Dialog with a Christian, Part II

Who is this God Person, Anyway?

(with apologies to the late Douglas Adams)

If you’re just joining this discussion, here’s the deal: Another blogger, Bridget Jones Goes to Seminary, (a/k/a Meg) and I have been having a dialog about matters of faith. She’s a Christian, I’m not. I'm a Unitarian Universalist, she's not. We both attend different seminaries called "CTS." Our aim is not to convert each other, but to try to understand. I’ve learned a heck of a lot, and can only hope I haven’t bored her to tears…

It didn’t take Meg and me long to get to one of the fundamental questions about religion: God. This is pretty long, you may want to go get a cup of tea. I’ll wait…

In one of my first emails to Meg I wrote, in response to a question about the Apostles’ Creed:

I think it's the height of hubris to believe that some supernatural deity created the world and all on it for the benefit of humanity, much less to believe that this deity would care about each separate human creature. “God the Father” is simply not in my religious vocabulary. And I can't pretty it up by saying "God the Father/Mother" because that still leaves me with a personal deity acting like a puppet master out there somewhere. The natural world and universe seem to contain enough wonder and mystery, and occasions of grace, to suffice. To me, this is holy, this is sacred, we all carry a spark of the divine and the potential to be saviors.

At which point, Meg took me to task:

“For me, this statement is counter-intuitive. Isn't it the height of hubris to claim divinity for oneself? Isn't it pride that would make someone think they are capable of saving themselves? Also, from what would you say the human person must be saved? If there is a supernatural deity, who are we to tell this God what God can and cannot do, even in relation to us?”

Good questions, I had to think about that for awhile. Had I claimed divinity for myself? Part of my answer to Meg was: “I make no personal claim to being divine - only to carrying a spark of divinity - not the whole magilla. Another UU suggested once that God is the nickname most people use for the transcendent spirit. I don't normally use the word "God" because - for me - that word is too loaded with preconceived notions. I have respect for folks who do use the word, and I don't think it's just a nickname.” (But I will use the word here, because, after all, it’s the topic under discussion!)

I think I’m on pretty good ground here, even most Christians believe that we are created in the image of the divine. A neat quote attributed to the current president of the seminary I attend is something to the effect that the image of the divine is reflected in diversity. In other words, there is no single image: “God” is all races, all genders, all abilities, all ages, etc. What I observe, though, is that this belief that we’re made in God’s image implies the reverse for many of us: that God is like humans. When I think of this anthropomorphized deity, I think of all the art I’ve seen portraying an all-too-European looking Jesus and God the Father as a white-haired & bearded European looking man on a throne in the sky. Even the newer art – the androgynous, multi-racial portrayals of the same divine figures – still focuses on a human-like “God.” Hmmm, maybe a little claiming of divinity has already taken place – and not by me.

But what about another part of her question:

“If there is a supernatural deity, who are we to tell this God what God can and cannot do, even in relation to us?”

I had to agree here. If there is a supernatural deity, perhaps it’s not our job to tell her/him what s/he can/not do. The problem is, I personally don’t believe in that supernatural deity. In philosophy of religion classes I learned that even God is bound by logic, because that is the only way God makes sense. My systematic theology professor admitted that much of theology is putting God in a box in order to be able to understand God. I suspect that whatever most people call God is limited by the limits of human imagination. It's simply not helpful to me to imagine a supernatural deity that has created a planet for the convenience of humanity.

I did ask Meg why she believed, and her response was (in part):

“When I look at the world, I cannot see it as a place which exists for its own sake. There are portions of the Himalayas and the Amazon which no person, perhaps even no creature has ever seen. I could believe that the vistas and majesty go to waste or else I could believe in a Creator God who delights over it all. The beauty in the world makes more sense if there is, in fact, a God who delights in it and teaches us to do the same.”

And here is the rub: Many UUs also like to talk about the splendor of the interconnected web of all existence, and how the beauty of the world reinforces this feeling of transcendence in their faith. But -- as one of my professors asked -- what about the spiders in the web? What about the terrible destruction wreaked by typhoons, tornadoes, and ice storms? What about poisonous plants and animals? What, dear heaven, about the pesky mosquito?! Or kudzu? Do these suggest a transcendent deity?

I really don’t mean to be flip – this is a serious flaw in both theologies, I think. We like to look at the good bits, the bits we like and feel all warm and fuzzy about, like my cuddly cats, and call that evidence of the divine. We look at the bits we don’t like, that make us feel afraid or uncomfortable, like Hurricane Katrina, and call that evil. If “God” made it all – why is some good and some evil? My personal feeling is that nature is morally neutral – the tsunami is no more evil than the gentle rain, it just has a greater impact on us humans, therefore we call it evil and destructive. In fact, both are part of a normal cycle of weather and the ongoing creativity of the world. Truth is, I see an awesome, terrible beauty in what is frequently seen as natural evil. The exploding volcano unleashes destruction – but new creation follows in the wake of the destruction. I'm still mulling this over, but I think this is about enough for now.

Until next time...