Last post, I tried to tackle the goodness of God as one of two assumptions for the basis of my argument in favor of a relational plurality within the unity of God. Today I would like to address the other assumption: that human beings are made in the image of God.
This is perhaps more difficult without relying upon revelatory sources for drawing such a conclusion. I do believe, however, that there are three naturally discernible universalities which strongly infer that human beings are creatures who bear the imprint of the Divine nature in a representational manner.
First, human beings have with some variation affirmed anthropic characteristics in the divinities they have worshiped. In both polytheistic and monotheistic influenced cultures, we find deities which to various degrees take on human form, engage in human types of interaction, and are interacted with in an analogous way as one would with another human being (and vice versa is claimed as well). Whether, an ancient Hebrew invokes the curse of a "jealous" God upon his enemies, or a Hindu bows before a very human looking icon of Shiva; whether, an Aztec craftsman creates a grotesque relief of a deity with an animal's head upon a human body, or a neo-pagan in Iceland calls upon Thor--a god who can die just like any mortal person--we see an innate drive to identify humanity and divinity very closely.
Can this simply be a human tendency to anthropomorphize? It could, were this an isolated feature and no other dynamics were at work. However, there are at least two more tendencies to consider.
Second, there seems to be an unabated desire in human beings to connect with "the other" or "the holy." Typically, this manifests itself as prayer or worship or meditation. Somehow, human beings are driven to make genuine contact with something greater than oneself. Even in atheistic or nontheistic worldviews, there is a constant search for enlightenment and a pursuit of wonders which are in some respect greater than human capacities and understanding. There is an innate sense in humans that there must be something more and greater than what is seen or experienced, and we want to become intimate in some way with this "other" thing. St. Augustine would likely classify it as a God-shaped hole in the human heart, but whether one accepts this classification, one cannot escape the universality of this desire.
This desire, being universal, indicates it is part of the creative purpose of God. God wanted human beings to reach out beyond themselves. God created us to do that very thing. This does not ensure we are successful at it, nor does it preclude other desires from interfering with or superseding our longing for God. We can misinterpret what the desire is, or suppress it. But it is there nonetheless.
Since we have this desire from God to be in contact with him, it should help us realize that God desires some sort of communion with us. However, God can only have genuine communion with something like himself. Because we a still creatures and God is the creator, we cannot in our creatureliness alone truly be able to interact with God. In fact, we likely would not have such a desire for contact with God, or "the holy," or enlightenment if we were simply of the same nature as other creatures. A dog may desire to be with her human master, but there is a similarity in our creaturely status shared with the dog that spurs in the dog her desire. Therefore, humanity must possess something of the nature of God within it. Otherwise, we would not have the desire we have.
Third, human beings are moral creatures. C.S. Lewis refers to the shared sense of morals and ethics across cultures as the "tao." Roman Catholics would regard this as natural theology. Some have attempted to disparage any innate morality in humanity, making it simply an evolutionary or cultural construct. But we cannot get away from the fact that humans still beleive some things are right and some things are wrong when it comes to behavior. Murder may be defined more narrowly by a group of cannibals than a Western lawyer, but no cannibal would ever eat anyone from his own tribe. Adultery, even though it has been taken lightly in modern America, still hurts. Children are expected to listen and learn from their parents in every society. We cannot escape such moral strictures. They serve as absolutes to keep us from veering into destructive patterns of behavior.
The universality of moral desire, of the desire for palpable intercourse with the other, and the manner in which divinity has manifested itself in anthropic ways serve as strong signs that we are in some way like God. Humanity must bear a likeness to God, especially in ways which are universal. We can infer such from these natural occurrences, but likely would not have done so without the aid of revelation. Many, perhaps most, human beings do not necessarily come to the conclusion that they are like God in some way without being taught via a claimed revelatory text. Yet, these three arguably primal universal behaviors in humanity suggest the distinct possibility of our being created in God's image. And it is just such a God, one who would make me like him enough to interact with me, that draws from me both thanks and adoration.
7/25/2007
What Kind of God is Worth It? (part 4)
In part 3, I argued for the necessity of a plurality in unity due to the relational nature of God based upon the propositions that 1) God is good, and 2) God made human beings in His image. However, is it possible that God is not good? Or is it possible that human beings are not created in God's image? Today, I only want to touch on the first question.
Let us consider whether or not God is good. Human beings of all cultures have a sense of good and evil. How each is defined may vary, but we each have those categories consistently expressed. They are universal categories and can potentially be attributed to God. Is it proper to do so?
First, let us consider the difference between good and evil. Dualism is the belief that good and evil are polar opposites, two equal and opposite forces. We find this in ideas such as yin/yang (in which good and evil, like all other opposites, ebb and flow, neutralizing in a seeking of balance) or Manicheism (which saw the two in a pitched battle, hoping for yet never certain of good's eventual triumph). However, if they are equal opposites, what is to say which should be "winner," so to speak? Why do humans almost consistently affirm good over evil? If they are equal opposites, the very ideas of good and evil are left without moral force. They would be merely preferences--hardly any different than saying, "I prefer my coffee black," instead of "I'll take cream and sugar, please."
The conflicts around good versus evil among humans come from weighing the relative value of goodness of certain things, sometimes done errantly. A murderer enjoys killing. Pleasure is a good. Wanton killing is not. But the murderer in his twisted logic weighs the relative good of his pleasure over the good of another person's continuation of life. So we see that good still remains in some way, even though an evil act may occur. However, in the absence of an evil act, the good is seen that much more, and no evil is present. In other words, good is a force superior to evil, making evil derivative. Evil does not "exist" as a force so much is a manifestation of the misappropriation of good things for misguided ends. Evil then is the intent to promote an imbalanced sense of goodness for the sake of a preferred good.
How does this apply to God? We can say that God isn't evil, since evil is derivative, whereas God, by definition, is the source, original. That leaves goodness as being inherent in God's nature.
But what if God is neutral? What if good is created, but not necessarily part of what God is? The ramifications are critical. A neutral God would be neither good nor evil. In such a God, the two things would simply cease to exist. However, they would, once again be relegated to a place of preference.
But the way evil and good interact, in that evil is dependent upon good, implies a formal precedence of good over evil. That means goodness is not dependent, nor does it demonstrate in its nature that it could be. And in any definition of God, that which is foundational must be found within the nature of God. In platonic terms, God is the primary form from which all things are derivative. Therefore, since goodness is foundational, it must be by default part of the nature of God. Thus, God is good. I am more than happy to worship a God who is good.
Let us consider whether or not God is good. Human beings of all cultures have a sense of good and evil. How each is defined may vary, but we each have those categories consistently expressed. They are universal categories and can potentially be attributed to God. Is it proper to do so?
First, let us consider the difference between good and evil. Dualism is the belief that good and evil are polar opposites, two equal and opposite forces. We find this in ideas such as yin/yang (in which good and evil, like all other opposites, ebb and flow, neutralizing in a seeking of balance) or Manicheism (which saw the two in a pitched battle, hoping for yet never certain of good's eventual triumph). However, if they are equal opposites, what is to say which should be "winner," so to speak? Why do humans almost consistently affirm good over evil? If they are equal opposites, the very ideas of good and evil are left without moral force. They would be merely preferences--hardly any different than saying, "I prefer my coffee black," instead of "I'll take cream and sugar, please."
The conflicts around good versus evil among humans come from weighing the relative value of goodness of certain things, sometimes done errantly. A murderer enjoys killing. Pleasure is a good. Wanton killing is not. But the murderer in his twisted logic weighs the relative good of his pleasure over the good of another person's continuation of life. So we see that good still remains in some way, even though an evil act may occur. However, in the absence of an evil act, the good is seen that much more, and no evil is present. In other words, good is a force superior to evil, making evil derivative. Evil does not "exist" as a force so much is a manifestation of the misappropriation of good things for misguided ends. Evil then is the intent to promote an imbalanced sense of goodness for the sake of a preferred good.
How does this apply to God? We can say that God isn't evil, since evil is derivative, whereas God, by definition, is the source, original. That leaves goodness as being inherent in God's nature.
