The Christian Century, a highly-respected theological journal formed at the beginning of the 20th Century, took its name from the belief that that was going to be the Christian century. It didn’t happen. God was on trial in the twentieth-century. He had an excellent team of advocates for the defense, and a multitude of character witness were called to give their testimony–testimony sworn on the Bible. Most of those character witnesses did not serve him very well. We often found ourselves doubting the credibility of those who served as God’s character witnesses. Their tone of voice and melodramatic character didn’t ring true, so it was easy to dismiss the testimony they gave in defense of God”s character. No, the 20th Century didn’t turn out to be the Christian century.
The Christian church and its God were on trial, a lengthy trial that did not reach a clear verdict. Apologists for the trinitarian Father, Son, Spirit were razor-sharp, hard-hitting and indefatigable, but for all the “evidence” they amassed, conviction was rare. Between the counsel for the defense, the extreme rationalism of their arguments, their lack of evidence compelling to heart and soul, and the dubious character of their character witnesses, the most generous verdict is that the century ended with a hung jury. A mistrial should be declared.
Once upon a time a photographer impressed Pablo Picasso so well that the controversial painter broke his rule about photographers and allowed the fellow to bring his camera into the studio and told him he was free to shoot pictures of anything he wanted to. In fact he allowed him to move in and live there six weeks, knowing the photographer intended to publish the pictures The most informative page in the book showed photographs–taken at intervals throughout the day–of the painter’s way of developing a painting.
Picasso approached a steer standing in a nearby pasture and did a painting of it, right on the spot. The photographer took a picture of the steer itself, and then of the painting at that time. The painting and the photo looked almost identical. (Many people don’t realize that Pablo could paint realistic representation with the best of them, and did until he was fourteen-years-old.) The next several shots show the progress (some would say regress) across the day as the painter modified first this color and then that shape until when he was finished it looked like what we have come to expect from Picasso. It bore little resemblance to what we all know steers look like.
Picasso, one of the most articulate painters of history, explained, saying something to this effect: “I distort and modify until I can present that which the eye of habit does not see.”
That idea, “that which the eye of habit cannot see,” sheds light on much of the mental darkness that obscures the way we see reality. We live mostly by habit. We see mostly by habit. We think mostly by habit. Our thinking follows the conventional wisdom and the political and social correctness of our fellows; this wisdom and correctness come directly from the habits of societies. Once Picasso focused our attention of some element we had never really paid attention to, we look at cattle in a new way, seeing clearly that which had there all along, but now we see there is more to the steer than we had realized.
In this blog I am attempting to present an unfamiliar way of seeing God, a way has always been there, that the mind of habit sees but neither notices nor acknowledges, all the while remaining unaware of what it means. What you will find in this blog is like what the writer of I John says: “I am not writing a new commandment to you, but an old commandment which you have had from the beginning . . . On the other hand, I am writing a new commandment to you, which is true in Him and in you.” We will be giving careful attention to something that has been part of the Christian religion from the beginning, but that much too often has been marginalized.
God is hard to figure out. The Bible gives a good many stories of God in action, God’s declarations, assertions others make about him. The problem is that it doesn’t all fit together very well. I read somewhere in one of Giardina’s books, [I've tried repeatedly to find the reference again, and still must do it] where the fellow said to the woman who had helped him several times, “Hit was you talked me into learning to read. I wanted to do so’s I could read the Bible. I ain’t so sure now hit’s a blessing. They’s hard sayings in there.” Besides, the Bible–-which for Christians is the only objective testimony to God they will accept–is itself hard to figure out. The Bible, the blog that is supposed to tell God’s story, is complex, much like the God it tells of. But there is no shortage of simplistic ways offered to resolve its difficulties.
That is one of the two major weaknesses of the Christian world: the proverbial plenitude of simplistic answers to complex problems. The other weakness is that it is hard to find a Christian who actually follows Jesus, who, according to the Bible, is God’s personal representative.
In this blog, we are concerned with the first weakness: simplistic descriptions of a complex God, as well as very complicated explanations of God that moves his very essence toward the edge of their attention. We will not accept simplistic views of God’s complex book, nor simplistic presentations of a rich, multilayered, polydimensional gospel. We will find that the mainstream of Christians has always accepted–although unconsciously–the relativity of God and of his expectations. Christian doctrine often acknowledges, without realizing it, that God is relative, but it treats the idea (which it fails to see clearly) as only one among the many things that need to be said about God.
If we are to know God primarily through the biblical story, we have to recognize that, like a complexly plotted novel, it is made up of many smaller stories. Let’s think of the Bible as a courtroom scene, with God on trial before the human race, as in fact he is (whether the scene will be one day reversed is a different consideration). The writers of the Bible serve in the courtroom as character witnesses. They claim to know about God, some even claiming to know him. They give their testimonies, some of which are hard to follow. Some are just plain hard to understand. After a bit, the stories they testify to begin to converge, but testimony from other witnesses diverges from the emerging consensus. Some diverge widely. Some of their stories have internal contradictions. The time comes when we begin to wonder about questioning the character of the character witnesses themselves. Do we have good reason to trust them?
So as our exploration sets out we are well aware of the well-known difficulties of understanding God and his word . Some of us have resolved the problem by withdrawing from the field and abandoning religion, at least the Christian religion. At the other extreme are those who, as already suggested, offer us naive or obscurantist and oversimplified harmonizations.
Most of us find neither of these options satisfactory
Thursday, December 28, 2006
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
We were talking about the Threeness of God on the last post.
The Trinity is a mind-boggling mystery. What we seem to have is a complicated divine society: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, all plicated together in eternal common unity, eternally related and interactive with each other .
In spite of what theologians have maintained for centuries, God is not simple. God is singular, but not simple. Christianity, along with Judaism and Islam, is commonly called one of the great monotheistic religions of the world, and it is. But it is not a simple monotheism. Christianity is a trinitarian monotheism. Without that modifier we cannot come to see God clearly. I am aware that talk about the Trinity has always been avoided as dull, abstruse, and irrelevant, but as you will see a bit later, it opens the way to a new perspective on God: a relative God.
