Friday, July 27, 2007

In this blog, “God Is Relative,” I am quarreling with the church, and with its historical self-understanding and development. But realize, please, that this is a lover’s quarrel. In spite of my anger and disappointment, I am not going to abandon the church; I’ve never considered that

My feelings about the church are ambivalent. It is one of the places I am most comfortable; it is one of the places I feel most uncomfortable. I feel at home in church. I am part of this family. I am part of this very dysfunctional family. I am staying, but I understand quite well why many others choose to leave, or having visited, choose not to return.

I intend two things in this blog: First, to speak to those who grew up in church, but left and have no intention of returning, those who grew up in church but miss it and wish it were different, and those who have stayed in the church but are uncomfortable about it. I am also writing for those who have no church background, except enough to bore or anger them, but who know that something is missing from their life, something neither science nor “stuff” can satisfy.

My second intention is to call on the church to reconsider what they believe and teach about God. The church routinely misrepresents God, thereby furnishing many with a good reason to abandon and/or ignore church and church people. This dysfunctional “family of God” needs family counseling, needs it badly. I am attempting to make some small contribution to get church folk to consider seeking such counsel. It is available.
____________

Someone recently told me that I am, in fact, writing more to folks who are an active part of the church, rather than to that large population that has no active relationship to the church and is not interested. If so, I am failing in what I set out to do. I am an active member of both groups, and am attempting to address both.

I am attempting, in this series of blogs, to present an alternative understanding of the Christian God, and of the changes this might bring about. I am writing nothing original. Many others, addressing different elements of this need, are speaking, writing, and leading toward a different future for Christian understanding and action.
_________________

I was surprised when, recently I realized that what I am attempting is frighteningly close to the same thing that Jesus was doing. An uneasy place to be. A place that possibly could be arrogant or naive. Near the beginning of the story of Jesus we are told that he “came saying: ‘repent and believe the good news of the Kingdom of God.’” Who am I, I asked myself, to be attempting the same thing? Nonetheless, I think it fits.

Please stay with me as I get a bit academic about words and ideas. I promise not to stay there long.

Let’s take that one word at a time, beginning with “repent,” a word that is commonly misunderstood. Shuv is the major word in the Hebrew Old Testament translated as, “repent,” This word has the very simple literal meaning, “turn.” This includes left turn, right turn, turn around, turn back, turn aside, or any other usage of the word. It refers to a change of direction, whether literal or figurative, physical or mental, intentional or emotional. That is all.

Metanoeo is the major word in the Greek New Testament translated as, “repent,” This word is derived from the Greek preposition, meta, and the noun, nous.

“Meta,” depending on its context, can be translated as: among, with, after, afterward, behind. “Nous” is the Greek word for the mind, reason, thought. It comes from the verb, ginosko. Note the “no” shared by the verb and the noun. Note also, in English, that “knowledge,” and “know,” share the same “no.”

When combined as meta-noeo (repent), and used in the New Testament, it takes from nous the idea of how we think, what we think, the way we understand reality. From meta, it takes on the common time-related sense of “after.”

To repent is to change the direction of our thought–shuv–from the way we previously have understood reality, from the previous major premise of our reasoning, and now, after thinking one way for perhaps most of our life, to adopt a new mind. In a major way, to have a “second thought,” an “afterthought.” To repent is to rethink reality, and adopt–and therefore live by--the new understanding.

Thus, when, on several occasions in the Old Testament, God is,said to repent, it is telling us that God had taken some action or had spoken some intention, but then turned, changed his mind, had second thoughts. As a result, he changed either his actions or his attitude. Both reflect change--of some sort–taking place within God. They indicate both that God is affected by human conduct and that God has affections, an emotional life.

This repentance on God’s part challenges the traditional ideas that God is incapable of, cannot, does not,change. More particularly, it challenges the idea that God is unaffected emotionally by anything. Stated more positively, it indicates that the biblical God is indeed a “living” God, an involved God, and a God who cares.

Paul Tillich believed that everyone believed in God, that whatever our “ultimate concern” is is our God. One fellow, in resonse to Tillich’s definition, said, “My ultimate concern is whether “The Ultimate” is concerned with me.” The divine repentance is one indication of God’s involvement and concern.

The traditional Christian understanding of God sees him as absolute, all-powerful, unchangeable, unaffected by anything, and all-knowing. (Although they would, and will, cry out in horror, the fact is that the common understanding of the Christian God makes it hard to distinguish God from a tyrant). This blog is an argument that this way of thinking about God needs to change.

We need to repent, to rethink, to reconsider the entire biblical story and its stories, and to see what God is and does.

“Repent and believe the good news of the Kingdom of God.” Belief is not a religious word. It is a word that shapes all aspects of human life. We live by what we believe to be true. We act on the basis of what we believe, what we are convinced of, what we are convicted of. We all put our faith in something. We all trust something, some things, principles, persons.

To repent means that on the basis of a new mind, a new understanding, we change the focus of our belief, our faith, our trust, and thus, the basis and direction of all our thought and action. Repentance and faith are two sides of one coin.

On one occasion when Alexander the Great was quite sick, his doctor–and good friend--brought a potion for him to drink. However, Alexander received a note from one of his advisors, saying that the doctor had poisoned his medicine. Acting contrary to conventional wisdom, Alexander--believing, trusting, having faith in his friend–unhesitatingly drank the medicine, thanked the doctor, and got well.

We never repent if we still believe the old way is the one to be trusted. We repent only if somehow we come to believe the old is wrong, and/or that another is the better way.

[My next post will continue this rephrased and expanded statement of what I am about in these writings. Thus far, I’ve spoken only of “repent and believe,” and must deal also with “the good news of the kingdom of God.]

No comments: