a rocky relationship.

JMF: Kind of like my relationship with God.

GD: That’s right, exactly. Israel is a picture of all of humanity, in its rocky relationship with God. But, and so, the relationship, yes, as it were, has its ups and downs, but notice, God has not reneged on his covenant. It is, as Paul tells us, irrevocable. “I will be your God.” I’ve already said that – I will be your God and you shall be my people and you’re gonna be my people on behalf of all the families of the earth. We have to remember that part of the covenant. First announced to Abraham and made clear.

Ah, so covenant is, first of all, a promise that God makes that is not conditional on the response. That will condition how the relationship goes, but it has no power to break off God’s promise. So Paul would tell us, is that though everyone is faithless, God will still be faithful. Faithful to what? Faithful to his promise. And that is the goodness of God, and the holiness of God to be – God is the one who is true to his word, and true to his covenant.

In a relationship, once you have the covenant established, then a parallel is, is that couples get married. Now, in... if that relationship is going to run well and be harmonious, it will have to follow certain patterns, and we could describe some of the patterns of relationship in terms of laws. Look, if you want to live and reap the benefits of this covenant relationship, so as a fruitful, joyful, loving, creative, life-giving relationship where you receive what I have to offer and give back to me, reflect back to me what you’ve been given – it will follow certain patterns and for Israel, it could be described in part, not in total, as certain [rules], OK, you will not worship other gods, you will not commit adultery, you will not steal, you will enjoy the Sabbath – and these types of things.

But these, as it were, are not kind of conditions to receive the promises – they’re conditions for receiving the blessings, enjoying the blessings, because if you resist the covenant relationship, or sometimes as I like to say is, you know – if you go against the grain of the relationship, you will get splinters. But we don’t have any power in us, and God is not interested... is just because you go against the grain of that covenant relationship, you don’t have any power to change the direction of the grain. You will get splinters. If you go with the grain, you’ll enjoy the benefits of who God is and who God has promised to be.

So, yes, God doesn’t want us... So the laws describe, to a certain degree, how to go along with the grain of the covenant relationship so that you don’t get splinters. Because God wants it to be a joyful, peaceful and fruitful relationship where we’re receiving from him all his God-ness and goodness for us and giving back to him thanksgiving and lives that reflect that thanksgiving.

JMF: Now, Jesus, not only comes to reveal who God is to us. He also comes as one of us. (GD: yes.) And that puts a new light on our relationship with God when God comes as one of us and we’re just about out of time, but we need to talk about that. We need to talk about union with Christ, vicarious humanity of Christ. What difference does the whole concept of Trinity – Father, Son, Holy Spirit in connection with humanity make and so, what do we get, about 45 seconds left in this program so, I think, if you don’t mind doing another program we can talk about those things.

GD: Alright, I’ll be happy to do that.

JMF: Well, thanks for being with us and we look forward to the next time.

GD: Thanks.

JMF:  We’ve been talking with Dr. Gary Deddo. I’m Mike Feazell for “You’re Included.”

Copyright 2008 Grace Communion International