Not only is God not singular, neither is he remote. God did not form a world, set its laws in motion, breath life into it, and then sit back to see how it all worked out. He stayed in touch. Still does. In Walter Mosely’s Always Outnumbered, Always Outgunned, Socrates Fortlow’s bitter aunt Bellandra Beaufort, used to tell him, "God ain’t nowhere near here, child, . . . He’s a million miles away; out in the middle’a the ocean somewhere. An’ he ain’t white like they say he is neither."
"God’s black?" little Socrates asked the tall, skinny woman."
"Naw, baby," she said sadly. "He ain’t black. If he was there wouldn’t be all this mess down here wit’ us. Naw. God’s blue."
"Blue?"
"Uh-huh. Blue like the ocean. Blue. Sad and cold and far away like the sky is far and blue. You got to go a long long way to get to God. And even if you get there he might not say a thing. Not a damn thing."
Aunt Bellandra’s God is not concerned with her; is not on her side. Life experience has left countless bitter people with a sense that God is neither interested nor available. If he is, he doesn’t care.
Not so with this biblical God. From the start he has been intimately involved with his handiwork. From walking with Adam in the cool of the day, to speaking to Moses from a bush, to his coming as Mary’s child, Jesus, who is called Emmanuel–God with Us–to "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself," he has been engaged and interactive with his special creation, his created image, homo sapiens, as we call ourselves. To acknowledge that God is interactive opens the way to a radical adjustment of how we look at God.
When God created the world, especially us humans, he entered the scene as a participant, interacting directly with his creation, even while allowing us humans the exercise of freedom. From the beginning God stays in touch. He mentors these inexperienced and vulnerable human beginners. God cares about them and cares for them; he attends to the needs of this special in-his-own-image-and-likeness creation. He creates them with potential, with an open future, and provides them with all the essentials necessary for the development of a rich and satisfying life. He gives both tender loving care, and the discipline that is needed if they are to reach their full potential.
If God cares about us, that means that we make a difference to God. God is moved by what we do or neglect to do. We affect God’s feelings. Our conduct has some bearing on the decisions God makes. In some sense he depends on us, another idea that runs contrary to the conventional picture of a God who needs neither help nor anything else from us. If God depends on us, at least for some things–for anything–he is to that degree vulnerable for we just might fail him (and often do). We and God share response-ability and mutual vulnerability. We re-spond reciprocally; we both can be wounded.
Moreover this means that human history, and each of us individually, has an open future. It is not an already settled, done deal. Erin O’Shaughnessy opens her novel, Pasaquina, postulating that "No Latino villager ever hurries, for, after all, where is there to go? They are either going to heaven or to hell, and that has already been decided. Only the Anglos hurry, and Father Herrera says that is because they are trying to live like hell on earth while at the same time planning how to cheat God into going to heaven at the last minute."
Whether O’Shaughnessy’s view reiterates a worn-out prejudiced stereotype or not, she makes it clear that many Christians of whatever ethnicity or nationality see Christianity primarily in terms of heaven and hell. Later, we’ll have to give some time to that misconception. Our immediate point, however, is the assumption that it really makes little difference what we do with our lives because God has already determined the future in its entirety. If God in any sense depends on our assistance–and as we shall see, he does--much of the future remains yet to be worked out. It means that a great deal of what happens is up to us.
To say we make a difference, that we affect, and that God is dependent implies that God can be changed. No idea is more firmly fixed in Christian thought than that God never changes. To even suppose that God might change threatens the whole picture. If God can change, is anything secure? And yet all through its pages, the Bible manages to affirm both that God changes, and that he can be trusted.
It isn’t just playing with words to suggest that if we affect God, that means he has affections, another idea contrary to conventional Christian teaching. Psychologists use the word "affect" differently from most of us. For them, a person’s "affect" refers to their "feeling or emotion, especially as manifested by facial expression or body language." If we affect God, if God has affections (feelings, emotions), does God have an "affect?" Over and over the Christian Scriptures reveal a very affectionate God.
The proposal of a genuinely interactive God raises all kinds of questions. It may well make us uneasy but it also suggests adventure, excitement, and openness to refreshing, brand-new possibilities. It means we count for something; we are needed; our lives can take on new meaning and value. We make a difference to God, and to human history.
The Trinity is a mind-boggling mystery. What we seem to have is a complicated divine society: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, all plicated together in eternal common unity, eternally related and interactive with each other .
In spite of what theologians have maintained for centuries, God is not simple. God is singular, but not simple. Christianity, along with Judaism and Islam, is commonly called one of the great monotheistic religions of the world, and it is. But it is not a simple monotheism. Christianity is a trinitarian monotheism. Without that modifier we cannot come to see God clearly. I am aware that talk about the Trinity has always been avoided as dull, abstruse, and irrelevant, but as you will see a bit later, it opens the way to a new perspective on God: a relative God.
Not only is God not singular, neither is he remote. God did not form a world, set its laws in motion, breath life into it, and then sit back to see how it all worked out. He stayed in touch. Still does. In Walter Mosely’s Always Outnumbered, Always Outgunned, Socrates Fortlow’s bitter aunt Bellandra Beaufort, used to tell him, "God ain’t nowhere near here, child, . . . He’s a million miles away; out in the middle’a the ocean somewhere. An’ he ain’t white like they say he is neither."
"God’s black?" little Socrates asked the tall, skinny woman."
"Naw, baby," she said sadly. "He ain’t black. If he was there wouldn’t be all this mess down here wit’ us. Naw. God’s blue."
"Blue?"
"Uh-huh. Blue like the ocean. Blue. Sad and cold and far away like the sky is far and blue. You got to go a long long way to get to God. And even if you get there he might not say a thing. Not a damn thing."
Aunt Bellandra’s God is not concerned with her; is not on her side. Life experience has left countless bitter people with a sense that God is neither interested nor available. If he is, he doesn’t care.
Not so with this biblical God. From the start he has been intimately involved with his handiwork. From walking with Adam in the cool of the day, to speaking to Moses from a bush, to his coming as Mary’s child, Jesus, who is called Emmanuel–God with Us–to "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself," he has been engaged and interactive with his special creation, his created image, homo sapiens, as we call ourselves. To acknowledge that God is interactive opens the way to a radical adjustment of how we look at God.
