Tag Archives: God

Process theology part 2 – attributes of God

God has been given many different attributes as humans wrestle with ways to understand and explain who God is. Several of the most common attributes have been:

  • Impassibility – cannot experience emotions such as pain, suffering etc.
  • Immutability – changeless
  • Omnipresence -present everywhere
  • Omniscience – all-knowing
  • Omnipotence – all-powerful

god

Process theologians argue that these attributes have been falsely given or at least wrongly defined, and that this has led to a grave misunderstanding about God’s interaction with the world and why evil exists. In this post I will explore each of these attributes very briefly from a process theological perspective. (Since omnipotence is the most difficult attribute to see differently, and the attribute that most informs how one answers the problem of evil, I will attempt to explain why process theologians argue that omnipotence is a false attribute while dealing with the problem of evil in the next post.)

Impassibility:

In classical theology God “is not subject to suffering, pain, or the ebb and flow of involuntary passions.”[1] As I shared in the last post (part 1), at the very foundation of process philosophy is the belief that all of reality is relational, and because all reality is relational, God must also be relational. By definition a relational entity must be able to affect and be affected by others.[2] Central to Christian theology is the idea that God has incarnated Godself in Jesus who suffered and was crucified on a cross. In other words, God suffers in Jesus who hangs upon a cross. How could one suffer and not be changed? It is impossible. Process theologians deny the impassibility of God and instead see God as one who not only affects, but is also affected by others.

Immutability:

Immutability is the belief that God cannot change.[3] Early Christian theologians – influenced heavily by Greek philosophy – believed that God’s perfection must mean that God cannot change. Process theologians argue that God does indeed change because God, like everything else in the cosmos, is relational (see previous post on more concerning this). In essence, God is not the “unmoved mover,” but the “most moved mover.”

Omnipresence:

Omnipresence is an attribute that both process theologians and traditional theologians agree upon. Process theology may differ slightly in that process theology often leads to panentheism. Panentheism is not to be confused with pantheism, and is not exclusive to process theologians as some non-process theologians would also consider themselves panentheists. Pantheists believe that “all things together are God” while Panentheists believe that “all things are in God.”[4] Process theologians tend to view the entire cosmos as part of God, though God is not limited to any one part of the cosmos. In a process perspective the interconnectedness of all things is central, and this includes God’s interconnectedness to all of creation.[5]

Omniscience:

Omniscience, or all knowing, has been traditionally interpreted to mean that God knows everything past, present, and future.[6] Omniscience is an attribute that process theologians tend to keep, but they redefine this (similar to open theists, but with slight variations). Many have understood God to be outside of time. One way to understand this is to think of God as viewing time like we read a book. God can turn the pages from past, present, or future as God looks on from beyond. Process theologians agree with traditional theology in that God knows the past completely and the present perfectly as it unfolds, but differs in that they believe even God cannot yet know the future.[7] Since actualities (e.g., humans) have some self-determining power and are partially self-creative, the future is not yet determined and thus cannot be known as determined.[8] In this regard, process theologians believe that God’s knowledge is omniscient in that it is perfect knowledge – full knowledge of all that can be known including complete knowledge of the past and present, and full knowledge of all future possibilities. One process thinker explains this by writing, “if God has perfect knowledge of the world and of me, God will know exactly what all of the possibilities are and how probable they are. But even with perfect knowledge God could not know what I will choose in the future because that choice has not yet been made and it is a real choice.”[9] Process theologians argue that if God knows the future as determined than real freedom would be impossible.[10] Hartshorne summarizes this by writing, “future events, events that have not yet happened, are not there to be known.”[11]

Next post I will explore the attribute of omnipotence and the problem of evil from a process perspective.

 

 

[1] “Impassibility of God,” Theopedia, accessed June 9, 2016. http://www.theopedia.com/Impassibility_of_God

[2] Ibid., 30.

[3] “Immutability of God,” Theopedia, accessed June 9, 2014. http://www.theopedia.com/Immutability_of_God

[4] C. Robert Mesle, Process Theology: A Basic Introduction (St. Louis: Chalice Press, 1993), 137.

