This is the first Friday I have been able to actually sit down and type this on a computer rather than using my phone or putting it off. Since Psalms are poetry my first question as I read this is what reaction does it evoke in me? How do I feel about it? and then the task to ask why...
I think that I feel deeply both comfort and fear in response to the Psalm - which I would suggest is probably the intent. The dominant them of theme of the Psalm is the inescapable reality of Yahweh, who knows and sees all. The comfort is that God is always close. The anxiety is that God is always close. God's presence is a comfort in times of distress and uncomfortable in our failures and darkness.
This psalm is often used to argue that Bible is ridiculous with its imagery of God knitting babies in wombs. I find it hard to believe that the author is seriously trying to communicate that God sits' in womb's with knitting needles making babies like sweaters. This seems beyond unreasonable. However, it would suggest that God has ongoing creative work in the world. That Yahweh is intimately involved in sustaining and creating existence continually, in contrast to the Deist image of the watchmaker. God works through the natural processes of cell division, evolution, etc. to create and sustain the cosmos. This is not nonsensical because existence is entirely arbitrary and unnecessary and therefore God's sustaining creative work is a reasonable idea. However, we do wind up with some difficulties as well. If we want to place God intimately into the natural processes of the world, how do we deal with it when those process don't work so well: birth defects, etc. Did God get distracted and miss a stitch? Clearly, this is unworkable. The standard answer is that this is somehow because of sin. I say 'somehow' because I don't think it is possible to draw any clear cause and effect relationships. This of course is deeply dissatisfying. Why does this amorphous theological concept of sin effect the creation of some babies and not others? It could be argued that it effects all babies but not in all the same ways... but this seems little comfort and again so ambiguous as to be meaningless. It could be argued that in God's sovereignty he either allowed or deliberately made a person's 'defects'. This seems like a defence of God, which is silly, and it of course creates more problems than it solves. Even with the long term good in view, both of all individuals, the community and creation in mind it still seems morally untenable to suggest that missing limbs, mental illness, death etc. are sourced in God's benevolent love and that the ends validly justify the means. Although certainly, some people believe this and many people will testify to how personal challenges of various natures helped them grow to greater maturity and deeper faith.
If we come back to the idea of God sustaining and beholding the universe this allows us to understand God's involvement in and knowledge of the cosmos: from wombs to stars. It also allows us to say God is involved in a good way, without eliminating freedom within the cosmos by demanding God's universal intervention in all things at all times. This is as close as I can get to an understanding I can live with. The Biblical story is filled with the particular, which is uncomfortable for western people who crave impersonal absolutes a la Plato. However, I think that it is only in particulars that relationships are possible and so I suggest that it is somehow in the particulars and the mess that relationship becomes real and does move us and all of the cosmos toward goodness. Does necessary messiness occur with the existence of a personal God?
Thanks to Robert Farrar Capon, author of The Third Peacock, who wrestles so inspiringly with the problem of God and evil in the Judeao Christian tradition.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQPmY4nIjVE&feature=fvst
ReplyDeletejust to add
I just read this after finishing Karen armstrong's "a history of God". She argues persuasively in the concluding sections of the book that the current heresy of a true belief in God is the over personalization of God. Reflecting on times in history where the anthropomorphic understanding of God has not been balanced by the religious segment of the population, and as a result there is a reactionary atheism which occurs, where people are driven to reject the popular understanding of God because it is unintelligible. She argues the personal nature of good must be held in a dialectical balance with the nothingness of God, the being of God (not a supreme being or a being) and an understanding of God that is inherently mystical and nonratonal. So I am tentatively proposing that failure to wrestle with the messiness you have mentioned would be the failure to have faith, not the other way around which would say to wrestle and question the personal nature of God is to lack faith.
ReplyDeleteSilas,
ReplyDeleteFascinating comment.
Allow me to clarify a number of things:
the current heresy is the over personalization of God?
and Faith is required for wrestling?
and that lack of wrestling/questions demonstrate less faith not more?
I think I follow.
'the personal nature of good must be held in a dialectical balance with the nothingness of God.
(emphasis on being?)'
Here's my question: How is this possible within the Judaeo Christian tradition which stresses so strongly the goodness of God. In fact it is in part Yahweh's goodness which seperates him from othe ANE gods... Did I miss something? Or was this a comment on society about how Athiesm creates balance?
