The Epistle to Diognetus

I have recently began reading through the first volume of the Anti-Nicene Fathers collection by A. Cleveland Coxe. I have not gotten far, as I have other reading commitments, and I am taking the time to soak in the wisdom of the Apostolic Fathers. A short passage in the Epistle to Diognetus stood out as a foundational theology for the Christian religion. The Epistle to Diognetus is attributed to an Apostolic Father known simply as Mathetes, which is Koine Greek for "Disciple". While his name may be lost, his insight on the nature of God should not be forgotten and lost to the ages. 

The nature of Mathetes' theological insight regards the nature of what the Christian means when s/he references God's glory. The Glory of God is a basic concept in Reformed Theology where it exists as the supreme good in reality, and where everything exists for God's glory. Yet, the precise nature of this glory is somewhat vague and abstract. In Calvinism, the glory of God generally exists as a Monarchial Majesty. John Piper defines it, "[T]he infinite value of God, the infinite intrinsic worth of God... The public display of the infinite beauty and worth of God is what I mean by 'glory'...".  

It is not difficult to detect the violence inherent within this Monarchial Glory. God alone is the true glory in Himself. Everything therefore exists to aggrandize His Own Glory. God's value is "intrinsic value" in Himself. The loci of attentions all converge on God in Himself. God is the Monarch to whom we must all bow because of His resplendent majesty and sacrifice all for. 

It is little wonder, in the age of democracy, that many people revolt at such a conception of God. It is a starkly anti-humanist understanding of the Sacred. God becomes an egotistical, jealous God. For this reason, John Piper writes in the same post, "Not 'John is glorious,' but 'God is glorious!' (Which is probably why God lets us sin as much as he does. But that's another question.)."  

The understanding of God's Majesty in Mathetes is the inversion of this Piperian logic. Instead of God's Majesty being abstractly intrinsic, it becomes relational. In his Epistle we read:  

"For it is not by ruling over his neighbours, or by seeking to hold the supremacy over those that are weaker, or by being rich, and showing violence towards those that are inferior, that happiness is found; nor can any one by these things become an imitator of God. But these things do not at all constitute His majesty. On the contrary he who takes upon himself the burden of his neighbour; he who, in whatsoever respect he may be superior, is ready to benefit another who is deficient; he who, whatsoever things he has received from God, by distributing these to the needy, becomes a god to those who receive [his benefits]: he is an imitator of God" (Epistle to Diognetus, Ch. X). 

Notice the profound reversal of the concept of majesty between Piper and Mathetes. Glory is no longer an egotistical, jealous concept that compels all to service it. Majesty is not found in a puffed up chest that demonstrates how superior one is to the other. God forbid! Real majesty is not in those who lord over others. Real Majesty is found in the Lord Christ, who "came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” 

Mathetes has a theology of God wherein His majesty does not arise from a Monarchial Egotism, but in a Selfless Altruism. God's Glory is not something that exists beyond His Love for His Creation. Love is not optional. We glorify God, and God is glorified, precisely because He has no ego-self. God empties Himself for the Other. God gives away all His goods to those who are poor, and therein exists His Real Majesty. It is this concept of the Selfless Self that makes God Good, that makes God Majestic. It is this selflessness that makes God God.

Note: The use of the term "monarch" in this post is in the derogative sense. It is not to impinge upon the political philosophy of monarchism which believes the duty of the monarch is to act as the stewart of the people and to rule in their best interest. On second consideration, I should have chosen the word "dictator". My apologies to all the good monarchists out there.