[5] John B. Cobb, Jr. and David Ray Griffin, Process Theology: An Introductory Exposition (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1976), 52.

[6] “Omniscience of God,” Theopedia, accessed June 9, 2014. http://www.theopedia.com/Omniscience_of_God

[7] Cobb, Jr. and Griffin, Process Theology, 52.

[8] Ibid., 52.

[9] Mesle, Process Theology, 37.

[10] Ibid., 37.

[11] Charles Hartshorne, Omnipotence and other Theological Mistakes (New York: State University, 1984), 39.

Process theology part I

Process thought begins with the understanding that everything in the world is relational and changes – nothing stays the same. Eastern wisdom traditions tend to focus much more upon the impermanence of all things, and perhaps there is something there we in the west, can learn from.

Since everything is relational (which I take to also mean interconnected) then everything that happens is influenced by something and the results affect everything else. Every choice we make affects others, some choices, e.g. decided to strap a bomb on our back and detonate it, have a greater affect upon others.

If we start our discussion on process theology (sometimes referred to as process-relational theology) here, where it makes sense to most people, then it is easier to understand how process theology builds upon this at it seeks to understand God. God is affected by others choices and thus God changes. Many religious people may be quick to reject this idea because the idea of the changlessness of God has been such a huge part of our embedded theology.

Biblically, we can find many places where God changes. Probably the clearest example is when God is discussing with Abraham the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 18. But there are others places. For example, after Moses came down from the mountain with the Ten Commandments, the people had build a golden calf and God became so angry that he said he would consume them. After Moses stood up for the people, we read, “the Lord changed his mind about the disaster that he planned to bring on his people” (Ex 32v14). We read of a similar time where Moses influenced God to change God’s mind toward the people in Numbers 14. Clearly, God does in fact change and perhaps we have more influenced upon this than we realize.

intro-to-process-theology-evil-14-728

What I find to be the most compelling part of all this is the idea that everything is relational and influenced by each other. Our environment is influenced by the decisions of ourselves and others. Our families are shaped by the decisions of those within and those outside. Once we begin to understand the relatedness (or interconnectedness) of all things, then we begin to see Reality in a whole new way!

 

 

 

 

The God of Jesus

Who is the God of Jesus?

Unfortunately many view God as a monarchical ruler, but Jesus understood God as Abba – the Aramaic word for father. When a person explores what Jesus meant by Abba, it becomes apparent that it is a vastly different picture of God than many have today.

Theologian John Cobb writes, “But a very important difference between Jesus and the Hebrew Scriptures of his time was the shift from monarchical language to family relations.”[1]

Let us try to understand what Jesus had in mind when he used the word Abba. While the Christian Scriptures were primarily written in Greek, many believe that Jesus spoke primarily Aramaic and Abba was most likely the word that Jesus himself used when he referred to God. Cobb suggests that Abba is baby talk.[2] It is difficult to be certain of this, but if correct, a more accurate translation may be that of “daddy.” What is most important in understanding Jesus’ use of the word Abba, is that “The normal relation of the father to the infant is one of tenderness and unconditional love. It was unconditional love rather than controlling power that dominated Jesus’ understanding of God.”[3] Jesus did not understand God as ruler or king and in fact never spoke of God in this way, yet it has come to dominate the consciousness of many religious people today.[4]

iStock_000002218181Small

A person’s view of God greatly shapes how they understand the central teaching of Jesus which was that the “kingdom of God” has come. If a person views God as ruler or king then this message will be understood a certain way. If a person understands God as a loving and caring parent, then this message will be understood very differently. The phrase “kingdom of God” has been translated from the Greek phrase basileia theou.[5] Since basileia is best defined as “a politically defined region,”[6] it can be interpreted differently. For example, if a person views God as a monarchical ruler or judge, then basileia would surely mean the region or area where the king ruled. In a similar way it could be seen as God’s empire. This is certainly how many interpret the phrase “kingdom of God” today. If, however, a person looks at the phrase “kingdom of God” with a view of God as a loving parent, then they will arrive at a very different understand. Cobb suggests that if God is seen as a father, then “We might describe a father’s basileia better as the family estate.”[7] Of course, this is still open to different ways of understanding depending on the type of parent who owns the estate.

We come back once again to the view of God that Jesus held. Jesus’ Abba was not a distant, angry, or demanding father who ruled with an iron fist, but was rather a loving and compassionate father who cared for the well being of all things with a particular focus upon those most vulnerable. Thus, “kingdom of God” or the of basileia theou means “the realm, or community, or commonwealth in which God’s will is done.”[8] The invitation is to become a part of that community or commonwealth right now. Two ideas surrounding this must be addressed.

First, Cobb addresses the belief of basileia theou as an eschatological reality. The “kingdom of God” or community is not something that will happen sometime in the future; rather it is a present reality. Second, if the invitation is a present reality to become a part of a community that cares for the well being of all things with a particular focus upon those most vulnerable, this brings with it a change of attitude, perspective, or way of living. This change – often referred to as repentance – is an essential part of the gospel message. Cobb summarizes the Synoptic Gospels well by stating that the heart of the message was: “reorient yourself radically; the basileia theou is at hand.”[9] The good news demands a shift, a change, or a reorientation of how a person lives so that they see with new eyes, but this shift cannot happen until a person understands God as Abba.

If the good news is an invitation to reorient our lives to enter into Abba’s commonwealth here and now, this inherently has affects on the individual as well as the community. Once a person is able to see God as a loving parent who desire’s to see them flourish (and not an angry dictator), they then cease to defend, hide, or pretend. Salvation is not simply extended by an intolerant God because of a blood sacrifice by His Son, but salvation is an invitation to enter into the healing process or to become more whole. Of course this invitation extends to all, but we must first we must experience this for ourselves.

The good news means that each person is a beloved child of God. If God is Abba, or father, then clearly that means we are His children. Cobb addresses the struggle of non-gendered language when referring to God and chooses to use the male masculine pronoun, though he realizes that this is also limiting because God is also mother. Cobb suggests that not using personal pronouns tends to inhibit an understanding of a personal God. This is something I had not previously thought of, but is beginning to make some sense. I don’t have a problem using the pronoun “she” or the word “mother” when referring to God, but I also understand that it is not common or widely accepted. Thus, perhaps a male masculine pronoun may more accurately reflect an intimate parent, limiting as it may be, than refusing to use any personal pronouns.

Realizing that a person is a beloved child of God and that they cannot and do not need to do anything to “become” this is the first of two steps in the gospel message. The second step is to reorient your life according to this truth. In my opinion, the first step is the hardest and since the second is a natural overflow, I tend to focus more upon the first. Realizing that a person is a beloved child of God is the hardest step because so many religious and non religious people alike understand God as a monarchical king who demands perfection. Because none of us are perfect and we have all “sinned” the idea that God demands a payment of sorts to make up for this “flaw” is prevalent in much of Christianity. Concerning this Cobb writes, “The idea that his mission was to die to appease the wrath of Abba was as remote from Jesus as devil worship, and its effect on the Christian world since Anselm has been poisonous.”[10] Theologically this view is called penal substitutionary atonement, and I agree that it is a poisonous view that has done much harm in our world.

God, according to Jesus, was a loving, caring, and personal parent. God was close, not distant, involved not disengaged, and always works through persuasive love and never through coercive power.

[1] John Cobb, Jesus’ Abba, xx.

[2] Ibid., 5.

[3] Ibid., 5.

[4] Ibid., 1.

[5] Ibid., 2.

[6] Ibid., 2.

[7] Ibid., 2.

[8] Ibid., 16.

[9] Ibid., 16.

[10] Ibid., 23.

Convictions for life

  1. God exists and desires all things to flourish.
  2. We grow spiritually by becoming more fully human – the best test is love and compassion.
  3. Practicing non attachment to beliefs is vital.

I have been trying for some time to condense my most basic life convictions – those that are most central to my worldview – into three or four convictions. This is the result of that process.

cory

  1. God exists and desires all things to flourish.

First a word about flourishing; then a word about God.