I am not sure I will be able to adequately convey what took 400 lags to argue for, but here is a shot at it. Firstly, I was responding to the question you pose, saying... yes, with our understanding that God is primarily understood as personal there is a garuntee to be resulting problems, or as you put it "messiness". So the heresy I mention is that we have over personalized God, by doing so we have pinned ourselves into a corner which is messy. By pinning ourselves into this corner we force people to choose our conception of God, or when they cannot intelligibly do so, they are force to choose "not" god. Thus, we are the cause of atheism, by forcing a ridiculous choice where it is not necessarily even true. Karen then goes to show how atheist and the religious come to the same conclusion of a nothingness/god/being but just call it different things.
ReplyDeleteThus, faith us the willingness to question whether we have over personalized our understanding of God. What I had implied is that often this will be called a lack of faith by the religious, but actually it is a step of greater faith.
she uses "dialectical" in order to convey concepts which are beyond our available language. Eg. Stating God is she is just as limiting as stating God as he, so only when both are used in dialect that a true conception can be grasped.
Goodness is questioned when we over personalize God (sorry I did not make that clearer). Thus how can we claim the goodness of God when we personalize him and see such things as the holocaust, he either condoned or sat by and watched, both are abhorrent ideas. Thus, a personal conception of God must be declared dead in order to move beyond this false choice.
how this fits with a judaeo Christian understanding of God is a 400 page journey of deconstructing the social climates where different conceptions of God arose. Thus, I don't have a quick answer, only that it is one of many facets of God. Beyond that it is just a plug for a challenging intellectually simulating read.
so are we saying it is the athiests or the agnostics that are the faithful?
ReplyDelete'Goodness is questioned when we over personalize God? ie holocaust... thus a personal conception of God must be declared dead in order to move beyond this false choice'
Ok. I understand why and how goodness is questioned... and I would agree that its a false choice... However goodness seems entirely destroyed with the elimination of the personal... does this move to a monistic conception or is there another option?
When you use the word facet how do mean this?
You are suggesting that God is both personal and 'nothingness' in tension...
Does 'nothingness' mean impersonal? or non existant? or...
K, Im just going to settle this with in less 400 pages. If you argue God is in control of big picture stuff such as the creation the earth, politics community you must argue for the God is over and highly indvidual. You can't get to the big stuff unless you get to the little stuff first. Big issues are built upon the small ones. For examples if you were to argue that God didn't care that you bought flowers for your wife but did care when you get a divorce is a hard sell. If the act of repeatly not showing love to your wife by flowers lead to her feeling unloved and thus a the result was divorce. You can bet that God cares that you forgot the flowers. The same idea holds true about focusing on community at the expense of the person. If for example you held to this view that we have over personalized God the action step would be to focus on relating God in a more community or coperate aspect. However when that happens people tend not to own it. If you want to change community you got preach to the person. Otherwise people don't own it, nothing changes. A great example of this was the Jesus People Movement on the 70's It focused on personal God which was different from a more corperate view of God many churches had in that era. As a result it changed culture in such a big way that not one Christian movement has been able to duplicate since
ReplyDeleteDuncan, I might be saying that the atheists and the agnostics are as faithful as any of us on earth.
ReplyDeleteBut, in this back and forth, I can't help but think we are talking past each other. The nothingness of God, Armstrong might argue, is an understanding of God that is beyond a being. Thus to have a personalized God, one usually constructs a being to relate to. But in the act of defining God as something, rather than nothing, there is a limit put on God. This is something she draws from mystics and philosophers, that the loss of the "nothing" of God has caused a climate where people reject the "something" God, but really they are holding at their core to the same "nothingness" that the mystics held to.
Goodness then can be attributed also to the "nothingness" of God, so that there can be Goodness even when the "something" conception of God breaks down.
Yes, this ends up with monotheism. It ends up with God as the root or base of all existence.
By the word Facet I mean that there are more aspects or dimensions of God that need to be looked into. I guess today I was blown out of the water by the dimensions of honest spiritual pursuit gained from atheists.
Yes I am saying that nothingness and somethingness/person need to find a better tension.
Anonymous, thanks for your insights. I largely agree with you in that the individual needs to me at the heart of a communal movement. I guess it is fair to extrapolate that to God. In so doing you are taking an existentialist position and relying on the necessity of individual. But this is not exactly what I am saying. I am contemplating the ramifications of understanding God beyond the understanding of him as an individual and having personhood. What I have been contemplating today is widening my conception of God to being larger than a personhood of God.