But what if God is neutral? What if good is created, but not necessarily part of what God is? The ramifications are critical. A neutral God would be neither good nor evil. In such a God, the two things would simply cease to exist. However, they would, once again be relegated to a place of preference.
But the way evil and good interact, in that evil is dependent upon good, implies a formal precedence of good over evil. That means goodness is not dependent, nor does it demonstrate in its nature that it could be. And in any definition of God, that which is foundational must be found within the nature of God. In platonic terms, God is the primary form from which all things are derivative. Therefore, since goodness is foundational, it must be by default part of the nature of God. Thus, God is good. I am more than happy to worship a God who is good.
7/18/2007
What Kind of God Is Worth It? (part 3)
Another issue that the debate over Jesus' divinity brings up is the subject of the Trinity. First off, let's dispel the Muslim misinformation of what the Trinity is. The Trinity has nothing to to do with the Virgin Mary. It has been and always will be a reference to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as being co-equal, co-eternal "persons" of the Divine Unity of God. The Trinity has also been misunderstood to mean 1+1+1=1 (logically fallacious) or 1/3+1/3+1/3=1 (doctrinally fallacious). Jesus isn't .333 of God, which is a fine batting average, but a poor percentage of the Divine nature. Likewise, the "personhood" of the individual members of the Trinity is qualitatively different than when speaking of God as a "person," thus the mathematical objections fall. This is not the space today to explore the mystery of what "persons" means, but we must keep in mind that the formal delineations of the Trinity are meant to define the observed scriptural boundaries of, not explain the full substance of, the nature of God.
However, can we determine the need for some sort of plurality within the nature of God outside of revelation? I believe it is possible. If we accept that we are creatures made in the image of God and that God is good, then it can be reasonably postulated that the good things we see in humanity are reflective of some aspect of the inherent being of God. For example, we are creative (though we cannot create something out of nothing like God); God creates; thus, the correlation between God and his image in humanity demonstrates that creativity is as much a part of God's nature as human nature.
So let's look at this in the realm of relationships. Human beings are relational. Relationality is good. Therefore, as beings in the image of God, we can deduce that God, too, is relational. However, relationality implies plurality. So what? Someone may argue that the reason for creation is to meet this relational urge in God. But then that makes God dependent upon something outside of himself, which leads down a slippery slope which ultimately makes God no more superior to his creatures, which makes such a God no God at all. By definition, God is self-sufficient. Therefore, God must in some sense be "plural." This lays pre-revelation groundwork for the doctrine of Trinity nascent in revelation and formally codified by the Church.
So either God is radically monistic and non-relational, or God is a unity expressed in a plural nature. Let's consider what would happen if God is radically monistic and non-relational. The image of God in humanity would not include relational aspects at all. Thus, any claims of revelatory literature or authorities (e.g. the Bible, Quran, traditions, councils) regarding anything governs human relations would be either 1) human words ascribed to God (lies), or 2) human words mistaken to be from God (deceits). If the communications regarding human interactions were indeed genuine, they would necessitate a God that has a relational interest in humanity.
Is it possible that a non-relational God would have a relational interest in humanity? If so, then such a God would develop means of communication and pronouncements reflective of such. In other words, God would not use relational language in reference to himself. He would not use covenants, relational imagery, emotional language, or even laws to communicate with us. Additionally, what would be communicated from such a God would be ways by which our relational ways as humans might be curtailed, purged, or otherwise stifled. What we see in the record of claimed revelations from God is a God who prizes relationships and seeks to improve human relational interactions with both himself and with one another. If not (if a non-relational God has no relational interest in humanity), then all claims formerly seen as Divine that have ultimate positive bearing upon anything relational must summarily be regarded as inauthentic. A relational God alone has the right and the inclination to communicate with us relationally and make demands upon our relationality that enhance our relational interaction with God and others.
Because the image of God in humanity and the revelatory record bear witness to a relational God, the proper conclusion is that God is in some way plural yet a Divine unity. Therefore, I argue that a radically monistic non-relational God is an idol not worthy of our emulation, devotion, or recognition. Only a relational dynamically plural yet one God is worth it.