For many, God is judgmental, angry, wrathful, tyrannical, anti (fill in the blank – gay, black, Muslim, sex, etc). The idea of God punishing a bunch of people for any of these reasons is unfathomable to me. I don’t see God as against anyone except that which restricts flourishing. Love, acceptance, tolerance, inclusion, forgiveness, mercy, justice, health, healing, wholeness, plenty of food, clean water for all, enough money for all basic necessities – these are what I believe God is for.

God.

For some, God is some being “out there” (often in heaven). Occasionally,  this God suspends natural laws and acts in supernatural ways only to go back “out there” shortly after. This view of God no longer makes sense. What about my friends whose lives have been cut drastically short? What about the holocaust? What about 9/11? What about Paris? What about mass shootings that continue to take the lives of innocent people? Is it just for God to act at some times but not others?

For me, I am comfortable with different words for God; the Universe, the Divine, Allah, Ultimate Reality, the Sacred, the Spirit or Great Spirit, the Creator, or any other attempts at capturing the ineffable Source of all life. I find Paul Tillich’s definition of God as the “Ground of all Being” to be the most helpful (it defines God enough, but leaves a ton of room for mystery). God cannot be defined, grasped, or completely understood, though that doesn’t mean God is not personable or cannot be experienced. I find comfort in the Mystery (for more about God as Mystery click here). At the same time, I try to understand God in ways that make sense to me, to my mind, and to my own experiences. It seems to me that God is beyond being, beyond male or female, and is not a being somewhere out there, but is rather the Ground of all Being – God is that Source which permeates all living things.

2. We grow spiritually by becoming more fully human – the best test is love and compassion.

We are not physical beings trying to become more spiritual, we are spiritual beings trying to become more fully human. The best way to become more fully human, I believe, is to better understand our True Self – who we actually are. Self discovery, self realization, self compassion and acceptance leads to greater love and compassion for those around us. To become awakened or enlightened means we see Reality more clearly. For me, this has been a slow process that continues to develop mainly from contemplative spirituality. One doesn’t have to be religious for this, and sometimes religion can even get in the way of this if one becomes overly concerned with the afterlife, with correct beliefs (while neglecting love and compassion), and with a constant need to label who is “in” and who is “out”.

When I encounter or read from someone who is truly, deeply spiritual, they have a ton of depth, but also a great width (acceptance/tolerance of others). This has happened no matter what religion that person is a part of or if they are religious at all.

Cultivating spirituality can take many different forms. Explore, experience, learn, grow, and find what connects you to your True Self.

3. Practicing non attachment to beliefs is vital.

I could have placed a number of things in the third conviction, but as I journey through life, I am realizing more and more the importance of non attachment. People, esp. religious people, have an unhealthy tendency to become far to attached to their beliefs or views. Unfortunately, history shows us that when people become to attached to their beliefs, they call others “heretics”, they become more rigid, dogmatic and oftentimes persecute or even kill those they don’t agree with. Buddhism does a great job at teaching non attachment.

Our beliefs matter, but they don’t matter that much.

There are more important things such as acting with love, compassion, generosity, tolerance, inclusion, and working for justice in the world. It is more important how a person lives in the world, then what religion they are or if they are religious at all. Of course, as my first two convictions reveal, I think it is best to experience this God who seems to change lives, but I don’t want to limit God’s work to involve only those who acknowledge God. I have seen far too many non religious people living a life worthy of admiration and far too many religious people struggling with bigotry, judgmentalism, self righteousness, prejudice, or hate to believe one has to be religious.

It is helpful to be reminded that our beliefs are mere fingers pointing to the moon. Our beliefs are our best attempts at pointing to Reality – it would seem wise for us to understand that: a) all of our beliefs are subjective b) they are not Reality itself, but only point to Reality as best we can. Thus, beliefs and views will change based on new experiences and insights. We will grow (hopefully), and will see things differently. We may realize the finger we once thought most accurately pointed to the moon needed to be replaced with another one that we feel is more accurate. Our beliefs matter, but more important is how we live in the world.