Anonymous,
ReplyDelete>You can't get to the big stuff unless you get to the little stuff first. Big issues are built upon the small ones. For examples if you were to argue that God didn't care that you bought flowers for your wife but did care when you get a divorce is a hard sell. If the act of repeatly not showing love to your wife by flowers lead to her feeling unloved and thus a the result was divorce.
Ok. But you admit in this that the issue is loving your wife (clearly a big issue) not buying flowers (only in issue in so far as it relates to love).... Furthermore, God's care about little things can be pushed to infinitely smaller absurdity. Maybe God cares about the flowers but does he care about what type and colour and how much it costs? Does God care what socks you wear in the morning or if you wear socks? Is God's will specific and is there a best and perfect answer to every question that leads you in God's perfect plan for your life? Eventually we wind up praying for guidance in choosing socks.
>If for example you held to this view that we have over personalized God the action step would be to focus on relating God in a more community or coperate aspect.
I think this is not necessarily true. Gregory of Nyssa, who is the first person to suggest God is infinite (which I think is what Silas is getting at) was a mystic theologian and champions the unknowablitity of God. Unknowablitity, meaning that God cannot be comprehended by our physical sense or our mind, or at least not fully, and so the journey toward a deeper understanding of God is the journey into ever increasing darkness. This however, is usually described as a very personal, inidividual and experiential journey and perhaps relates to Kierkegaard's image of the knight of faith stepping in absolute relation with the absolute by virtue of the absurd...
this quote as well seems to relate: If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Kierkegard
and is along the lines of Tertullian:
The Son of God was crucified: I am not ashamed--because it is shameful.
The Son of God died: it is immediately credible--because it is silly.
He was buried, and rose again: it is certain--because it is impossible.
=) Why not pray for guidance about socks? Lol. Listen. Obviously I don't pray about what color socks I wear, but would it really so bad if I did? Maybe most days God doesn't care, but maybe there is one day where he will, would we care enough to ask him? There is a certain dependance I see in that, a willingness to allow God be the God of everything, regardless if he cares what socks you wear or not. It's when we make choices without consulting God that we get into trouble,"There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death." Proverbs 14:12 and as Christians those often the amoral choices we are faced with every day. Its when we we make choices that the Bible is silent on that lead us into trouble. A lot of Christians would say that God gave us reason and common sense to firgue those things out, but our reasoning is only human at best and well common sense is still effected by the fall just like everything else. Sometimes what seems common sense is totally the wrong move in Gods eyes. It may not be a morally evil choice, but it still could be the wrong choice God's reasoning and common sense cannot be confined to our frail understanding.(On another note that is why I can't agree with Open Theisem) This is why praying about what kind of flowers and socks to wear might become a good practice. I would say pray and seek his will on those things and if he doesn't say anything, just pick what you want. This is were we get into trouble as Christians. A good example of this comes from Joshua 9 were the Gibeeonites lied to Joshua and told them they were in a far off land. In vs 14, it makes point of noting that they did not go to God and ask for some insight. Why did they not inquire of the Lord? maybe they just didn't think to... a brain fart, or maybe the lie was just that good or maybe they thought it was a common sense issue. But in the end, it cost them. Whatever the reasoning was for not bringing it God, they concluded it wasn't important enough. Thats the same reason you and I don't ask God what socks to wear and what color flowers. Its trival, or not important enough. "There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death." You see I know the details like socks matter to God because God got this detailed, "I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes "Thats a detailed warobe You see if we both came to the conclusion that God cares about about loving your wife (big issue) and thus cares that he brought flowers to your wife (smaller issue) why would he not want to be involved in what color you choose? I'm not arguing that God WILL tell you what color, but I am arguing for is that regardless of whether he lets you choose or tells you, you must surrendar that right to choose to Him. You have to give him the option to be God of your socks otherwise there is a heart issue there where you and want to be king and its coming out in our socks.... (I know it sounds silly)... but its, "Not what goes into the mouth defiles a man; but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man.” Our whole lives every aspect needs to be submitted to his Lordship. Duncan, I can't think of a better way to submit the act of buying flowers other than through prayer. Maybe he we won't tell you, maybe He will, the point is you gave up the right to call the shots.
ReplyDeleteOk, while generally I think you are right, that there would be little harm in praying about your socks. And I agree the God is king of my socks. I precisely disagree that it is God's will for me to ask for guidance in the minutia of my life. I believe that being made in God's image and place on earth on steward means something significant about how we are to operate. I believe that the Bible offers us both a vision of the world, of ideals and principles that are good and also examples of people trying to work them out in their context. Therefore, while I think the ten commandments more or less qualify, Paul's detailed description about how women should dress doesn't. However, that's not to say that modesty isn't relevant or important but rather that Paul doesn't have an eternal lock down on what it is.
