Theology From The Plain Part Four - Does It Make Sense To Think Of God As A Person?

In an earlier TFOP post I wrote that I use the word “God” both in reference to the totality all that is and also to a smaller portion of all that is that reflects its possible overall intention and ultimate direction.    Granted, the second definition requires much more of a leap of faith than the first!

However in either of these cases, but particularly focusing on the less controversial first meaning of “God”,  does it make sense to think of God as a person?  

If God is all, then it would make sense to think of God as more than a mere person.  And it would seem an act of extreme hubris to think that God is exactly like us, one small part of the all.  Yet it is also true that there are persons within the all - us for instance!.  So even if the totality of God is much more, or much different, than a version of exactly what we are (persons), personhood is certainly not something alien to God.

Therefore, is it acceptable to think of God as a person, or to attempt to interact with God in personal ways?  Through internal dialogue, speaking, intuitive feelings, or any kind of experience?

I think it does make sense to seek God personally, not so much because God is necessarily a person, but rather because I am a person.  The personhood of God could be a framework, a symbol, a language, a heuristic even, existing in my own mind that enables me to possibly interact meaningfully with the all.

So once again,  if I attempt to interact personally with God, it is not so much because God is a person, but because I am a person.   Personhood is a framework that this particular part of the cosmos (me) might use as an operating system to think about the cosmos as a whole.

One criticism I can think of is this - does this mean that I can anthropomorphize anything?   

First of all, anthropomorphizing things is not necessarily bad, but obviously when we stop trying to consider another entity on its own terms it can be dangerous.  The golden rule does not work so well if we are dealing with another life form with different needs than a human!  But when I am talking about God here, I am not talking about a tree or a lizard.  I am talking about all that is.  The cosmos as a whole.  Everything.  Any kind of possible communication would have to take a form that is specific to me - a kind of user interface adapted to the abilities of the user.

And secondly, I already have ways of interacting with a tree.  I can touch it, see it, etc. - which are also user interfaces for me.  To say a tree is "rough to the touch" says as much about my systems of perception as it does about the tree.  This subject is obviously a huge potential rabbit hole.....   But the main point is that I do not need to consider a tree a person in some way to interact with it.  However, I do not have a way of interacting with the cosmos as a whole.  I cannot zoom out to take much more of it in (much like a skin cell cannot zoom out to see the entire body), and I certainly cannot get outside of “all that is” both because of my limited abilities and because that is a meaningless concept anyway.  

Of course many would argue that whatever I think, I still do not have a way of interacting with the cosmos!  Point taken!  But if I want to take a leap of faith and assume that meaningful communication is even a remote possibility, then it makes sense that I would need a user interface of some kind.  And it makes sense that personhood might be that user interface for me, since I am a person.

So in conclusion, I am not suggesting that there is definitely a personal God out there.  That is beyond my ability to comment definitively on.  But I am saying that a personal God exists in me, because I am a person.  And if it is a meaningful endeavor to seek interaction with “all that is”, it certainly seems reasonable that personhood could be a user interface for me.

But is it a meaningful endeavor?  Is it possible that the personal God within me corresponds to something greater?  My thought is that, because our understanding of things must necessarily relate to our total experience of things as a part to the whole,  there may be room for a little leap of faith here.

Cavatina

In my previous post, I mentioned the "Cavatina" movement from Beethoven's string quartet No. 13 in Bb Opus 130, as performed by the Emerson String Quartet.

I cannot just mention it though.  I listened to this most celebrated, most intimate, most holy music again after my previous post, and I don’t mind saying that I cried like a child.

This movement is a spacious contemplation of the point of it all.   But it is what happens after the fire and the fury.  After our impassioned “Why?!!” has run its course.  After the drunkenness has begun to fade.

It is the clear-eyed moment right before dawn.

The middle portion of the piece, which begins at the 2:22 mark (once again, as performed by the Emerson quartet here) is the center.  The sublime.    It is the moment when the ALL, of which I am an infinitesimally small part, touches my arm and says, in the words of Julian of Norwich, “All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of thing shall be well.”