The goal of healthy religion is to promote the flourishing of all things by growing individuals and communities in love and compassion through connection with our True Self. 

Pre-rational, rational, and transrational – part 2

A few weeks ago I did a post on prerational, rational, and transrational here.

I have since come back to this on a regular basis  as I have continued to wrestle through a very specific question.

Why am I most attracted to a certain kind of person, thinker, author, speaker, or spiritual leader? Some are great thinkers, yet I still feel left lacking.

For me, there are people who have greatly impacted my life who I would say live in a prerational stage. These people focus on the heart (and often, unintentionally neglect the intellect). When questions or doubts are raised, they immediately go into defense mode. For these people, belief or faith is a house of cards – if you pull one card out, the entire thing collapses. As I mentioned, my life has been greatly impacted by many people in this stage and I am very thankful for their influence in my life. Many of these people are very passionate people who love God immensely.

Then there seems to be people who I would say live in the rational stage. They are open to questions and doubts and have very thoughtful answers to many of them. These people tend to embrace critical biblical scholarship, science, archeology etc. I am very thankful for those in this stage who have given me a way to be a Christian as I have moved beyond a prerational stage.

While I have and continue to be influenced by those in a rational stage, I find that those who I am most drawn to, those whom I find most life from, have something more.  So I have been asking;

What is that more?

What do they have that others don’t have?

Why, when they speak, do I feel like they are speaking to me at a deeper level than just the heart or the head – almost at a soulish level?

moving_beyond_banner

A simple answer is to say they combine both the head and the heart, but I still feel like that is lacking. Maybe it would be more accurate to say that they combine the head and the heart and yet move beyond. Somehow, in someway, they engage my heart and my head, yet unlock so much more inside of me.

Another way to say this is to use the Webster definition of transrational –  going beyond or surpassing human reason or the rational.

Those in the prerational stage are often antagonistic toward those in other stages for they see them as wrong, relativistic, heretical, liberal etc. They often say something along the lines of, “stop thinking so much and just accept it.”

Those in the rational stage are often antagonistic those in the prerational stage. They define themselves often by what they are not – they are not prerational (not necessarily always a bad thing). Getting back to my question, those who I am most drawn to are those who are not antagonistic toward others, but somehow transcend and include both the prerational and the rational stages.

As I am thankful to those in the rational stage who continue to shape me, it has left me feeling a little…how do I say it… stale?

To help clarify I can use and example drawing from the Bible. Those in the prerational stage simply accept these stories as literal, historical and factual truth. The story happened exactly as the Bible says it happened for it is the Word of God and must be accepted at face value.

The rational stage cannot except this for it engages the mind through science, archeology, common sense and experience. The story did not happen exactly as the Bible says it happened. In some ways it takes the life out of the story because it is out to prove that the stories are false, which leaves me with the question, “what then does it mean?”

The transrational stage moves through the rational, engages the mind, yet isn’t bothered by the “either/or” statements made by the other stages. The point isn’t if the story literally happened (though they have moved through the rational and understand that it may not be historically accurate), but the truth that the story conveys – it speaks to the human even if it did not literally happen.

Another example is that the prerational often sees the world as divided by the “natural” and the “supernatural”. God is seen sitting back, somewhere in the sky, and occasionally intervenes, i.e. divine intervention.

The rational draws from the intellect and see’s the world as a “natural” state. Since they do not see arms growing or the blind seeing there is not “supernatural”, only “natural”.

The transrational embraces mystery and paradox. The world is not divided into the “natural” and the “supernatural”, yet they realize not everything can be explained by our five senses. God is working, through all things and in all places, yet not in an “interventionist” sort of way, but in another, far more persuasive and evolutionary sort of way – gently pulling us forward toward more love, compassion and inclusion. In other words, the “natural” vs. “supernatural” is a false dichotomy and the transrational embraces the intellect while moving beyond just an intellectual understanding or knowing.

Those I am most drawn to seem to simply be. They choose to widen the circle and to redefine what it means to be a Christian – without the need to push anyone out. In a way, they seem to be paving a third way forward beyond two polarizing options.