ReplyDeleteSo just because I think we are capable of choosing socks and should do so without a prayer meeting doesn't mean that I think that we are best to make every decision. Although I would point out at the the end of the day it is always us who make a decision. And our ability to hear God with certainty would be mediocre at best. So while there may be a way that seems right to a man but in the end it leads to death. There is also the man who believe he has heard from God and in the end destroys many...
Also just to make a point about the nature of proverbs,
Proverbs 26:
4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly,
or you yourself will be just like him.
5 Answer a fool according to his folly,
or he will be wise in his own eyes.
To address Joshua: I think that there are issues like socks, and the dinner menu BUT then there are relationships. And yes while we may think an issue in a relationship to be common sense we are all very complicated and so often they are not. I think it is hard to make the argument that making covenants with people is not a big deal. Coming back to the steward/manager image sometimes we need to call the boss, sometimes the boss can call us and sometimes its just socks...
this is what I think:
God has given us clothes, God's calling is bigger than socks, put your socks on and get on with it. Trust in both's God's providence and sovereignty that should what socks you are wearing matter that he can either get your attention or make it happen without your concious mind.
>the point is that you gave up the right to call the shots.
I think the point is that God specifically put us on earth to call the shots. To do a good job at it mind you... but I don't think God is, or wants to be a micro manager.
Thats where I would disargee. Now before I continue. I do want to say that if you don't pray for socks, i don't think a person is sinning. But what I want to say that if a person makes his soapbox the he has the right choose and doesn't not bring those things small things such starbucks or timmies, it suggests a place in ones heart the where desires to rule as God. Thats a heart issue. You see the impact or size of the choice isn't as important as WHY one desires to have the choice. Just because God gave us the right choose a small choice doesn't mean our motives for adovacting why God isn't a mirco mananger are pure. (I'm not saying yours are impure) Even if I did agree that God isn't a mirco manager, we generally screw up our lives. Just Because we know Jesus, and saved, does not make automatically give us the discernment nor wisdom to make even trival choices. We leak. We might be filled with his Spirit, and know the Bible inside and out, but unless we foster a heart where we practice that God is God and we are not we practice being God in the small stuff. I would strongly adovacte taking advise from a man who prayed about whether or not he should drink Starbucks or Timmies rather than someoneone who didn't simply because I know that man who prayed is trying his best honor God in everything he does. What if someone got into finincial trouble and its because they spent $5 at starbucks everyday? Why is okay to plead to God for help when the issue is huge but not when its mundane? What if by asking God for the help in the mundane God is protecting us from something down the road. It's not a whether or not we are capable or making that choice, it whether or not we are WILLING to give up the right should God ask. If I spent my whole life not letting God in on the small stuff, I would find it hard when asks. In the big scheme of things eating from from a tree is not sinful - what made it sinful what God said no and Adam eve made a choice a small one that affected all of us. I don't think anything in Creation or Scripture would point to the fact that God is not a mirco manager. If the the univeserse is as detailed as a small electron particale and the BIble gets so detailed as to tell the Jews where and how to poop in Levicutus, I'm pretty sure God would find it a joy to be so interconnected with the mundane parts of our lives
ReplyDeleteI think that you make a strong point, that I would agree with, in highlighting the interconnected nature of many decisions, even small ones. I agree that small decisions even ones, like coffee, can be interconnected with big issues both personal and global and that we are called to live in such a way that our whole lives glorify God. Prayer is a way in which we submit ourselves and our lives to God. Valid. My concern would be that I think that prayer can also be an excuse for not thinking about things, either rationally, biblically or in community and that a person who prays "starbucks or timmies?" without any further depth to the question may as well be shaking a magic eight ball or drawing lots in some fashion...
ReplyDeleteWhile it is possible that God is protecting you in the small things, like coffee and socks, this line of thinking is concerning to me in that it seems to be based in fear-that if I don't put the right socks on something bad will happen...
While you are right, we must practice submitting our lives to God and we must practice prayer, I think we also must practice thinking well about life and not shirk that responsibility through prayer, as I would suggest can be the case especially as pushed to extremes...
I think God behold's and is delighted in the details of life, but it is still Adam who names the animals...
Sometimes decisions soaked in prayer turn out very badly, this is an interesting life dilemma...