Wednesday, May 19, 2010

World Religions Final Part Two

Views of God 
What I now see this dispute boiling down to is a fundamental disagreement on the nature of God. There are at least two different concepts for thinking about God, and both are found in the Bible and the Christian tradition. The first conceptualizes God as a supernatural being “out there” and separate from the world. This being created the world a long time ago and who may from time to time intervene within it, but largely is absent. This doesn’t keep God from demanding conformity and adherence to the Law passed down in the holy writ. In important sense this God is far and distant from our shores, is unchanging and can be fully known and experienced directly but only if the belief is correct and mediated by some hierarchy or holy writ or tradition. This is the God of Supernatural Theism. It is widespread within the Christian tradition and found also in Judaism and Islam, and could it be the majority thought of those who think about God (both believers and non). Some accept the existence of such a being, and some reject it but it is the notion of God as a supernatural being “out there” that is being accepted or rejected. I think that this first notion of God is nice, and served us well but belief in this style of God must be done away with as it cannot serve and only brings harm. It is Biblical yes, but not all of the Bible presents this vision of God. This idea of God is what I hear when conservatives speak. Deconverts from the faith, atheists and agnostics, who I’ve talked to state this model as the type of God they don’t believe in… and neither to I.

The second concept of God in the Christian tradition is quite different. God is the encompassing’ Spirit: we and everything’ that is be in God. God is not “out there” separate from the universe but rather; God is a nonmaterial layer or level or dimension of reality all around us. God is more than the universe yet the universe is in God. This is the concept of God called “panentheism.” God’s self-revelation is given and received in an earthly, worldly, human way. God is never directly present to us in self-revelation, and no one ever had a direct, personal relationship with God. God comes to us and we can know God only indirectly. It is in this indirect way that we come to know and enter into a personal relationship with God. God’s being is so different from our humanity, yet God is in us and through us, so all that we see and all that we are all parts of God yet God is bigger than the sum of all. We also know that people yearn to see God’s face and have some irrefutable evidence, like Moses and even the disciples of Christ, but “No one can see My face and live” God says to Moses and Jesus says “If you have seen me, you have seen my Father.”

Panentheism implies that God is not just close, but in and through everything. We are a part of God, yet God is still separate. God is with us and daily bears our burdens and yet is transcendent. God is with us and in us, in our midst when we pray alone with the doors shut or when two or more are gathered. There is no line between sacred and secular just like at the end of the Gospel of Mark where the curtain is torn in the temple, signifying a God which can’t be boxed, can’t be contained, and in and through all of creation. Therefore I affirm the omnipresence of God, but not the omnipotence of God. I think omnipotence of God was a bad move made in the 14th century by medieval theologians. This raises all sorts of pointless questions like “Can God create a rock so big God can’t lift it?” Instead, I prefer to view God as “omnipotentiality.” This view can be found in Exodus 3:14, right when Moses asks God for God’s name and gets the reply of “YHWH.” This has many possible meanings and for me, they are all true. YHWH could mean “I AM HE WHO IS", “HE WHO CAUSES TO BE,”"I AM WHO AM" or "I AM WHAT I AM" or “I will be what I will become.”

In Exodus 31, Moses asks to see the face of God. God tells Moses to crawl into a cave and God will put ‘his’ hand over the opening and Moses will be able to “See my behind.” This is a literal translation of the Hebrew. A deeper translation would be, “you will see where I was.” Not even Moses could see God in the present. This is a God we get only glimpses of. These highly personal encounters are still filled with mystery and, although we may experience God’s love, justice, spirit, or forgiveness directly, we should never take it for the totality of God.

Communities of God 
Community is a big deal in both Testaments and in all of the world religions we studied this semester. Religions seek to answer the question “how then shall we live?” and each comes up with a different answer as they also define a different problem that spawns that question. Christianity sees that humans have fallen out of relationship with God and need to change it while Buddhism sees the problem as suffering caused by desire from grasping at a world that isn’t there. Taoists see people who are out of tune with their own natures and Islam sees humanity as not being in submission with the will of God. All of these are plausible answers, and depending on how one’s community views life and the problems associated with it, they will use different language to articulate this. I note how each religion never comes out and states that the fundamental problem with the world is that everyone is not like us. It is nowhere in the founding documents or speeches of various religious movements. Islam comes the closest with talk of putting infidels to the sword but they have grace with the “people of the book.” There is a difference between missional and imperial. But what happens when people don’t adopt your faith? What happens when religions come into conflict?