To the prerational stage, the transrational seems like the rational in that it engages the head and is seen as – false, heretical, liberal etc. To the rational, the transrational seems to much like the prerational in that it seems to focus more on the heart (though the transrational does not neglect the head) and accepts that not everything can be explained by the rational mind.

In a sentence, those whom I am most drawn to are those who have moved beyond the prerational and rational, engage the heart and the head, and yet live with wonder and awe as they experience the great Mystery I call God.

What do you think? Does any of this make sense?

Is the universe benevolent?

What kind of world are we living in?

Are we living in a universe that is against us?

Is God on the edge of a throne somewhere just waiting for us to mess up so that God can smight us?

For some, God is someone to be feared.  God is a righteous and holy being who cannot stand to be around us when we mess up. This view of our world, God, and the universe affects people in very real ways.

angry-god

I have been in several conversations  where it has become clear to me that some people see God, the world, and the universe in a very different light than I do.

Now, before I even get to far into this, let me say that this view of God can be and is often defended using the Bible. But then again, so many hurtful and destructive things have been defending using the Bible so it really shouldn’t surprise us all that much. The Bible, like religion, can be helpful or hurtful. It can be used to speak life or death. The Bible, like religion, can be used to feed the ego and enhance our sense of being right or superior – it can create more boundaries of who is “in” and who is “out”.

Often, people who see God as an angry tyrant ready to destroy the “wicked” are fairly uptight themselves – after all if you have this view then you are constantly walking on egg shells – how exhausting!

I know this to be true because I lived much of my life here and can speak from experience. Everything needs to be defended and seen as a threat. The world is a terrible place and “Satan” is out to get you if you let your guard down for even a moment. This can take many forms; the Muslims are trying to take over the world, the liberals are out to get you, atheists are evil, evolution is deceiving our children etc etc.

When I am in conversations with people who see things differently – this can be concerning the LGBTQ community, evolution, science, hell, judgement, holiness, the Bible, righteousness, what salvation means, if the Christian truth is exclusive,  etc – what I have become aware of is that

beneath all of this is our view of God.

Is God benevolent or is God an angry tyrant? Does God’s holiness mean God cannot stand to be around us “sinners” – what an awful picture of God that paints – no wonder people are rejecting that god, I do to!

As I mentioned above, this is an exhausting way to live. The good news however, is that you don’t have to live this way. God, Reality, the Universe (however you define the Divine) is wholly and completely benevolent. God’s dream is for the world to flourish and God understands that you and I will make mistakes and occasionally mess up in the process.

So, it’s going to be ok. You can breath easy and don’t need to be anxious or fearful but can trust that God is working through your life, your decisions, and yes, even your mistakes.

I think God is best defined as love. Fear or anxiety do not exist in the domain of love. Where there is love, perfect and complete love, there is no fear.

Another way to say this is when one becomes fully conscious and awaken to God, they will no longer live in fear. Instead of seeing the world as a threat, one actually walks through it with eyes wide open in wonder and awe. God doesn’t need to be feared, but rather can be trusted because of God’s benevolence.

God is on your side and wants the best for you – how great is that!

Divine Mystery

So, my first post was about what I used to think the good news was. I will continue this post next week, but I wanted to share something a little less theological and more spiritual and recent (the other post was something I wrestled through several years ago but of course I continue to bump up against since many link penal substitutionary atonement as the gospel).

I have been on a faith journey. Actually, I think we are all on faith journeys (even if you’re an atheist or agnostic), but mine has taken some very unexpected twists. Like all exciting journey’s, I have found myself in unfamiliar territory – heck if it’s all familiar it’s not very fun is it?

I am taking several classes through a Hybrid MDiv program and loving them. My favorite class has been about spiritual practices and spiritual formation (i.e. meditation, centering prayer, etc). This has led me to engage in contemplative theology and experience something I cannot fully express in words.

