conjectural navel gazing; jesus in lint form

The ashram cat blog was interesting. I think the anonymous poster has some good points in that it is easy to keep working backwards to a nihlistic position on God. Is the mystery of faith related to a general suspension of belief that allows all of the other aspects of religion to stack up over time? Or, does the reality of faith and God create the unfortunate byproduct of ashram cats because it is easy to equate all unknowns with the mystic? We can't know. So we have to use free will to decide.

I happen to believe that communal worship is a critical aspect of the Christian Life. The part I wrestle with is the word "worship". This word is an anachronism, dating back to when our only understanding of the power of God was in relation to the highest known earthly power - the power of a king. The concept of fealty to a loving God seems counterintuitive at best. The second blog reference tries to make it seem like common sense to pay homage to a God that has the power to hurt us, but then chooses not to do so. Bring that back to earth, and the posturing of the Bush administration makes much more sense. I can see Rove and Bush, sitting in the Oval Office saying "I just don't understand why those Iranians and the Koreans don't love us to death. We haven't attacked them, even though they know we could wipe them out."

Why can't worship be an expression of hope and trust and love for one another? Perhaps this is a semantic difference, but I like the concept of thanking God for giving us the chance to live, but not the concept of praising God because we have a debt we cannot repay. That seems to be a pretty needy God that would require that level of worship.

Thank you for thoughts. This is an important conversation. I look forward to tracking it. I know Wilmete (I live in Evanston) and it makes sense that you are pondering these things. I also wonder how we remind the bride of who she is? How do we woo her into even wanting to manifest herself "in the life of the world"?

I look forward to this conversation, it is vital!

Rich,

I think how we understand what it means to be in a covenant with one another matters greatly here. "Covenant Theology" traces the different and changing relationship of God with the people Israel (Garden of Eden, Noah, Abraham, Issac, David...etc). One thing that scholars point out is that the format for these passages of scripture is the same structure as war treaties of the era. As the relationship between God and Israel changes and becomes more complicated, this format/template vanishes. So, you are right in one sense that there is an antiquated perspective involved.

What we cannot leave behind when we speak of love and trust is that this is the God who willed us into being. Willed us into being? Yeah, some say that God desired us to be and thus we are. There is something awe-full in this, something unimaginable. "This is no tame lion" as Lewis says, and somehow we have to be able to articulate a loving and generous God without taming God.

I think that when we say "Jesus loves me" we also have to be able to say "In the beginning was the Word." One exists along side the other. Our current covenant with God, through Christ and Christ's death, is not a representative democracy. I am not saying that you said it is, but I think that this is a temptation for us. As the people of the past may have projected Kingship, we may project Electoral College. Ha!

In either case, the metaphor is lacking.

Philippians 2 helps me in this.

hee! the ink smudges priestie is a friend of mine from college!! a mere two degrees of separation, what?

He's a good friend of Megan's as well.

Tripp

I'm not sure I know how to agree with you. "Awe" to me has more to do with effort and intent. I am not awed by much of anything the second time I see or hear it. I assume that it was effortless for God to create us, particularly with the help of eons of evolution. Intent is where it comes down to faith. I have never been occupied with the "how" as much as the "why". What was God's motive for us to exist? Was He lonely? Are we the equivalent of a petrie dish? The more I reflect on our existence, the more I believe that we are part of God just as God is part of us. God as king, as father figure and as Creator in a single act are simple ways for people to understand the larger aspects of God. One could argue that Christ had to happen simply to help Man focus on God as human and not as a collection of overwhelming power. So, the older I get, the more I think that God is not an anthropomorphic entity to be feared, but an essence to be embraced. The taming of God only has to happen if you begin with an entity that holds power in an earthly manner. That God can't be reconciled with the world very easily.

The power question always complicates the relationship with God. If Man is created in the image of God (again, I believe this is a selfish way for us to define what we cannot understand) then God must have some element of free will to do with us what he will. But there is little evidence that there is a force majuere manipulating the world for good or evil. We simply act on the stage we are given. Instead of looking outward for a God to interact with the world as a separate intelligence, perhaps we are called to look inward to find the part of God that is within each of us, and listen to that still small voice that reminds us to love without reserve.

Of course I could be wrong, and I will fry in hell. But I guess that's the price of free will. I just think that a loving God wouldn't leave us hanging with such poor choices.

Are we having fun yet?

Rich

Fun?

Always.

Why does it have to be one or the other...and what is with this idea that God orchestrates? If we have free will, then God does not orchestrate so much as participate.

But I think that God is an Other, The Other, actually. And encountering God, for me at least, is always awe-inspiring. I don't know that God is something I could "get used to" in any way.

We don't need to anthropomorphize God for God to be an Other being from us. We don't have to go that far...and plus, Christ is the anthropomorphized God. This is what the Trinity matters. Jesus is God.

Now if we are created in God's image, then there is the Godly within us...This is true enough. But we cannot overcompensate when we want to dismis the Old Man God image (Is thsi what you are doing?) by making God some random force or "s"pirit.

If God has a will, can will us into being, then God is a "person" worth getting to know. But the relationship with God will have qualitative differences from our relationship with one another.

Perhaps it's the place I am in my life, but I can't say that I have encountered God. I take God's existence on faith, but not because I experience godliness. There have been moments where I felt that the strength of the feelings I had could only be the product of a benevolent God, like when my children were born. But, as time has gone on and I have experienced parenting in totum, I feel less awed and more like part of a great cosmic wheel. God appears to simply be an observer in my life, like the Watcher in the old Silver Surfer comics.

In some sense, I can't understand your response. One or the other what?

I struggle with a God who teaches unconditional love, yet who judges us based on whether we acknowledge His/Her rule. This means that our free will is narrowed to choosing God or rejecting God. Everything else is gravy. It makes life on earth interesting, but it has little bearing on whether God will find us worthy of sharing in the Kingdom. To me, these are all simply approximations of some reality I cannot comprehend. A Kingdom is a manmade concept. Free will is a description of the process of choice. There is a zero sum aspect to the way we conceptualize God unless we open up the possibility that God is a force without what we perceive as a personality. Then, Jesus can be God, there can be a Holy Spirit, God can love, and we can be separated from or joined to God because of our choices and actions.

I am not sure that God does have a will. Maybe. But I can't comprehend the logic system that governs God's choices to intervene or even to make His presence known to some but not all. It's like a giant cat and mouse game. If God as manlike is limited only to Jesus, it gets easier. My goal is not to devalue God - it is to find a way for God to make sense without challenging God's sense of justice and without checking my brain at the door by saying that it's just too big for me to understand, but it must be good because it says "God" on the side of the box.

"God be in my head. God be in my heart and in my understanding"