"Cares for" and "cares about" are funny phrases when it comes to God.

Part of the problem is that the Western conception of God, which has been mostly influenced by Christianity, is a little bit conflicted.

Christianity has, on one hand, Hebrew roots. The God of the Hebrew Bible, although transcendent in many ways, is not in the least bit dispassionate. God wrestles with Jacob. God negotiates with Abraham. God gets angry. God has regrets.

However, as the church is formed from/by Jews shaped by this understanding of God, in a world where Greek philosophy carries the day. And Aristotle influenced the popular understanding of God by referring to God as the "unmoved mover." In Greek philosophy, God didn't care about humans. God didn't care.

So there's the problem: If God cares about our actions, which we know are often petty, that makes God seem petty. But if God doesn't care, then why should we?

Although I understand the influence of both strains in the formation of our theology, I tend to lean towards the Hebrew understanding. It makes God harder to figure out, but who said understanding God should be easy?

God exists in relationship--not just with humanity but (Christians believe) with God's self.

Relationship is funny. God interacts with us--without changing who God is. Is there a tension there? You bet. And we can't get it from outside of the relationship where we might be able to understand it objectively. So yes, some faith is involved.

Does God care what religion we are? God's love came, according to Christian understanding, while we were still opposed to God. So, no. We cannot change the way that God chooses to engage us in relationship because of our behavior/belief/whatever.

Does this mean that what we believe doesn't matter? It doesn't change God. It does, however, change us. If I believe I can fly, and it is not true, there will be some negative consequences. Our beliefs and behavior matter, but not because they affect God. Its because they affect us.

God cares for us in that he cares to engage us, and gives God's self to us. But this self-giving is God's eternal choice, not a reaction to anything we do.

I wrote this late at night, so I am reserving the right to edit/clarify.

I hope this shed some light on some more of my reactions to (e:jim)'s statement, but I should also add that I see this as background stuff. It is not reasonable to ask somebody to engage in the "big picture stuff," especially when Jesus' stories and actions were so rooted in the here and now.

But its fun to engage here, even if I might start in a different place.


PS: (e:carolinian), please correct me if you think I have misrepresented the Hebrew Bible and/or Judaism.

In Jim's list of things that have to be taken on faith, this was the first statement that I gave an *, meaning that I couldn't agree/disagree fully without explaining a little bit of nuance.
[box]
That God is the Christian God, not the Jewish, Islam, Baha'i, Mormonism, etc.
[/box]

I believe that there is one God, and I believe that God is best understood and revealed through Christianity. I even believe that God was made incarnate in Jesus Christ.

However, I can only apprehend God. God cannot be comprehended. So while I believe that I have an understanding of God, my understanding will never be near complete (not in this life, at least--but we haven't gotten to "eternity" stuff yet).

Therefore, I believe that I worship the same God as the other faiths. To say otherwise would be to contradict myself, because I believe that there is only one God.

Other faiths comprehend God differently. Or they misunderstand God. Or they make God out to be who they want God to be (which is bad, yes, but Christians make that mistake, too).

So I would say that I best understand God through Christianity, but I admit that my knowledge is incomplete. Other faiths have different, incomplete knowledge as well. I can learn from them, and yet still maintain that Christianity has the truest picture of God.

I do not present my faith as a complete system of total understanding--just the best one (as far as I can tell).

Unless I know in completeness, which is impossible as things are, I have to approach other faiths with humility--open about what I believe to be true, but also admitting that there is truth that I do not comprehend.

My list, from Jim's list of things that must be taken on faith if one is to be a Christian.

In short, if that were what is necessary to be a Christian, I would not be one (I guess there are some people out there who believe that I am not).

Here's my code to what I think about the beliefs Jim outlines:

X = I do not believe this

• = There is a nuance to this belief, so that depending on how it is defined/explained, I may have to change from X to no X or vice-versa. That is to say, that there is a little bit more nuance to the statement that needs to be explored.

+ = This belief really is central to the faith, as I see it. (maybe or maybe not necessary, depending on who you ask)




+ That God exists.
* That God is still involved in the universe he created.
+ That God cares about us.
X* That God cares what religion you are in.
X* That God is the Christian God, not the Jewish, Islam, Baha'i, Mormonism, etc.
X* That all other religions are in grave error. (despite those faiths having equally compelling claims and theology to lay claim to this honor)
X* That God interacted directly with humanity in the past, and chose the Jews as his people above all others.
- That God guided the oral history of the Jews.
-* That God wrote the Bible, indirectly.
-* That God edited the Bible into its present form, indirectly.
X That God prevents textual errors from being introduced during copying, indirectly.
XThat God would not allow the Bible to mislead us, but would allow other religious texts to mislead us.
X* That sins are against God, instead of against other humans.
X* That we have original sin that needs to be redeemed.