However, can we determine the need for some sort of plurality within the nature of God outside of revelation? I believe it is possible. If we accept that we are creatures made in the image of God and that God is good, then it can be reasonably postulated that the good things we see in humanity are reflective of some aspect of the inherent being of God. For example, we are creative (though we cannot create something out of nothing like God); God creates; thus, the correlation between God and his image in humanity demonstrates that creativity is as much a part of God's nature as human nature.
So let's look at this in the realm of relationships. Human beings are relational. Relationality is good. Therefore, as beings in the image of God, we can deduce that God, too, is relational. However, relationality implies plurality. So what? Someone may argue that the reason for creation is to meet this relational urge in God. But then that makes God dependent upon something outside of himself, which leads down a slippery slope which ultimately makes God no more superior to his creatures, which makes such a God no God at all. By definition, God is self-sufficient. Therefore, God must in some sense be "plural." This lays pre-revelation groundwork for the doctrine of Trinity nascent in revelation and formally codified by the Church.
So either God is radically monistic and non-relational, or God is a unity expressed in a plural nature. Let's consider what would happen if God is radically monistic and non-relational. The image of God in humanity would not include relational aspects at all. Thus, any claims of revelatory literature or authorities (e.g. the Bible, Quran, traditions, councils) regarding anything governs human relations would be either 1) human words ascribed to God (lies), or 2) human words mistaken to be from God (deceits). If the communications regarding human interactions were indeed genuine, they would necessitate a God that has a relational interest in humanity.
Is it possible that a non-relational God would have a relational interest in humanity? If so, then such a God would develop means of communication and pronouncements reflective of such. In other words, God would not use relational language in reference to himself. He would not use covenants, relational imagery, emotional language, or even laws to communicate with us. Additionally, what would be communicated from such a God would be ways by which our relational ways as humans might be curtailed, purged, or otherwise stifled. What we see in the record of claimed revelations from God is a God who prizes relationships and seeks to improve human relational interactions with both himself and with one another. If not (if a non-relational God has no relational interest in humanity), then all claims formerly seen as Divine that have ultimate positive bearing upon anything relational must summarily be regarded as inauthentic. A relational God alone has the right and the inclination to communicate with us relationally and make demands upon our relationality that enhance our relational interaction with God and others.
Because the image of God in humanity and the revelatory record bear witness to a relational God, the proper conclusion is that God is in some way plural yet a Divine unity. Therefore, I argue that a radically monistic non-relational God is an idol not worthy of our emulation, devotion, or recognition. Only a relational dynamically plural yet one God is worth it.
7/17/2007
What Kind of God is Worth It? (part 2)
Recently an Episcopal priest was asked by her bishop to take a year's time out from ministry because she recently went public with her claim to be "100% Christian, 100% Muslim." The crux of the dilemma is the antithetical ways the two religions regard Jesus. Is Jesus merely a human prophet, or the Divine Son of Go--fully God and fully human? It's not like chocolate and vanilla, folks; it's more like night and day.
This has critical ramifications about the kind of God who is worthy of our worship. In fact, it could even be argued that Muslims (or any other monotheist for that matter) do not worship the same God at all! Here's why? If Jesus is indeed God in the flesh, then everyone else has a depreciated view of God and is a de facto idolater. If Jesus as the Son of God is merely some guy who claims to be God (or someone whose followers mistakenly believe claims to be God), then the Christians are the most obvious idolaters, even if they claim to be monotheists. The key is to prove or disprove the Divinity of Jesus.
To prove Jesus' Divinity, we need to answer two questions: 1) Did Jesus claim to be God? and 2) What did Jesus do to demonstrate his Divinity?
First, there is substantial enough biblical evidence to indicate Jesus did claim to be God. He did this through implications in his discourses with others, his personal description of himself, and the mission with which he identified himself. You may click here to consider this evidence.
Second, Jesus did various miracles that point to his Divinity. The key one is his resurrection from the grave. Various people have tried to deny the resurrection of Jesus, or in the case of Islam, deny Jesus ever died on the cross. Here is a site that handles most of the possibilities quite well. Here is a site that fairly comprehensively addresses Islam's objections to Jesus' actual death.
