🏷️ religion

"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 @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: @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.

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:

The next time somebody asks me why people don't go to church anymore, I will show them this link.



I can think of more offensive things. I can think of more offensive things at Starbucks. Anybody who finds that cup of coffee to be erotic has bigger problems than it being on a coffee cup.

My church is experimenting with gathering in each other's homes. Every Thursday night, during April and May, a few of us (about 10) are getting together, to eat and drink together, have a discussion about a piece of scripture, talk about what's going on in our lives, and (for those that are comfortable with it) pray for each other.

You don't have to believe anything in particular to be there. Everybody promises, at the outset, to respect each other.

It starts at 7, and we make sure we finish before 8:30.

My street address is in the chatter, or if that goes away, you can email me.

Sorry I haven't posted much lately. I have been posting on the church site regarding the Poverty Challenge.

Do you think that the Elmwood Strip would be interested in such a film, and a discussion of it? I am thinking of ordering it (The full length version, not the youtube clips)

I listened to him a little bit more on the News today, and I have to say, he is a smart man.

Now, if his goal is to get Obama elected, he is likely making a bad move. Wright, however, was never called to put people in power, or to campaign. In fact, he said that while he wants Obama to become president, he will likely oppose him once he is elected. Wright is taking this position because he knows the Bible.

In ancient Israel, there were three types of leaders: prophets, priests, and kings. While sometimes a prophet would anoint a king, most of the time a prophet would correct a king (or remove him.) Even the best of kings had to be corrected by prophets.

Today, America is deciding who will be our "king." Meanwhile, most religious leaders are more likely to see themselves as priests rather than prophets: taking care of ceremony and "established" religion. Wright, however, has never seen himself in this role. He has been denied it, he has been made an "outsiders" by the rest of American culture. His calling is prophetic.

Obama certainly wishes Wright would shut up, but because Wright's first concern is not electing a president, but remaining obedient to the word of God, he continues to speak. He has an opportunity that few black pastors are given: a national audience.

Rev. Jackson had this opportunity, but his voice was compromised when he sought political power (Only Jesus was able to be prophet, priest AND king--and he is a very different kind of king).

Before him was Rev. King, and his voice was silenced when he started talking about poverty and war.

It's funny: Wright is called anti-American for saying similar things to King, and there is a national holiday in King's honor.

Couldn't Wright wait until after the election to speak? I'm sure Obama would like that, but who will be listening then? Once the election is over, Wright will only be given a fraction of the attention he is being given now.

Wright is smart not to wait. He is attempting to seize a unique opportunity.

Now is the time for a conversation on race and justice in the United States.

Obama's candidacy facilitated that conversation, but ironically, he will not be able to win office if he pushes that conversation. After the election, the impetus will be over. Wright is smart to speak up now.

For the first time in a long time, mainstream white America is being exposed to the concerns of blacks. Many have pointed out that Wright's comments are shocking, but that avoids the more important question: are they true?

A conversation will not happen without willing partners. Like it or not, Wright has taken the next step in the conversation that Obama began. He has said some hard things, but they need to be heard. Is white America willing to listen?

I hope so. It will be difficult, and hard. We will have to face some uncomfortable truths. But this is too big to ignore. Its time to listen.