When God created the world, especially us humans, he entered the scene as a participant, interacting directly with his creation, even while allowing us humans the exercise of freedom. From the beginning God stays in touch. He mentors these inexperienced and vulnerable human beginners. God cares about them and cares for them; he attends to the needs of this special in-his-own-image-and-likeness creation. He creates them with potential, with an open future, and provides them with all the essentials necessary for the development of a rich and satisfying life. He gives both tender loving care, and the discipline that is needed if they are to reach their full potential.
If God cares about us, that means that we make a difference to God. God is moved by what we do or neglect to do. We affect God’s feelings. Our conduct has some bearing on the decisions God makes. In some sense he depends on us, another idea that runs contrary to the conventional picture of a God who needs neither help nor anything else from us. If God depends on us, at least for some things–for anything–he is to that degree vulnerable for we just might fail him (and often do). We and God share response-ability and mutual vulnerability. We re-spond reciprocally; we both can be wounded.
Moreover this means that human history, and each of us individually, has an open future. It is not an already settled, done deal. Erin O’Shaughnessy opens her novel, Pasaquina, postulating that "No Latino villager ever hurries, for, after all, where is there to go? They are either going to heaven or to hell, and that has already been decided. Only the Anglos hurry, and Father Herrera says that is because they are trying to live like hell on earth while at the same time planning how to cheat God into going to heaven at the last minute."
Whether O’Shaughnessy’s view reiterates a worn-out prejudiced stereotype or not, she makes it clear that many Christians of whatever ethnicity or nationality see Christianity primarily in terms of heaven and hell. Later, we’ll have to give some time to that misconception. Our immediate point, however, is the assumption that it really makes little difference what we do with our lives because God has already determined the future in its entirety. If God in any sense depends on our assistance–and as we shall see, he does--much of the future remains yet to be worked out. It means that a great deal of what happens is up to us.
To say we make a difference, that we affect, and that God is dependent implies that God can be changed. No idea is more firmly fixed in Christian thought than that God never changes. To even suppose that God might change threatens the whole picture. If God can change, is anything secure? And yet all through its pages, the Bible manages to affirm both that God changes, and that he can be trusted.
It isn’t just playing with words to suggest that if we affect God, that means he has affections, another idea contrary to conventional Christian teaching. Psychologists use the word "affect" differently from most of us. For them, a person’s "affect" refers to their "feeling or emotion, especially as manifested by facial expression or body language." If we affect God, if God has affections (feelings, emotions), does God have an "affect?" Over and over the Christian Scriptures reveal a very affectionate God.
The proposal of a genuinely interactive God raises all kinds of questions. It may well make us uneasy but it also suggests adventure, excitement, and openness to refreshing, brand-new possibilities. It means we count for something; we are needed; our lives can take on new meaning and value. We make a difference to God, and to human history.
Tuesday, December 26, 2006
So mine has been a long-standing quarrel with the Christian religion, both as I have experienced it and as I have studied it. I am well aware that I’m not alone. Many of you can identify. So did Soren Kierkegaard, Martin Luther, and John Calvin. Both Jeremiah and Jesus expressed strong displeasure with the religion of their time. I suspect you sense a resonance within yourself as you read these words. Your issues with the church may not be the same as mine, but you and I, we understand and respect each other because we both recognize that Christianity is somewhat less than completely convincing, at least the Christianity we’ve seen and heard preached. Whatever connection we might have had with the church in the past, there’s not much about it now that interests us.
We’ve differed in the ways we’ve reacted to our dissatisfaction with the church and its God. Some of us have challenged the truth and validity of the Christian faith. Some left, gave up on the whole thing, walked away and never looked back. Others left and have been trying out other ways to satisfy their spiritual needs; they took leave with regret; they’re still longing for something they left behind, but they’re not about to go back looking for it. Maybe it’s just nostalgia but sometimes when they hear someone singing a bit of some Christian song or they walk past a church on Sunday morning, they sense that something of who they are is missing. Usually they dismiss the feeling as the nostalgia that it probably is. Still, they know that something is missing.
And me? I’ve stayed. A lot of us have stayed. We’ve stayed because we’ve found no other place to go. We’ve stayed because, somehow, we still believe that the real thing is here hiding somewhere in the status quo. A bunch of us who are still in the church feel almost just like you do, but uncomfortable as it is, we’ve stuck around. We’ve hung on because we couldn’t see any real option. We are still part of the church because we continue believing that no matter how bad the kitchen smells, it’s the only room that can provide us with nourishment. We stay on and keep looking for ways to change the way the church thinks and operates.
We know that, most often, the church stinks. Like Denise Giardina says, there’s a lot of mean Christians that "don’t love nobody but Jesus." Churches are overloaded with mean Christians who more often than not talk about a mean God, a God who is all in favor of war and capital punishment and beating the devil out of their children. Nevada Barr refers to the sort of Christians who use the Bible Belt to beat the fear of God into their children. And sometimes their wives. Beat the devil out of them and the fear of God into them.
They make it sound like God is all about power and control, thus they become like the God pictured in their minds. Christendom–the world of people who call themselves Christians and organize unions of power structures they call churches–smells, literally, to high heaven. But some of us endure and fight as covert insurgents, change agents, for the revolution that we believe must come. We live by faith, with hope–and hopefully, with love. Our quarrel with Christianity is an insider’s quarrel with our Christian heritage, a lover’s quarrel with the church and its doctrinal heritage.
You may find here things you’ve always either thought or suspected, but that preachers and Sunday School teachers denied. You will find ambiguity, vagueness, even contradiction, but some of us have learned that if we are to be true to the "real world," truth is shot through with ambiguity, vagueness, contradiction, and impenetrable mystery. The Bible and its portrayal of God is true to the world as it really is. Thus there is no clear, simple way for it to tell what is involved in any honest effort to follow the way of Jesus. Some of us have learned to live by faith rather than by precise absolutes and micro-managing rules. We have overcome the neurotic need for absolutes, precision, predictability, certainty, accuracy, simplicity, and literalness. Surprisingly we have found that everything comes into sharper focus when we look at it in its naked reality.
