upside-down
a friend was telling me recently of his journey through the book of Job. in this guy's view, Job was self-righteous- not in the 'naughty naughty you spiritual snob' way, but in that he was applying the method and effectively doing so to the point where he and anyone paying attention could draw the conclusion that there was some pretty sweet causality engaged here. until the time of testing, his view was no different than the views of his three friends or his wife.
this shines a light of plausibility upon the words of satan in the beginning of the book...
"look, this guy's sussed it- he's figured out the system, that's all. if you change all the rules and his sure-things become obviously much less sure, he will abandon this righteousness of which you, his creator, are so proud... you don't believe me? prove me wrong..."
here was, after all, the whole problem- he hadn't dropped the ball at all. things were just not the way they were supposed to be. the apple was not falling to the ground, it was just hanging in the air 'precisely the way bricks don't' (douglas adams)... somebody had reordered everything and the dramatic irony of it all was that the most righteous man alive was the only one who knew it (agonizingly so because of all of the pontification he had to endure from this wife and these friends that were supposedly there to bring encouragement and strength).
centuries later, Jesus would turn everything upside down in the same way- breaking the implicit order of things just when people were starting to get the hang of how to play the system. the old methods of establishing credibility and worth were no longer valid- the old causalities no longer held true... like a law in science that is suddenly overturned by some rogue coincidence leaving everyone wondering what else is out of sync that they just haven't discovered yet.
perhaps this is the spiritual bankruptcy of which paul speaks.
Labels: causality, douglas adams, Job
posted by jollybeggar at
9:12 PM
16 Comments:
Great post! It is easy to be faithful when everything works like it is supposed to, when the causal nature of the world is in tact. However, when that changes, then we start to flounder. How do you think this meshes with the "unchanging" nature of God? Fundy's hold tight to this aspect of God and frequently state that it is the only thing they can rely on in this world...Do you think this is an accurate representation of who God is?
well, i subscribe very strongly to the doctrine that God is immutable- i feel very good about the view that God's changelessness is one of the only things that we can rely on in this life...
how can perfection and holiness change- wouldn't change bring about difference that could only be qualitative? i mean, changing perfection can only go one direction, right? (less perfect- ie: flawed) because in order for perfection to be something ultimate it cannot be improved upon. holiness is the same.
okay, here we go with a silly little semantics thing: it's really interesting that, in the creation narratives found in genesis, if you type the word 'perfect' into the search engine on www.biblegateway.com you will not find a creation reference in any of the twenty translations online there. for me this is significant- here's why...
all of creation is refered to as 'good' or (in our case as people) 'very good.' God didn't create a perfect world- he created a good one. one that could be manipulated and subjected to change by those who govern it. this good world has many implicit rules (gravity, motion etc) but even more 'guidelines' like causality. after all, isn't causality recognizable only through the lens of our logic and isn't logic in some ways subject to cultural distinctives or world view? it certainly seemed that way in east asia- logic played a much different role there than it does 'back home in canada.'
i think that the basic flaw in our egocentric thinking is that the way we see things is the way we believe they really are... and we can never really step outside of our perspective to see if we're right.
subjectivity is almost as dangerous as relativism when we're trying to figure out what perfection or holiness or righteousness is. you can't use a word in its own definition and you can't compare your standards to your questions in order to determine whether they're true or not.
that's the whole problem with faith- it involves making a decision before all of the facts are in. we hate that...
God is immutable and "perfect", therefore, God cannot change. But, if he did change, it would only be a decline or regression into something less than perfection...I think that summarizes your initial point. I think this perspective puts a limit on God. What if our perspective of God's perfection was only the tip of the iceberg? This then leads to your talk about subjectivism and it's ugly younger brother relativism. I like this area.