• That virgin births can occur.
  
• That Jesus was born to Mary as the Son of God.

+* That Jesus is in fact, God.

• That Jesus could redeem sins through his death and resurrection.

X That Jesus' death is the only way to cause that to happen.
+* That Jesus rose from the dead.
X* That the story of Jesus was accurately told orally for a hundred years.
X That the hundreds of contradictory written fragments and letters from the time after that don't matter, because:
X The editing process to sort everything out was also guided by God, again, indirectly.
X That the Gospels were then transmitted down with no textual errors in copying or translation thereafter, thanks to God, indirectly.
X That the parts of the Bible and the Gospels that don't make sense don't contradict any of the above.
X That if you choose wrong, despite this inconsistent and inexplicable chain, you are damned to hell.

So, you can read his biography on wikipedia: (WIKIPEDIA - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roberto_Clemente), so I won't go into too many details about that.

Here's some of the ways that he has influenced me.

When I play, I tend to play all out.

I try to be as selfless and generous as he was.

I want to be personally involved in my efforts to make a difference in the world, as he was.

I want to break down barriers, the way that he did.Maybe I will write about Dietrich Bonhoeffer later.

After talking with (e:Tinypliny) about Roberto Clemente, I got to thinking about heroes, and I thought it might be fun to share some of the people I look up to, as well as invite others to do the same.

I'll get the ball rolling with a post about Clemente (a little later--I should be writing a sermon right now), but I am putting out the invitation:

Who is a hero of yours? Why? What do you wish to emulate about them? How has their life affected yours?

I categorized this post "heroes." It would be nice if every participant did the same.

Good to see (e:Tinypliny) and her friends, as well as (e:Jason) and of course (e:janelle) at the symphony at Bidwell parkway. Also saw some other friends who don't blog and thus don't get mentioned!

Music was good. Beer was good. Company was great.

I even shook down people for money on behalf of the association.

Afterwards, Jason and I stopped in at Essex street.

When I got home, I saw I missed a text from (e:Vincent). My apologies.

Maybe Chris Rock has the answer:

Jim looks forward to our first openly atheist president. Given the rhetoric, I can understand why (even Luther said he would rather "be ruled by a wise Turk than a foolish Christian." I think we could easily substitute "atheist" for "Turk." In Luther's Germany, to be a Turk was as bad as it could get).

I think we have probably already had at least one atheist president, who went along with American civil religion (which calls itself Christianity, even when it doesn't look much like Jesus) in order to get elected. This, of course, is difficult to prove, but given a politicians' willingness to say what is necessary in order to get elected, it seems likely.

And, for most of our history, a show of faith has been necessary to get elected in a country where the majority of people make a show of faith.

That, of course, is changing. With each generation, the number of Christians, and the number of Theists, is declining. If these trends continue, we (I consider my self both) will be in the minority very soon. According to some counts, we are already (although not among voters, which is key to this post).

So based on that, the USA may be electing its last Christian president this election cycle. If the president serves 8 years, this is quite likely (especially if young people start voting).

There is a possible mitigating factor, however. More and more Latinos and Latinas are growing as a percentage in this country, and will eventually become a majority. This demographic, while far from monolithic, is far more likely to be Roman Catholic.

Either way, it looks unlikely that Protestants and Evangelicals will remain a force in politics. This will be quite an adjustment for those who are used to running the world. Democracy is a kick in the pants, sometimes.

It may be, that Theists hang on for a while and we have another Roman Catholic president. It depends on whether young Latinos and Latinas keep the faith and/or vote.

My guess? Jim, your wish will come true. We will have an openly atheist president within 20 years. (Provided the nation holds on that long, but that's another post and another time)

And I don't think it will be bad for the Christian church, either. We're better off without power.

A good speech here:

Essex corners' newest place Is open. They are next to Urban Roots and are kind of a "back of the house" operation for Dolci on Elmwood.

I didn't get any gelato because I had eaten sweets all morning, but (e:janelle) got a coffee and I had a slice of white pizza. Both were very good, and affordable. The people were nice, too.

At the same time, Urban Roots was celebrating their one year anniversary and was full of life (human and plant, both.)

I think the day that everyone feared is finally arriving: gentrification. The place was just packed with preppy, cute, white people. Of course, there were still signs of the stagnation that has been in that section of town for a long time, too, but my sensors say that things are underway.

I think it can be done right, however. People are working to keep affordable housing available no matter what. Property values are going to climb a little bit, but that is necessary to provide an economic incentive to make it a nice place to live.

Anyway, go get a gelato or a slice of pizza. I promise you won't inflate property values too much, (at least not until the city/state start taking care of their properties) and you will be satisfied with your choice.