Whatever it is that disturbs us about Christianity, I suspect that if we analyzed our feelings and thoughts, we would find our dissatisfactions are rooted in a dislike for the God that Christians tell us we must either believe in or else go to hell. Most of the time that seems to be all they care about–getting everyone into heaven. This blog quarrels with the conventional picture of God. In its place, it offers, for your consideration, a quite different perspective. Any time we shift our perspective on anything, we see it differently. We need to see God from a new perspective.
Most of our problems began because we had been around people who knew everything about God and wanted us to hear and accept their take on God. We have been unimpressed. These folks have been offensive, often obnoxious. We couldn’t believe that with their ugliness of spirit they had the nerve to claim they were messengers of good news. Little wonder we supposed their God was just as offensive. When Harry Emerson Fosdick was pastor of the Riverside Baptist Church in New York City, somebody occasionally would come to tell him they didn’t believe in God. He always asked them to tell him about this God they didn’t believe in. After they described their objections to God, Fosdick would respond, "I don’t believe in that God either."
If it is possible to talk about a believable and attractive God, what can be known about him? What would he look like? Actually, we can know quite a bit. lf we stick close to the story the Bible tells, we can know much about God, even though we are still dealing with a subject admittedly too heavy for us to ever quite get a handle on. This biblical God clearly can’t be handled or fully comprehended, but we can learn a lot about him. Some of it will surprise us. All of it may cause us to have second thoughts.
When it comes to the God question, the Bible doesn’t give us a clear and simple answer, but that has never kept folks from claiming to have found one. The solutions offered by religious people commonly misrepresent and oversimplify the God that emerges when we do that rare thing–with clear eyes, read the entire book, paying attention to what it actually says. God, as the Bible tells its story–which comprises a whole series of short stories–is complex. He doesn’t always behave the same way. Sometimes he resembles a terrorist, a freedom fighter, a force to establish justice, an artist, a loving father, mother, nurse, protector, a shepherd who keeps his eye on the least, the last, and the lost sheep of the flock. God is complicated.
Although people claim that Christianity is a monotheistic religion–belief in only one God-it is hard to find that idea validated on the pages of the Bible. Here is God the Creator, later to be known as God the Father Almighty. Then, here is God the Son, sent from the Father. We watch what this Son does, hear what is said about him, and realize the Bible believes that he is God. And then we find the Spirit, the Holy Spirit, who descends on Jesus from the Father, and whom Jesus will one day send to teach all about himself. Again, when we listen to the witness of these documents, this Holy Spirit is God. Yet when we’ve read this exceedingly long, composite account that tells us something of God’s history, it clearly testifies to a single and supreme God. A person could get lost in the complexity of it all.
We’ve differed in the ways we’ve reacted to our dissatisfaction with the church and its God. Some of us have challenged the truth and validity of the Christian faith. Some left, gave up on the whole thing, walked away and never looked back. Others left and have been trying out other ways to satisfy their spiritual needs; they took leave with regret; they’re still longing for something they left behind, but they’re not about to go back looking for it. Maybe it’s just nostalgia but sometimes when they hear someone singing a bit of some Christian song or they walk past a church on Sunday morning, they sense that something of who they are is missing. Usually they dismiss the feeling as the nostalgia that it probably is. Still, they know that something is missing.
And me? I’ve stayed. A lot of us have stayed. We’ve stayed because we’ve found no other place to go. We’ve stayed because, somehow, we still believe that the real thing is here hiding somewhere in the status quo. A bunch of us who are still in the church feel almost just like you do, but uncomfortable as it is, we’ve stuck around. We’ve hung on because we couldn’t see any real option. We are still part of the church because we continue believing that no matter how bad the kitchen smells, it’s the only room that can provide us with nourishment. We stay on and keep looking for ways to change the way the church thinks and operates.
We know that, most often, the church stinks. Like Denise Giardina says, there’s a lot of mean Christians that "don’t love nobody but Jesus." Churches are overloaded with mean Christians who more often than not talk about a mean God, a God who is all in favor of war and capital punishment and beating the devil out of their children. Nevada Barr refers to the sort of Christians who use the Bible Belt to beat the fear of God into their children. And sometimes their wives. Beat the devil out of them and the fear of God into them.
They make it sound like God is all about power and control, thus they become like the God pictured in their minds. Christendom–the world of people who call themselves Christians and organize unions of power structures they call churches–smells, literally, to high heaven. But some of us endure and fight as covert insurgents, change agents, for the revolution that we believe must come. We live by faith, with hope–and hopefully, with love. Our quarrel with Christianity is an insider’s quarrel with our Christian heritage, a lover’s quarrel with the church and its doctrinal heritage.
You may find here things you’ve always either thought or suspected, but that preachers and Sunday School teachers denied. You will find ambiguity, vagueness, even contradiction, but some of us have learned that if we are to be true to the "real world," truth is shot through with ambiguity, vagueness, contradiction, and impenetrable mystery. The Bible and its portrayal of God is true to the world as it really is. Thus there is no clear, simple way for it to tell what is involved in any honest effort to follow the way of Jesus. Some of us have learned to live by faith rather than by precise absolutes and micro-managing rules. We have overcome the neurotic need for absolutes, precision, predictability, certainty, accuracy, simplicity, and literalness. Surprisingly we have found that everything comes into sharper focus when we look at it in its naked reality.
Whatever it is that disturbs us about Christianity, I suspect that if we analyzed our feelings and thoughts, we would find our dissatisfactions are rooted in a dislike for the God that Christians tell us we must either believe in or else go to hell. Most of the time that seems to be all they care about–getting everyone into heaven. This blog quarrels with the conventional picture of God. In its place, it offers, for your consideration, a quite different perspective. Any time we shift our perspective on anything, we see it differently. We need to see God from a new perspective.
Most of our problems began because we had been around people who knew everything about God and wanted us to hear and accept their take on God. We have been unimpressed. These folks have been offensive, often obnoxious. We couldn’t believe that with their ugliness of spirit they had the nerve to claim they were messengers of good news. Little wonder we supposed their God was just as offensive. When Harry Emerson Fosdick was pastor of the Riverside Baptist Church in New York City, somebody occasionally would come to tell him they didn’t believe in God. He always asked them to tell him about this God they didn’t believe in. After they described their objections to God, Fosdick would respond, "I don’t believe in that God either."