Many Christians, like the mega-church, seek to save people from the fires of hell and feel they do so out of love. However, many of their actions are imperial, which is the very notion I view Jesus as fighting against. Jesus fought against the imperial actions of the Roman Empire as well as a more localized system which dehumanized its own members, namely the Temple System. What I view Jesus teaching primarily, is that there is no such thing as a personal relationship with God without a personal relationship with our fellow human beings.

The driving force behind Christian colonialism is John 14:6. This verse is interpreted as: "I am the (only) way, the (only) truth, and the (only) life, no one (absolutely no one) comes to the Father/God, except through me (by believing specific beliefs that are Christian ).” I liked what we learned in class, that through a panentheistic and Trinitarian view, this verse becomes:
"God is the way, the truth and the life, no one gets to God except through God."

Jesus isn't calling for these sheep to change shepherds; he is trying to get us to recognize that the human family is one flock, with one shepherd. What he is NOT saying is "different strokes for different folks" nor is he saying "anyone can worship the god of one's choice, it's all good, no matter what." Which faiths? They aren't identified. We may surmise that faiths that truly follow the one Shepherd actively promote the love of God, neighbor, and self as Jesus did. Jesus also states that people shouldn't worry about what path others are on. He demonstrates time and time again throughout the Gospels for his disciples to concentrate on walking their own path and offering hospitality to those they meet on along the way. The Good Samaritan parable is the core here image here with answering the question of “who is my neighbor?” with a big and surprising “EVERYONE!”

So given this, it is naive for a practitioner of any faith to claim that theirs is the only "true" path. Religions do this to garner power over those too fearful to think in this way. Now there is a difference between best path for a person to take, so long as this claim is on an individual level or at the very most a tribal level. Becoming deeply rooted in the tradition of the tribe, one is then able to act in a more universal way, as they have a strong sense of identity and are not threatened by other beliefs outside their experience. It is also my hope that these people investigate other religions and not just for the sake of putting their own faith above it or gathering apologetic fodder. There's no shame in this and in fact it leads to a better understanding of our fellow persons. My childhood priest was a Jesuit and stated that one of the best ways you can know your faith is to encounter another. We can see how our faith takes a unique approach to problems and how these intersect, conflict with, or can even be informed by another faith.

10 comments:

Anglican Boy said...

"The driving force behind Christian colonialism is John 14:6. This verse is interpreted as: "I am the (only) way, the (only) truth, and the (only) life, no one (absolutely no one) comes to the Father/God, except through me (by believing specific beliefs that are Christian ).” I liked what we learned in class, that through a panentheistic and Trinitarian view, this verse becomes: "God is the way, the truth and the life, no one gets to God except through God."

This absolutely blew my mind. That is fantastic! Thanks!

Sabio Lantz said...

Luke, overall I loved the universalist import of your message. I hope it stays strong and keeps influencing those with whom you fellowship. Two points:

God is with us and daily bears our burdens and yet is transcendent.
-Luke


So, what would the world be like if there was not a god "bearing our burdens". I think it would look, feel and act just like this one.

We may surmise that faiths that truly follow the one Shepherd actively promote the love of God, neighbor, and self as Jesus did. Jesus
-Luke


Now you are trying to distill. Neither Buddhism nor Taoism promote the love of God. So they must be out of the loop. Just as I don't promote love of God. Perhaps you want to rephrase -- but then your readers were Seminary profs.

Luke said...

AB: glad you liked it.

Sabio: Yael had a great exegetical post on Psalm 68 that was a footnote in the paper that i didn't include for brevity's sake. you say the world would look the same without God doing this and i say "how do you know?" since there is a God and that's why the world looks the way it does. chicken and egg argument.

"Neither Buddhism nor Taoism promote the love of God."

good point, see today's post esp. the first three sentences under All We Have Is Metaphor, as i thought ahead about that objection. and yes, i'm trying to distill, everyone who blogs is trying to distill, you distilled Avalos' book and you're own journey. writing is a distillation of our experience, it is not a substitute. the question is how accurate is the distillation: you seem to say "not very" on my every post. yet to me, if you're loving others and yourself, then you're loving God. too simple, too colonial, too "get your hands off my atheism?" prolly, but that's where i stand and what makes me resist making you stand where i am.

Sabio Lantz said...

@ Luke

(1) So, I have an image what the world would look like with a caring, intervening, all-present god. And I have an image of a world without such a god. This world looks like the later to me. I admit, of course, they are both presuppositions.