What contemplative spirituality has taught me is that there is a way to be religious and yet remain in a dualistic either/or mindset – in fact most people have! In this lower level religion (as Richard Rohr often puts it) everything is clear because the ego demands this. Everything is easily defined, easily recognized, everything is black and white and it is clear who is “in” and who is “out”. This way of believing, often found within many different religions, only feeds the ego and the need to be right and to try to convince everyone else to think the way you do. In other words, I have the one and only key and if you want it you have to go through me to get it. Within Christianity this is most easily seen with those who feel the need to argue their way every single time they disagree – what an exhausting way to live!

For a while I could not explain why I thought the way I did because I did not have the words to articulate my experience. I knew it had to do with Divine Mystery and how to be a Christian without being exclusive, but I had never witnessed this before. This is difficult because many believe Christianity must be exclusive even if they are not Christians themselves. I am no longer convinced of this, but that does not mean that I do not think Christianity can be a beautiful thing…I still very much do and I am still very much a part of the Christian tradition.

As part of the class we read through a book titled Will and Spirit which was very insightful, and toward the end the author gave words to my experience (when this happens it’s like a release valve).

Much of the book was about surrender and about this topic the author writes, “I would pose that surrender is dangerous whenever there is any known, definable cause, group, person, or other substantive and limited entity that is used as an object of surrender.”[1] Later he continues, “This is true even if the object of surrender is called God, as long as God remains an object that one presumes to know and to understand”.[2]

Now if you were raised in the Christian tradition like myself, you’re probably thinking that of course God can be known and to think otherwise is ridiculous – this is not Christian. I too have thought this.

The author continues, “It is only when one can surrender to the ultimately unknowable Mystery behind the images of God that the act of surrendering can result in less self-definition rather than more”.[3] My focus here is on the ultimately unknowable Mystery part.

This is where I began to understand what I was experiencing. It is easy to remain at a lower level religion (dualistic thinking) where God has been clearly defined, articulated, and packaged. Then all one needs to do is convince others of that specific package – the problem is

God is always bigger than the package we place God in!

This thinking, I believe, is driven by the ego. Those who are “in” are those who agree with me. There is a clear box, but what happens when that box no longer works and you have experienced something bigger? It may be that we all need to begin at this lower level, but to remain here is like, as I recently heard, arguing about the menu instead of experiencing and enjoying the most delicious meal.

Now, the author is not suggesting that God cannot be known, but he is suggesting that God can never be fully known.

There is a difference and it’s big.

“God can become very real, alive, and active in a personal way. The first is through images that are acknowledged to be incomplete, expedient tools”.[4]

In other words, we can experience God, and understand God but it is like peeking through a small crack or hole, you can get a glimpse but it’s incomplete. I think it is important here to acknowledge them to be incomplete, if you do not then we develop a sense of superiority and feel a need to convince others that this is the way to experience God.

I think the author puts it well when he writes, “But in all such cases it is important for me to remember that these ways of seeing God, while real, are never complete”.[5]

Those who believe they have the complete or full picture of God are not really that interesting nor are they fun to be around. Usually they argue and push back against everything and seem extremely dogmatic and defensive. Who wants to live like that?

In the Hebrew Scriptures it talks about God’s ways being so far above our ways…in essence we cannot completely understand God for God is so far beyond, so much greater, so much more inclusive, loving, forgiving, and beautiful than we can possibly imagine!

I think if we begin here, we can enter into a more fruitful dialogue with those we disagree with and with those of other religions because we don’t have the one and only key. As I have experienced this, I have seen God at work in all kinds of beautiful ways. I am more curious than argumentative, engaged in exploration and not defense, and more interested in conversation that dogmatic debates. I have learned from others whom I do not agree with and have become a better person and have seen God in different ways because of this.

  • Is there a way to be Christian without being exclusively so? I say yes, I am an example of this and I know I am not alone.

I invite you to see God, not as easily defined, but as Divine Mystery which can never be fully known. Then we are free to see God in so many ways we never imagined possible.

[1] Gerald, G. May, Will and Spirit (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1982), 304.

[2] Ibid, 304.

[3] Ibid, 304.

[4] Ibid, 305.

[5] Ibid, 305.