If it is possible to talk about a believable and attractive God, what can be known about him? What would he look like? Actually, we can know quite a bit. lf we stick close to the story the Bible tells, we can know much about God, even though we are still dealing with a subject admittedly too heavy for us to ever quite get a handle on. This biblical God clearly can’t be handled or fully comprehended, but we can learn a lot about him. Some of it will surprise us. All of it may cause us to have second thoughts.
When it comes to the God question, the Bible doesn’t give us a clear and simple answer, but that has never kept folks from claiming to have found one. The solutions offered by religious people commonly misrepresent and oversimplify the God that emerges when we do that rare thing–with clear eyes, read the entire book, paying attention to what it actually says. God, as the Bible tells its story–which comprises a whole series of short stories–is complex. He doesn’t always behave the same way. Sometimes he resembles a terrorist, a freedom fighter, a force to establish justice, an artist, a loving father, mother, nurse, protector, a shepherd who keeps his eye on the least, the last, and the lost sheep of the flock. God is complicated.
Although people claim that Christianity is a monotheistic religion–belief in only one God-it is hard to find that idea validated on the pages of the Bible. Here is God the Creator, later to be known as God the Father Almighty. Then, here is God the Son, sent from the Father. We watch what this Son does, hear what is said about him, and realize the Bible believes that he is God. And then we find the Spirit, the Holy Spirit, who descends on Jesus from the Father, and whom Jesus will one day send to teach all about himself. Again, when we listen to the witness of these documents, this Holy Spirit is God. Yet when we’ve read this exceedingly long, composite account that tells us something of God’s history, it clearly testifies to a single and supreme God. A person could get lost in the complexity of it all.
Saturday, December 23, 2006
I am an angry Christian. I am angry at God’s misrepresentatives, and their misrepresentations of the Christian religion. From these misrepresentatives, the majority of listeners and readers gain a misleading understanding of who God is and what God is like.
If you are offended by this opening paragraph, let me make a beginning of explaining where I am coming from.
I’ve often gotten trouble because I can be so stubborn, but I have a reputation as someone who doesn’t seem to get angry; anger is not how I live, not who I am. But I have a right to what anger I express in this blog (you may relax; anger is not going to be the dominant word or tone of the blog).
From the pulpit I once heard a preacher say, "Nothing can be done in anger that couldn’t be done better without anger." Maybe Jesus could have cleansed the temple more efficiently if he had not acted in anger? Read or reread Galatians; Paul, while dictating this little book, was angry almost to the point of rage. Look at how often the scriptures inform us of God’s anger. Could God have accomplished more, would the world operate more harmoniously if God never acted in anger? I don’t think so.
True, it is dangerous when anger rules action, but when anger motivates and drives needed action, it is an important energizer.I am angry at Christians for systematically misrepresenting God, just as you and I both would be angry with some who radically misrepresented the one we love dearest. God is not a tyrant exercising power in cruel, oppressive and arbitrary ways. Yet this is the vision of God vast numbers have picked up in their childhood church experiences.
Read the biographies of the most noted entertainers and writers of the 20th Century and observe how regularly this view of God and his representatives on earth is the picture of God that has haunted them across the years since they escaped the regular reminders of his wrath. I am angry because of all those who have been run off without ever seeing God as he is revealed in the biblical story. A re-vision of the biblical God is needed. We are going to take another look at the Bible. This blog furnishes a sketch that is more faithful, that emerges from a re-view of the story
The portrayal of God’s character that I will sketch is not dependent on certain specific biblical texts, although there are many that paint the same picture explicitly. The fabric of most Christian sermons, Sunday School lessons, doctrinal statements, and defenses of the faith have been woven with the threads of many single, specific Bible verses, often disconnected from any context or setting. That method will not be used here. Rather, we will view the Bible as a whole and see what God looks like in the big picture. We are going to back off and look again, re-view at the central character in the story, then trace some of the defining features that emerge from the resultant revision of the way we view the divine character.
Small wonder that people criticize, mock, or just plain ignore Christianity. God himself repeatedly warned that if his people didn’t do right, they would make God’s name to become a joke and a mockery to the outsiders. When the times came that their actions made others turn God’s name into a byword, God told his spokesmen such as Jeremiah, Amos, and Ezekiel of his anger with them. In his fury, he allowed God’s own main team, his covenant community, to be mocked and treated like dirt.
There are things up with which God will not put; his anger is most commonly directed at the people who claim that they are God’s people. When they misrepresent him, he rejects them as his representatives. Just remember who it was that often received the fierce anger of Jesus. I am irritated with preachers, particularly evangelicals–I am one--Sunday School teachers, professional theologians–I am one--in other words, with the majority of those who across the centuries, have taught and spoken for Christianity.
Keeping my temper fairly well in check, I have been an active member of the church for most of my life. I remain so. I love God. The church is an essential part of my habitat. Some of my favorite people are professional theologians. I know some first-rate, for real, churches and individual Christians, but on the other hand I know more of the other kind.
In childhood it was mere confusion; through adolescence and early adulthood it became more of a recurrent uneasiness with what I heard at church.
Then in the process of acquiring three advanced degrees from a theological seminary, the anger emerged and came into focus. I still preach often, am active in my local church, and have recently retired after more than thirty years as a happy and respected teacher of Christian Studies in a small Baptist university.
Now that you are aware of what drives the writing of this blog, keep your critical mind alert. You may well wonder where someone got the audacity to write such a blog. I have tried carefully to be fair to Christians; I readily acknowledge that much of what this blog says does not accurately describe many Christians and churches. I am quite aware that I could be wrong in my basic criticisms and in the new perspective I propose. But I don’t think so.
Judge for yourself, using your own experience, good reasoning, the Bible, and common sense as criteria for making your judgment.
To help you decide whether to continue following this blog, I offer a clue. When in months to come, the blog has covered all I intend, it can be summed up in two sentences:
God is love, and
all his commandments are contained in the law of love, and
love is a relationship.
All else is support, clarification, detail, form.
If you are offended by this opening paragraph, let me make a beginning of explaining where I am coming from.