So, you think this world is what a world would look like with that type of god, but what do you imagine this world would look like without your god?

(2) Sorry, I didn't understand your last paragraph -- especially the last 4 sentences.

Luke said...

"what do you imagine this world would look like without your god?"

largely a formless void that is complete chaos. you nor i nor anyone else or anything else would be around to observe it.

as per the last paragraph you said "Now you are trying to distill." which i took as a negative critique. i then stated that writing is a distillation of experience, so i don't get it. what reinforced this observation was the next line which was critical as well which stated "Neither Buddhism nor Taoism promote the love of God." which i then answered that if you're loving others and yourself, then by default IMO, you're loving God. i then thought about the objections you may have about this stance and stated "it's where i stand and what makes me resist making you stand where i am."

hope that clarifies.

Sabio Lantz said...

Concerning imagining a world without your god:

(1) I am trying to figure out how much intervening your god does. Could our god just be a deist god -- created and everything keeps looking like this?

(2) Let's say your god stopped existing today, then you see the universe melting into chaos, right?

(3) The simple question is trying to figure out if your god plays more of a role that what we see energy and matter etc doing? Is it interfering in people's fates, decisions ect ...

Sabio Lantz said...

Ahhhh, forget the last comment. Old stuff. No reason for us to go over it. Again, I am trying to show that those of us who could imagine a world without a god which is still as rich and full as this one.

Luke said...

Sabio: "I am trying to figure out how much intervening your god does."

you and me both! God, IMO, is not a deist, not completely transcendent but here with us. yet not a puppet master either... i should post on it for one of my final posts; a before seminary/after seminary belief.

"Again, I am trying to show that those of us who could imagine a world without a god which is still as rich and full as this one."

i'm not denying that it isn't. all i'm saying is that it's not my narrative, my experience, or how i see the world. i'm happy it works for you. for me, it makes no sense.

Sabio Lantz said...

Luke RAWKS !

Hey Luke (is that better? smile),

(1) Yeah, it is clear that both the OT and NT story tellers believe in a highly intervening deity as did many religions of that time. Fundamentalists somehow still hold that everything is the same -- which you find as odd as I do. You seem to hold a version of Christianity that says that Jesus, being God, spoke to people in their language and used their metaphors and thus talked about a highly intervening god that it seems even you don't buy. (Nor do I) Or at least that is my understanding of your position. AND, you are honest enough to say you are wrestling with it. I know you believe in a God that intervenes to the extent that He is inspirational and comforting. Does that sound accurate to date. -- For I know that you are always changing (like myself) and these thoughts (like mine) could be different in two years from now. Smile.

(2) Your use of the word "narrative" inspires me to write a post on it. "Narrative" theology is relatively new -- though of course those who use it as a metaphor would say it is ancient and only clouded by modernism. Anyway, it is a convenient term for many liberal Christians I have met on-line and relatively new to me since my Wheaton days. So I find it interesting and am learning stuff from it. I actually just finished a book by Smith of "Whose Afraid of Post-Modernism".

But I must say, there is something about the "narrative" narrative that is just a little to tiding for me. Hard to put in words, so I may do a post. But I will give it a shot below:

I wrote "Atheism: an Epiphenomena" to illustrate how my atheism is really not definitive in a meaningful way. You value (if I understand correctly -- help me if I don't)Bible stories and your tradition to help you form stories (narratives) of an intervening god in your head which help you in your life.

You contrasts your "narrative" to my "narrative" and said mine "makes no sense" to you. But I don't have an "Atheist Narrative". I have lots of narratives in my life -- tons. As many as I have experiences. I have TV shows, the Mahabharata, the Bible, Science fiction and lots of other stuff in there too. They are a big mumbo-jumbo. My mind connects all these in vastly complex webs. I think we all do that. But I don't have a primary atheist narrative to inform my experience.

So I don't think the comparison is accurate. If you stopped believing or valuing the Bible, I think you would still have "a narrative" that would keep you floating just fine. It is this "narrative" that mixes with your Bible narratives which makes you uniquely "Luke". My contention is that the former is much more accurately described as your narrative and the later is smaller than you imagine. As the years go on and you are a preacher, they will, by necessity blend and become indistinguishable, of course.

Luke said...

I think I agree. the Bible is part of the narrative, same with the tradition, and without it i would still float. but it's a part of me, just as your trips around Asia are a part of you and our minds interconnect and such in vastly complex ways. the difference is, i think you are more accurate in your distillation of it than i am. i'm still just throwing stuff up on the wall and seeing what sticks to some extent.