The speaking continues,  “Remember.   This life, this existence, this creation, this crucible - of pain, of sorrow, of awe, of joy, of terror and of beauty -  this crucible of creation is the one we chose - do you remember?  We chose it.  We created it.  We wanted to forget, for a while, and therefore to really live."

"But all will be well."

And at the 2:50 mark this still, small voice then swells in glory - a tiny peek through the veil.

And then, in utter generosity,  at the 3:22 mark these reminding phrases are repeated again, in different voicing - another reminder of the variety in the unity - the choice of creation.  

And one last peak at 3:50.  One last peek for now.

Then we are gently led back.  Back to a moment of rest before this life beings anew.

But remember.   All will be well.

Theology From The Plain Courtesy of G.A. Compton

Rediscovering the poetry of my great-great uncle G.A. Compton has been a great joy over the last few years.   Many of his poems strike right at the heart of the ways I have come to think.  Here are three poems,  published in his 1950 book "Puns, Poetry and Prose", that make their way deeper and deeper into my soul everyday.  They are truly Theology From The Plain (albeit from Uncle Barry's West Virginia hills!).

Two Sermons

I went to hear a preacher.

How his lusty voice did ring!

He nomenclatured nameless Love

Just like a mundane thing.

One part of Love was vengeance,

To ablate an heired sin!

(Then, I hoped Love would be cheated

And feel a deep chagrin!)

I went to hear a robin

Help to mauve the ashy dawn,

And thought he’d burn the new leaves of

The twig he salaamed on.

Aurora flung her curtains

At the throbbing reveille,

And hallooed thru the windows,

That the preacher lied to me!

Crucibles

Without pain

Happiness

Could not be;

Heaven is 

Estimated thru

Gethsemane.

Without fear,

No stile would arise

With each stair a hope

Ending in the skies-

Pain, fear-

Finite crucibles

Purge us to merge

Into

Infinite seas.

Conformity

Just buckle on most any creed,

Like picking up a stole-

No creed was ever fitted, yet,

Exactly to each soul.

Convention says that you must wear

One o'er your sinful heart,

So put it on - but grow until

You burst the thing apart.

Theology From The Plain Part Three - Pantheism, Panentheism and Double Meanings.

This entry is longer than I wanted it to be, but this is convoluted territory for me, admittedly.  I appreciate the thoughts of any readers. Obviously, this is a process of working through thoughts, so feedback is essential.  And for anyone reading who does not prefer God-language, hopefully I will have some entries soon that rely less on this terminology, but still deal with basic questions and thoughts we all have about existence.

Last time I wrote that God cannot ultimately be separate from creation -  after all, can God create, and therefore be the explanation for, something that is ultimately not-God?  If so, where did the not-God elements come from?  

So I am a pantheist, believing that God is identical with creation?  Or am I a panentheist, believing that creation is contained within God?  

One way to characterize the difference is this:

Pantheism - God is the whole.

Panentheism - The whole is in God.

I am sure there are several versions of both of these positions that are very interesting.  I think I could be either one depending on how one defines “the whole.”   Is the whole this cosmos?  Or is it everything that exists at all?  Or maybe this distinction isn’t even that important?  For even this cosmos, this creation, surely has elements that are quite beyond our comprehension and perception.  How is are these intangible elements distinct, in any practical sense, from elements of God that are supposedly “beyond” this cosmos?  

I suppose I like panentheism a bit better, because it seems to imply a God that is beyond the part of the whole which we, as limited pieces of the action, are able to experience or to conceive of. Surely pantheism implies the same, but panentheism seems to make this sense more primary in its definition.  In other words, the actual whole, all that is, is greater than the whole that we can experience or conceive of.

I realize that some may differentiate between an idea like “the whole” and “creation”, but I have pointed out how I think that ultimately creation must be considered an extension, a reformulation, of God Himself.  

