Only God Is an “End in Itself” (But That’s Not the Whole Story)

Only God Is an “End in Itself” (But That’s Not the Whole Story) April 9, 2015

Only God Is an “End in Itself” (But That’s Not the Whole Story)

I put “end in itself” in quotation marks to indicate a technical phrase; I am not implying that God is impersonal. “End in himself” would be more correct. But people often talk about something as an “end in itself” meaning “for its own sake.” “Art for art’s sake” is a motto of the National Endowment for the Arts. However, many people regard certain activities, products, persons, organizations, etc., as existing “in and for themselves” meaning they do not need any justification; their value is intrinsic if not self-evident.

What is a Christian to make of this mindset or attitude? Can anything be an “end in itself” in the sense of not serving a purpose higher than itself? Does anything exist in and for itself—from a Christian perspective?

I will dare to argue not—except God who is not a “thing” but being and goodness themselves—the perfect telos of all beings, activities and products insofar as they have value at all.

“What is the chief end of man? The chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy him forever.” The first question and answer of the Heidelberg Catechism. No statement so succinctly and clearly expresses the Christian life and worldview insofar as it bears on humanity. But I would argue that “The chief end of anything that has value is to glorify God and be enjoyed by him and by us.”

Therefore nothing has value “in and for itself” except God. If God exists, how could it be otherwise? How can any creature give value to God or make God dependent on it for value? Such a being, whose reason for being is outside itself/himself, could not be God.

This is not to say that God cannot share his glory with others, with creatures. He can and does. Second century church father Irenaeus famously said (paraphrasing): “The glory of God is man fully alive.” In other words, Irenaeus meant, God glories, exults in, enjoys making fully alive (deifying) his human creatures made in his own image and likeness.

But it is to say that even humanity is not God’s end, telos, purpose, reason for being. As Karl Barth wrote (CD II/1) God is the “one who loves in freedom.” God is love but does not have to love anyone or anything outside himself. But his love of his human creatures is a self-determining act of freedom: a paradox.

All this is classical Christianity, but how many Christians know it or think this way? How often do we Christians succumb to the secular habit of elevating ourselves or things to “ends in themselves” apart from God? God, then, becomes a thing alongside all the other things we possess or want to possess for the value they can give us. This is Christian idolatry—making God an instrument of our own self-fulfillment, a means to our own ends. This is illustrated more clearly than anywhere else in extreme versions of the so-called “Prosperity Gospel,” the “Gospel of Health and Wealth” which is based more on New Thought than on Scripture or Christian tradition. It is a betrayal of “minimal Christianity”—the basic, underlying, foundational core of the Christian life and world view.

All that is true and incontrovertible from a biblical perspective. (Which is not to say no Christians disagree! Of course they do, which is a serious problem.) However, everything I have said up until now is according to the “order of nature”—metaphysics. It is “legal theology”—bare fact devoid of gospel. The gospel does not contradict it but adds a dimension to it that is equally important. God, who is his own end and the end (telos) of all things, condescends by grace to make us mere humans objects of his love and concern, ends for him. We are not “ends in ourselves,” but God freely, out of love, makes us ends, finding fulfillment, enjoyment, blessing in creating and redeeming us. This is according to the “order of grace” and “gospel theology.” Nothing about it contradicts the first set of truths (viz., that nothing but God is an “end in itself”). But it adds to that that God chooses not to be God without us and out of sheer grace (so not by nature) enters into covenant relationship with us such that he benefits from our loving, worshiping and obeying him. Our love, worship and obedience does not add anything to his being-ness or character, but they do add something to his experience, his blessedness, his enjoyment and satisfaction.

One of my favorite theologians, Reformed theologian James Daane, who taught at Fuller Theological Seminary, wrote a magisterial essay entitled “Can A Man Bless God?” (published in God and the Good, eds., Clifton Orlebeke and Lewis Smedes [Eerdmans, 1975]). His answer was “Yes!” I completely agree. God chooses not to be an “uncarved block,” a “windowless monad,” an island complete unto himself. While maintaining his eternal perfection and fullness of being, his metaphysical self-sufficiency, God chooses to be God for us and that “for us” means something even for God. This is the good news of the gospel—that the Creator for whom we exist, our ultimate end, goal and telos, the ground of our being who is the ground of his own being, not dependent on anything or anyone outside himself, freely chooses to let us be his own source of fulfillment, joy and satisfaction.

Both truths are necessary to a full orbed, holistic Christian understanding of existence. Unfortunately, one “side” or the other tends to take over in Christian thinking. This is where theology is necessary; left to themselves even the most devout and sincere Christian tends either to regard God as so transcendent as to be unapproachable or as so personal as to be dependent on us and even, perhaps, at our disposal. Only theology, rooted and grounded in Scripture and Christian tradition, preserves both truths together.


Browse Our Archives