I’ve often gotten trouble because I can be so stubborn, but I have a reputation as someone who doesn’t seem to get angry; anger is not how I live, not who I am. But I have a right to what anger I express in this blog (you may relax; anger is not going to be the dominant word or tone of the blog).
From the pulpit I once heard a preacher say, "Nothing can be done in anger that couldn’t be done better without anger." Maybe Jesus could have cleansed the temple more efficiently if he had not acted in anger? Read or reread Galatians; Paul, while dictating this little book, was angry almost to the point of rage. Look at how often the scriptures inform us of God’s anger. Could God have accomplished more, would the world operate more harmoniously if God never acted in anger? I don’t think so.
True, it is dangerous when anger rules action, but when anger motivates and drives needed action, it is an important energizer.I am angry at Christians for systematically misrepresenting God, just as you and I both would be angry with some who radically misrepresented the one we love dearest. God is not a tyrant exercising power in cruel, oppressive and arbitrary ways. Yet this is the vision of God vast numbers have picked up in their childhood church experiences.
Read the biographies of the most noted entertainers and writers of the 20th Century and observe how regularly this view of God and his representatives on earth is the picture of God that has haunted them across the years since they escaped the regular reminders of his wrath. I am angry because of all those who have been run off without ever seeing God as he is revealed in the biblical story. A re-vision of the biblical God is needed. We are going to take another look at the Bible. This blog furnishes a sketch that is more faithful, that emerges from a re-view of the story
The portrayal of God’s character that I will sketch is not dependent on certain specific biblical texts, although there are many that paint the same picture explicitly. The fabric of most Christian sermons, Sunday School lessons, doctrinal statements, and defenses of the faith have been woven with the threads of many single, specific Bible verses, often disconnected from any context or setting. That method will not be used here. Rather, we will view the Bible as a whole and see what God looks like in the big picture. We are going to back off and look again, re-view at the central character in the story, then trace some of the defining features that emerge from the resultant revision of the way we view the divine character.
Small wonder that people criticize, mock, or just plain ignore Christianity. God himself repeatedly warned that if his people didn’t do right, they would make God’s name to become a joke and a mockery to the outsiders. When the times came that their actions made others turn God’s name into a byword, God told his spokesmen such as Jeremiah, Amos, and Ezekiel of his anger with them. In his fury, he allowed God’s own main team, his covenant community, to be mocked and treated like dirt.
There are things up with which God will not put; his anger is most commonly directed at the people who claim that they are God’s people. When they misrepresent him, he rejects them as his representatives. Just remember who it was that often received the fierce anger of Jesus. I am irritated with preachers, particularly evangelicals–I am one--Sunday School teachers, professional theologians–I am one--in other words, with the majority of those who across the centuries, have taught and spoken for Christianity.
Keeping my temper fairly well in check, I have been an active member of the church for most of my life. I remain so. I love God. The church is an essential part of my habitat. Some of my favorite people are professional theologians. I know some first-rate, for real, churches and individual Christians, but on the other hand I know more of the other kind.
In childhood it was mere confusion; through adolescence and early adulthood it became more of a recurrent uneasiness with what I heard at church.
Then in the process of acquiring three advanced degrees from a theological seminary, the anger emerged and came into focus. I still preach often, am active in my local church, and have recently retired after more than thirty years as a happy and respected teacher of Christian Studies in a small Baptist university.
Now that you are aware of what drives the writing of this blog, keep your critical mind alert. You may well wonder where someone got the audacity to write such a blog. I have tried carefully to be fair to Christians; I readily acknowledge that much of what this blog says does not accurately describe many Christians and churches. I am quite aware that I could be wrong in my basic criticisms and in the new perspective I propose. But I don’t think so.
Judge for yourself, using your own experience, good reasoning, the Bible, and common sense as criteria for making your judgment.
To help you decide whether to continue following this blog, I offer a clue. When in months to come, the blog has covered all I intend, it can be summed up in two sentences:
God is love, and
all his commandments are contained in the law of love, and
love is a relationship.
All else is support, clarification, detail, form.
Monday, December 18, 2006
In a dictionary, "absolute" and "relative" are defined, appropriately, in several conventional ways. In a good dictionary, you will find the basic definitions that I stipulate. From a close study of the previous etymological post, you should realize that my definitions are completely in keep with the original meanings and usages of these words. Please don’t try to read the words in my posts with you own, or the commonly accepted meaning. They are not wrong, nor is mine remote from them.
Here is how I use the words:
"Absolute," by definition: Completely removed from any connection, relation, link, or dependency on anything else, thus, completely (not absolutely) separate from everything.
There are no absolutes, except as a construct in the human mind. Nothing is related to nothing; every entity is related to other entities. Even God, the Christian God, the trinitarian God, is not absolute. The Father relates to and is dependent on the Son; the Father relates to and depends on the Spirit. The Son relates to and is dependent on the Father; the Son relates to and is dependent on the Spirit. The Spirit relates to and is dependent on the Son; the Spirit relates to and is dependent on the Father. Christianity is incorrectly categorized as one of the great monotheistic religions of the world. It is in a category of its own: trinitarian monotheism. God is, within God, relative: Father, Son, Spirit in eternal relation. God is, by his revealed character, relate-I’ve, relational (Love). The one God is the Divine Society.
The God of eternal love–Son, Spirit, Father in eternal relation–cannot be absolute. To affirm the absoluteness of God is to commit, perhaps, the greatest heresy of all time.
Whether you agree with me or not, please let me know if you misunderstand me.
[The goal of good writing is not that one should write such that readers would understand them; rather, they should write such that they cannot be misunderstood. Again, please help me by responding if what I write is not clear to you.]
"Relative," by definition: related to, involved with, linked to, connected of one entity with some entity other than itself. Relative also means, because in some way connected, thus in some way dependent on: situation in time, space, character, responses, and actions of others, immediate context, the kind and extent of the linkage. At least some of these, perhaps all, and probably much, much more.
We have much more to explore, as we have time, interest, and energy to do so. I’m going to keep on at it as long as I can. I see no prospect of running out of aspects of life that have not already been thoroughly explored.
Here is how I use the words:
"Absolute," by definition: Completely removed from any connection, relation, link, or dependency on anything else, thus, completely (not absolutely) separate from everything.