So perhaps I like a phrase like, “All is in God, and God is all.”    The first phrase implies that all creation is a part of God, and the second part implies that this creation cannot be ultimately separated from God.

So, if God encompasses all, then does it do any good to talk about God?  All things are a part of God, so nothing can be distinguished as more Godly than this or less Godly than that, right?   Well......to me it depends.

I think we can communicate about God in two ways, depending on our purpose and chosen perspective.  “God” can have a double-meaning. The first meaning of God is the all, and reflects a focus on the ultimate.  This meaning seems fairly uncontroversial, as most people probably believe in “the all” even if it is just a concept.  Some people may reject the word “God”, but that is another subject.

The second meaning of God refers to the portion of the all that reflects the ultimate purpose, direction and character of the all. This meaning pertains to the elements of our experience which reflect our faith in what God’s ultimate purpose is.   

Another way to think of it is this:  I am included within God.  I am a part of God and part of His ultimate purpose which is also my ultimate purpose.  But I am limited and far from perfect.  However, there may be a part of the whole of God which is unlimited and perfect - or at least as close to those states as possible, or at the very least, much more than I - that knows and seeks to enact the ultimate purpose of this creation, while not overly interfering with creation (which would probably spoil the whole point of it, but more on this later).

This view of God is a lot more controversial.  It is the God of faith, and even though a person can and should have good reasons, the only truly compelling reason to believe in this God is if one wants to.  I plan to write more about that later, but for now the two elements of faith would be first, that there is a purpose, a directionality to existence that makes some sort of sense. And second, that there is a portion of this existence now that reflects this ultimate purpose, that guides the universe, however slowly from our point of view (two steps forward, one step back), through the experience of creation, which is a series of similarities and contrasts with this ultimate purpose.

I am agnostic about this second view of God, but I choose to have faith that something/someone like it exists.   Can one be agnostic and still have faith?  Actually, I think faith as a concept is completely contingent on being, to some extent, agnostic.  If I had anything close to certain knowledge, then there would be little room for faith.

So is this idea of the double meaning of God a cop out on my part?  Am I trying to have it both ways?  For God to be all, yet also a part of that which exists?  Can God be a part of the whole and ultimately the whole at the same time?

Consider other words and concepts which have double meanings.  How about “physical”?   When I am not feeling well, a friend might ask me if the problem is physical or emotional.  I know what she means, even though ultimately the physical encompasses both.  

What about the word “nature” or “natural”?    When a person speaks of nature, I know what she means - things which exist apart from humans -  even though all things are ultimately encompassed by the word, including humans.  Humans are certainly a part of nature.

Have you ever wrestled with your own will?  What is it exactly that is wrestling with your will?   Yet, I know what you mean.   There is a portion of your will which you are temporarily separating and labeling “your will”, and a portion of your will that you are labeling “I”.   

I will get more into why God would possibly create - why He would re-imagine Himself into separate limited parts.   But I think the term “God” can mean the all, and can also mean a portion of the all which reflects the ultimate purpose and character of the all. Which meaning we use depends on our “level of zoom”.   

When you say or think “God” are you thinking in ultimate terms, so that the term must encompass the all, or are you speaking of God as the portion of creation which reflects all that is good - a kind of perfect awareness (at least compared to us)?  Do you switch back and forth?   Does this way of thinking make any sense to you?

Theology From The Plain Part Two Questions

I have had some great thoughts and questions from a couple of friends about the last post.  They very astutely mentioned the exact things that I need to address if God is all and all is God.   

How do we account for the existence of evil.  Is God part evil if He is responsible for it?

Does the idea of sin or morality have any meaning if God encompasses all?

If God is all, can we attribute personal characteristics to God?

Why refer to God as "He"?

These are great questions that I have thought about quite a bit - whether successfully or not remains to be seen - and I will attempt some ideas about them soon.   Thanks!

Theology From The Plain Part Two - Is God Separate?