In the end, all monotheists must come to grips with the identity of Jesus because the very nature of the God we say we worship is at stake. As you ponder Jesus' own question to the Apostle Peter--"Who do you say that I am?"--I encourage you to take the words of the Christian apologist C.S. Lewis into account:
You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and call Him a demon; or you can fall at
His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come up with any patronizing nonsense
about Him being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend
to.
This has critical ramifications about the kind of God who is worthy of our worship. In fact, it could even be argued that Muslims (or any other monotheist for that matter) do not worship the same God at all! Here's why? If Jesus is indeed God in the flesh, then everyone else has a depreciated view of God and is a de facto idolater. If Jesus as the Son of God is merely some guy who claims to be God (or someone whose followers mistakenly believe claims to be God), then the Christians are the most obvious idolaters, even if they claim to be monotheists. The key is to prove or disprove the Divinity of Jesus.
To prove Jesus' Divinity, we need to answer two questions: 1) Did Jesus claim to be God? and 2) What did Jesus do to demonstrate his Divinity?
First, there is substantial enough biblical evidence to indicate Jesus did claim to be God. He did this through implications in his discourses with others, his personal description of himself, and the mission with which he identified himself. You may click here to consider this evidence.
Second, Jesus did various miracles that point to his Divinity. The key one is his resurrection from the grave. Various people have tried to deny the resurrection of Jesus, or in the case of Islam, deny Jesus ever died on the cross. Here is a site that handles most of the possibilities quite well. Here is a site that fairly comprehensively addresses Islam's objections to Jesus' actual death.
In the end, all monotheists must come to grips with the identity of Jesus because the very nature of the God we say we worship is at stake. As you ponder Jesus' own question to the Apostle Peter--"Who do you say that I am?"--I encourage you to take the words of the Christian apologist C.S. Lewis into account:
You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and call Him a demon; or you can fall at
His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come up with any patronizing nonsense
about Him being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend
to.
7/16/2007
What Kind of God Is Worth It? (part 1)
I've been thinking about fellow monotheists of late--Jews, Muslims, Deists, maybe even Zoroastrians--and contemplating the always rehashed question, "We all worship the same God, right?"
No, we don't. We have a few options. We can worship the one true God. Or we can worship the God we construct out of our own fallible and fallen imaginations (which is what most people worship, knowingly or not). Or, worse yet, we can worship a being which attempts to dupe us into believing it is God. I would even argue we can worship some degree of each, but confuse them all for the same God. And of course we almost always declare we worship the one true God, even if we concede the former points.
Who really wants to be an idolater anyway? Who wants to believe their reckoning of God is incorrect, rendering them no better than those poor Canaanites who bowed be Dagon or Asherah? Didn't they get slaughtered for their paganism or something?
We are all guilty of private idolatries, even the most theologically astute and biblically-minded. We all fall short of the glory of God. If we are going to worship God, we need to know where our conceptions of God are coming from. This is step one in finding out what kind of God is worth it--what kind of God really should be getting our love, our devotion, our service, our submission, our pursuit of His program. Any monotheist should be willing to agree to that.
No, we don't. We have a few options. We can worship the one true God. Or we can worship the God we construct out of our own fallible and fallen imaginations (which is what most people worship, knowingly or not). Or, worse yet, we can worship a being which attempts to dupe us into believing it is God. I would even argue we can worship some degree of each, but confuse them all for the same God. And of course we almost always declare we worship the one true God, even if we concede the former points.
Who really wants to be an idolater anyway? Who wants to believe their reckoning of God is incorrect, rendering them no better than those poor Canaanites who bowed be Dagon or Asherah? Didn't they get slaughtered for their paganism or something?
We are all guilty of private idolatries, even the most theologically astute and biblically-minded. We all fall short of the glory of God. If we are going to worship God, we need to know where our conceptions of God are coming from. This is step one in finding out what kind of God is worth it--what kind of God really should be getting our love, our devotion, our service, our submission, our pursuit of His program. Any monotheist should be willing to agree to that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)