There are no absolutes, except as a construct in the human mind. Nothing is related to nothing; every entity is related to other entities. Even God, the Christian God, the trinitarian God, is not absolute. The Father relates to and is dependent on the Son; the Father relates to and depends on the Spirit. The Son relates to and is dependent on the Father; the Son relates to and is dependent on the Spirit. The Spirit relates to and is dependent on the Son; the Spirit relates to and is dependent on the Father. Christianity is incorrectly categorized as one of the great monotheistic religions of the world. It is in a category of its own: trinitarian monotheism. God is, within God, relative: Father, Son, Spirit in eternal relation. God is, by his revealed character, relate-I’ve, relational (Love). The one God is the Divine Society.
The God of eternal love–Son, Spirit, Father in eternal relation–cannot be absolute. To affirm the absoluteness of God is to commit, perhaps, the greatest heresy of all time.
Whether you agree with me or not, please let me know if you misunderstand me.
[The goal of good writing is not that one should write such that readers would understand them; rather, they should write such that they cannot be misunderstood. Again, please help me by responding if what I write is not clear to you.]
"Relative," by definition: related to, involved with, linked to, connected of one entity with some entity other than itself. Relative also means, because in some way connected, thus in some way dependent on: situation in time, space, character, responses, and actions of others, immediate context, the kind and extent of the linkage. At least some of these, perhaps all, and probably much, much more.
We have much more to explore, as we have time, interest, and energy to do so. I’m going to keep on at it as long as I can. I see no prospect of running out of aspects of life that have not already been thoroughly explored.
Saturday, December 16, 2006
You might want to think on the word studies of "Absolute" and "Relative" that follow below. I hope tomorrow to justify and clarify the way I understand these words, and how I will use them in this blog.
c.1374, from M.Fr. absolut, from L. absolutus, pp. of absolvere "to set free, make separate" (see absolve). Most of the current senses were in L. Sense evolution is from "detached, disengaged," thus "perfect, pure." Meaning "despotic" (1612) is from notion of "absolute in position;" hence absolutism, 1753 in theology, 1830 in politics, first used by Gen. Perronet Thompson. Absolutely as an Amer.Eng. colloquial emphatic is first recorded 1892.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1)
viewed independently; not comparative or relative; ultimate; intrinsic: absolute knowledge.
characterizing the phonological form of a word or phrase occurring by itself, not influenced by surrounding forms, as not in is not (as opposed to isn't), or will in they will (as opposed to they'll). Compare sandhi.
Mathematics. (of an inequality) indicating that the expression is true for all values of the variable, as x2 + 1 > 0 for all real numbers x; unconditional. Compare conditional
something that is independent of some or all relations.
[Origin: 1350–1400; ME <>solve http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=solvehttp://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=solve
c.1440, "to disperse, dissipate, loosen," from L. solvere "to loosen, dissolve, untie," from PIE *se-lu-, from reflexive pronoun *swe- + base *leu- "to loosen, divide, cut apart" (cf. Gk. lyein "to loosen, release, untie," O.E. -leosan "to lose," leas "loose;" see lose).
abstracthttp://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=abstracthttp://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=abstract
1387, from L. abstractus "drawn away," pp. of abstrahere, from ab(s)- "away" + trahere "draw" (see tract (1)). Meaning "withdrawn or separated from material objects or practical matters" is from 1557;
abnormal http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=abnormalhttp://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=abnormal
1835, replaced older anormal and abnormous (1742) under infl. of L. abnormis "deviating from a rule," from ab- "off, away from" + norma "rule" (see norm). The older forms were via O.Fr. anormal (13c.), from M.L. anormalos, from Gk. anomalos, from an- "not" + homalos, from homos "same." The Gk. word influenced in L. by association with norma.
aberration http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=aberrationhttp://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=aberration
1594, "a wandering, straying," from L. aberrationem, from aberrare "go astray," from ab- "away" + errare "to wander" (see err). Meaning "deviation from the normal type" first attested 1846.
abdicate http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=abdicatehttp://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=abdicate
1541, "to disown, disinherit (children)," from L. abdicatus, pp. of abdicare "disown, disinherit" (specifically abdicare magistratu "renounce office"), from ab- "away" + dicare "proclaim," from stem of dicere "to speak, to say" (see diction). Meaning "divest oneself of office" first recorded 1618.
_________________________________________
relative (n.) http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=relativehttp://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=relative
1388, "a relative pronoun," from O.Fr. relatif (13c.), from L.L. relativus "having reference or relation," from L. relatus, pp. of referre "to refer." Meaning "person in the same family" first recorded 1657; the adj. is attested from 1530. Relatively "in relation to something else" is recorded from 1561. Relativism in philosophy first recorded 1865 (relativist is from 1863).
relate http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=relatehttp://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=relate
1530, "to recount, tell," from L. relatus, used as pp. of referre (see refer), from re- "back, again" + latus (see oblate (n.)). Meaning "to establish a relation between" is from 1771. Sense of "to feel connected or sympathetic to" is attested from 1950, originally in psychology jargon. Related in the sense of "connected by blood or marriage" is from 1702.
c.1374, from M.Fr. absolut, from L. absolutus, pp. of absolvere "to set free, make separate" (see absolve). Most of the current senses were in L. Sense evolution is from "detached, disengaged," thus "perfect, pure." Meaning "despotic" (1612) is from notion of "absolute in position;" hence absolutism, 1753 in theology, 1830 in politics, first used by Gen. Perronet Thompson. Absolutely as an Amer.Eng. colloquial emphatic is first recorded 1892.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1)
viewed independently; not comparative or relative; ultimate; intrinsic: absolute knowledge.
characterizing the phonological form of a word or phrase occurring by itself, not influenced by surrounding forms, as not in is not (as opposed to isn't), or will in they will (as opposed to they'll). Compare sandhi.
Mathematics. (of an inequality) indicating that the expression is true for all values of the variable, as x2 + 1 > 0 for all real numbers x; unconditional. Compare conditional
something that is independent of some or all relations.