In part one, I talked about how the term God may take on many different meanings, but how it is still a helpful term, as it is universally used to describe a direction of looking, namely towards whatever is ultimate - or at least what is ultimate from our perspective.  A “next layer of ultimate-ness”, perhaps?

I think most people would agree that there is some sort of explanation for things that is more ultimate that what we know.   It does not require an “outside the cosmos” way of thinking, although it could.  It could be a deeper level right here inside the cosmos.  The question of whether there is a more ultimate level that we can have access to in any meaningful way is another issue.  But that has to do with leaps of faith - another subject.

In this next short part, I want to introduce a simple idea that follows from the idea that God is ultimate.  God, whatever we mean by that, cannot be truly separate from creation.

If there were truly God and a created “other”, then surely this duality would imply another layer of reduction, another layer of explanation.  And therefore, from our perspective, God could not be an ultimate explanation for all things in any meaningful sense.

In other words, if we see God as being separate from something, then how can He be the underlying source of everything?

So what is creation then? If God is the ultimate source, then creation reflects His intentions, His character, His desires. So then creation must be seen as an expansion or reinvention of God Himself.      

I can make a painting, but I am reconfiguring things that already exist in a new way.  If God creates something with intention that is completely new, then this new creation, in the most ultimate sense, is a re-imagining of Himself.   

So what is existence?  Is it to be a part of God.  

In the next part, I will talk about how it can still be meaningful to talk about God even if He (or “It” or “She” or whatever we mean) is the animating force underlying all things.  I will also write soon about whether we can consider God a person or not.  

Overwhelmed By Written Words - Forgive Me For A Moment

After re-reading several hand-written letters from friends over the years, I am once again overcome with just how wonderful people are - all people. To be connected with others is the joy of life - even for one as introverted and as unskilled in that practice as me.

I hope that today's youth, in this electronic age, will still take the time to write a letter by hand to a friend, to a love interest, now and then.   Emails, phone calls and texts are wonderful, but to have proof of the physical care of writing is something that is overwhelmingly lovely.

I am universally grateful to friends who wrote to me from visiting beer breweries, friends who wrote to me on summer vacation from college, friends who wrote to me after summer camp, friends who wrote notes to me when we were apart, friends who wrote to me when we were together. I am grateful for letters from girlfriends who helped me on my journey.  I am grateful for affectionate notes from my mother and honest letters from my father before he died.  I am grateful for words from my brother, a constant teacher to me.  I am grateful for pastoral letters from my grandparents and birthday poems from my uncle. And I am grateful to read letters from my future wife - someone whose faith in me helped me to become who I am, and who I can only hope to have helped in the same way.   These are words that sing with quiet, steadfast life, through an undercurrent of excitement, concern and hope; words which almost sing of our future family without ever daring to think that was a possibility.  

All these physically written words from the friends of my life fill me, or better yet, they remind me that I am filled.

My greatest wish is that from time to time we should all feel this connected, that we should realize our relationships are the fabric of that most blessed state - to feel an essential part of the the whole.

I am unworthy, but to think this is an irrelevant absurdity when this state is upon you - for it is you.  Can you be unworthy of yourself?  Surely the answer is yes!   And no, at once.  And thank God for that.

Theology From The Plain Part One - The Term "God"

I am a person who uses God language.  Atheism does not make sense to me given my approach to God.  You see, to me “God” is the word for “that which is” or for whatever is ultimate.  So it makes little sense to me to think that God doesn’t exist.  I can certainly criticize different concepts of God and be labeled an atheist because I don’t believe in this or that version of God, but “God” is my preferred term in seeking for a greater understanding and experience of existence.   I don’t want to use a term like “unfathomable mystery”, at least not exclusively.  I want to use the term “God”.   The former has too much of a connotation of being “out there”.  Rather, God (I am going to stop using quotes now) is more personable and encompasses me, and all things, more readily.

So what is God?   Well that’s the journey, isn’t it?  Is God a person in any sense?  Is God the selfless void from which all things spring - the ultimate expression of humility and giving love?  Is God the cosmos?  Is the cosmos in God?

I have ideas about all of this, but I am also pretty agnostic about many things.  In fact, I have come to love the label “reverent agnostic”.

But I am not agnostic in approaching existence through the interface of faith. And my idea of faith is not intellectual submission to specific claims about history or authority, but rather it is simple trust.

Perhaps I can be criticized for being too flexible with the idea of God.  I realize that in the culture wars of today, God has come to mean certain things, but throughout history God has meant many things.  Even to the deacon in the pew every week, how do we really know what associations he or she brings to the word God?  You see, I do believe that most people approach God in a way that is more personal than doctrinal.

In light of this, I could be criticized for making God an irrelevant term.  If it can mean anything to anybody, then what is its use?

This is simple.  God is a useful concept not because it unites us in what we see, but because it unites us in a common direction of looking.

I understand that for others the term does not work this way.  Perhaps it has been spoiled by the trappings of sectarian religion.  This is fine, of course.  I understand that for others, different frameworks might work better.  But for me, God remains at the epicenter of what it means to explore this life.

We argue about what we see and what we hope to see.  But, for those who employ the term, God is a finite crucible into which we try to pour the infinite. 

Thanksgiving Dinners, Sugar Packets and Groundhog Day

A couple of weeks ago, this was my Facebook status:

"just one thing I love about Groundhog Day (the movie). Bill Murray cannot escape his own salvation, even by trying to kill himself. And yet he still has to make his own decisions on his own time, as he inevitably discovers the pathway to true happiness and humanity."

Well, here is another thing I love about the movie Groundhog Day (which has steadily climbed up my personal rankings over the years and is now tied for my number one favorite movie): One of its messages is that morality is real.

You see, if morality is real, then following a moral path will result in a deeper, more meaningful, more enjoyable life. Phil Connors is not a good person at the start of the movie. He is petty and his vision of reality is super narrow. Is he happy? Perhaps, but in the way a child eating a sugar packet would be happy without the knowledge, or the mature palette, to realize and enjoy the fact that a full Thanksgiving dinner is in the next room.

Phil becomes caught in a time loop where each day is a repetition of the same before it. At first he acts like a child, pursuing whatever fleeting pleasure he can think of. Then he sets his sights on loftier goals (bedding Andie MacDowell's character) and fails and fails. She sees through him. Then he despairs, but even when he tries to kill himself, he awakens to live the same day again. Then Phil slowly begins to better himself.

According to my friend Rich, in the original screenplay Connors lives the same day over and over for the equivalent of thousands of years. And he is gradually changed - not by direct force, but by constant exposure to the realities of what actually makes a person happy on a deeper level and his deficiencies in that regard. He begins to help others, learn new things and consequently he becomes a part of a community. He is no longer an isolated ego floating in a bubble of narrow awareness. He is no longer the child eating the sugar packet. Now he is sitting down to a Thanksgiving Dinner, with mature tastes allowing him the great and deep enjoyment of living life to the full - connected to others and his environment. He is now a part of a whole. And this realization is not simply his preference. No, it is what is bound to happen when a person is given the chance to explore fully and discover the sources of true well-being. Morality is real. But our ability to utilize morality corresponds to our level of awareness. Phil found himself in a time loop where he had no choice but to eventually grow and develop that mature palette for the Thanksgiving dinner. (of course a little sugar in the iced tea never hurt anybody....)

To me, this is how true corrective love would work. If morality is real, meaning its benefit is real, then it will lure us towards it (and has already done so to an extent, else we would not know what it is at all). Given enough time to develop the proper awareness, a person would understand its nature and recognize that it is there for a reason, not simply by some arbitrary command -whether by society, parent or divine being - which serves no purpose towards deeper levels of well-being.

A message of Groundhog Day is that morality is a deep metaphysical reality, built into the structure of things and as our level of awareness grows so does the capability, the responsibility and the inevitability of moral growth in our lives.

When the movie first came out, I saw it in the theater. Then I saw it again the very next day, which I thought was a bit ironic....