[Origin: 1350–1400; ME <>solve http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=solvehttp://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=solve
c.1440, "to disperse, dissipate, loosen," from L. solvere "to loosen, dissolve, untie," from PIE *se-lu-, from reflexive pronoun *swe- + base *leu- "to loosen, divide, cut apart" (cf. Gk. lyein "to loosen, release, untie," O.E. -leosan "to lose," leas "loose;" see lose).
abstracthttp://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=abstracthttp://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=abstract
1387, from L. abstractus "drawn away," pp. of abstrahere, from ab(s)- "away" + trahere "draw" (see tract (1)). Meaning "withdrawn or separated from material objects or practical matters" is from 1557;
abnormal http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=abnormalhttp://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=abnormal
1835, replaced older anormal and abnormous (1742) under infl. of L. abnormis "deviating from a rule," from ab- "off, away from" + norma "rule" (see norm). The older forms were via O.Fr. anormal (13c.), from M.L. anormalos, from Gk. anomalos, from an- "not" + homalos, from homos "same." The Gk. word influenced in L. by association with norma.
aberration http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=aberrationhttp://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=aberration
1594, "a wandering, straying," from L. aberrationem, from aberrare "go astray," from ab- "away" + errare "to wander" (see err). Meaning "deviation from the normal type" first attested 1846.
abdicate http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=abdicatehttp://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=abdicate
1541, "to disown, disinherit (children)," from L. abdicatus, pp. of abdicare "disown, disinherit" (specifically abdicare magistratu "renounce office"), from ab- "away" + dicare "proclaim," from stem of dicere "to speak, to say" (see diction). Meaning "divest oneself of office" first recorded 1618.
_________________________________________
relative (n.) http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=relativehttp://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=relative
1388, "a relative pronoun," from O.Fr. relatif (13c.), from L.L. relativus "having reference or relation," from L. relatus, pp. of referre "to refer." Meaning "person in the same family" first recorded 1657; the adj. is attested from 1530. Relatively "in relation to something else" is recorded from 1561. Relativism in philosophy first recorded 1865 (relativist is from 1863).
relate http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=relatehttp://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=relate
1530, "to recount, tell," from L. relatus, used as pp. of referre (see refer), from re- "back, again" + latus (see oblate (n.)). Meaning "to establish a relation between" is from 1771. Sense of "to feel connected or sympathetic to" is attested from 1950, originally in psychology jargon. Related in the sense of "connected by blood or marriage" is from 1702.
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
God Changes His Mind
The Holy Father told Jonah to inform Ninevah of God’s word: "Yet forty days and Ninevah shall perish." Yet forty days passed, forty-one, then more, and Ninevah did not perish. God changed his mind or else he had Jonah deliver a message that was not factually accurate. God changed his mind because Ninevah repented.
Often, what God does depends on what we do, how we respond to him. Surely it is obvious in I Samuel 8 that God does not want Israel to have any king but him. But the people repeatedly cried for a king, so God told Samuel to anoint Saul, the son of Kish, king. God appears to listen responsively to his people. God and Israel–his covenant community–participate in some kind of interactive relationship.
We’ll look into this much more fully on down the road, but for now consider the logic of the previous paragraph. If God changes his mind, then in some very real sense, God changes. If at times God acts in response to his people, then what God does, depends to a degree, on what they do. If we don’t read into the Bible our traditional–Greek philosophy influenced–belief that God is immutable, the text tells us over and again that the living God can and does change. No fickleness, but change; change, but always trustworthy.
If there are times when God’s actions depend on whether we obey or reject, then God sometimes depends on us, is dependent on us. Here is no philosophical "unmoved mover. Rather, like with a good parent, God’s love expresses itself according to the continually changing need. Much depends on us, yet God remains the Creator and we the creature; God the master, we the servant.
If God has a plan, it clearly is subject to revision. If it had been part of his plan that Adam and Eve would yield to the serpent’s temptation, he would not have punished them because it would have been part of his plan. In the days of Noah, things were not working out the way God wanted them to go, so he initiated a new plan for Noah. Later, God planned for a covenant people, governed by God, to bring blessing to the whole earth. But the people wanted to be governed by a king, so God revised his plan and named Saul their king. Saul didn’t work out; revision again became necessary. David was God’s choice. Then Solomon was God’s choice to succeed David. Solomon didn’t work out. Revision time again.
Repeatedly God’s covenant people undermined, subverted, and sabotaged God’s plan, so God revised his original covenant and promised a new and different kind of covenant, one accomplished through Jesus Christ. God keeps his eye on things, is amazingly adaptable, and is prepared at any time to make any necessary revisions to accomplish his purpose. The way is not a straight line, cannot be foreseen in its entirety, but God’s purpose will be realized, accomplished, completed.
If Jesus had such a thing as an agenda for any particular day, that plan often was revised as he saw the crowds and had compassion on them. Once he crossed the lake, intending a time of needed retreat. However, the throng quickly marched to the other side and swarmed him when he came ashore, so he spent the day teaching them. Often it was individual need that turned Jesus from his planned activity to act compassionately. Once again, in an attempt at retreat from the crowds, he left the Jewish world for the Canaanite, Syro-Phoenician region where he was accosted by a foreign woman who persistently begged for his time, attention, love, and healing power. Jesus seemed reluctant to change his plans, but her unrelenting appeal of faith brought about a revised course of action–and perhaps even a revision of attitude (attitude adjustment?) on Jesus’ part.
God’s way can be barricaded, detours set up, but whatever the obstacle, God cannot be blocked. He has infinite ways of going around, under over, or sometimes even right through the obstructions. God cannot be defeated; he cannot fail; he will prevail. He can be trusted, depended on. Whatever adjustments must be made, God can be counted on to succeed in accomplishing his purpose.
Sunday, September 17, 2006
God is relative, and everything is relative to God. But not only is God relative to us, and we relative to him, God is also relative from before the foundation of the whole creation.
Christianity has ordinarily been understood as one of the monotheistic religions, but monotheism is not adequate term for the God of the Christian religion. This "category" that we "place" God in is too broad a term. Christianity is more particularly a "trinitarian monotheism."
Christianity has ordinarily been understood as one of the monotheistic religions, but monotheism is not adequate term for the God of the Christian religion. This "category" that we "place" God in is too broad a term. Christianity is more particularly a "trinitarian monotheism."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