What do we, as humans, have other than relativism? We are the measuring device of reality...consider a simple example, what is the color blue? You could describe it by the wavelength of light represented by the color. Nevertheless, that isn't the color blue. The color blue is simply our brain's translation of that wavelength (about 400nM). Blue doesn't really exist, does it? It only exists to the one who sees it. It is only real in the brains of the people who perceive it.
How does this relate to God? Well, God is far more abstract than the color blue. He doesn't have a physical quality that can be used to describe him like light. There is only this other sense of him...one that transcends our physical senses. Light waves exist beyond human sensory capabilities...we've developed instruments to detect them. What if God was the same way? the part we can sense is only a small portion of the realm of God...So, to say that God doesn't change, I can agree with that but I would stipulate that our knowledge of the nature of God is not the extent of God's nature.
hey, thanks for going further, scott
"...I think this perspective puts a limit on God. What if our perspective of God's perfection was only the tip of the iceberg?"
you kind of attend to this question later in your comment, i think.
the soundbyte "What do we, as humans, have other than relativism? We are the measuring device of reality..." is, in my view, a caution to us all to not presume that we have anything figured out.
i love your discussion of colour. i have often thought myself of possible comparisons between colour-blindness and our ability to relate to the spiritual realm. looking through the lens of fallenness and temporal physical existence, we try to see God and even understand him.
i guess it is for this reason that i don't really agree with the opening note about putting limits on God- i think that these limits land back on us.
does our picture of God (limited, faulty, inaccurate etc) change him- or does it simply place limitations upon him as part of our mentally reconstructed cosmos- restricting our ability to see him more clearly?
"but I would stipulate that our knowledge of the nature of God is not the extent of God's nature." (Scott)
Mind-blowing isn't it? I would have to agree since I have such a small mind that can only see so much about God (even if he is unchangeable), doesn't mean I know all of Him.
"i guess it is for this reason that i don't really agree with the opening note about putting limits on God- i think that these limits land back on us." (JB)
True...we become the God we know. If all I know is a God who is a judge, I will become judgmental. If all I know is a God of acceptance, I will become accepting. See the problem is we need to start realizing 'what do we really know about God?' and also 'what do we suppose of God?'.
'what do we really know about God?' and also 'what do we suppose of God?'.
nice... yeah, we small minds all gotta stick together!
okay... last rob bell quote for, like, a looooooong time.
"If there is a divine being who made everything, including us, what would our experiences with this being look like? The moment God is figured out with nice neat lines and definitions, we are no longer dealing with God. We are dealing with somebody we made up. And if we made him up, then we are in control. And so in passage after passage, we find God reminding people that he is beyond and bigger and more.
This truth about God is why study and discussion and doctrines are so necessary. They help us put words to realities beyond words. They give us insight and understanding into the experience of God we're having...
Doctrine is a wonderful servant and a horrible master."
(Velvet Elvis... seriously- buy the book and save me all this typing!)
http://www.amazon.com/Velvet-Elvis-Repainting-Christian-Faith/dp/031026345X
LOL, it's in the queue!
On a serious note, let me say that I really appreciate being able to discuss my faith with you guys (or gals as the case may be). Thanks!
Scott you rock and I also enjoy participating in your blog and getting insights to all the information you have access too, let's call it sharing what we know and we have experienced. Thanks Scott.
yeah, i agree with something that SVS posted awhile back... it's so much about sharing perspective and growing from the discourse. thanks for reading and contributing. i like the idea that any blog allowing comments is really a collective.
i guess that's why i find spammers and adverblogs so annoying...
http://northvus.blogspot.com/2005/03/adverblogging.html
'kick it to darkness until it bleeds daylight'. Cockburn you genius.
lovers in a dangerous time... saw cockburn the year he toured with that record ('steeling fire' circa 1984?)
he had come back from nicaragua and was still reeling from the injustice he had witnessed as medical aid was 'regulated' (yep- a diplomatic word choice) under the strict reign of someone's bureaucracy. i remember how he spoke of smuggling medical supplies in and personally (with an entourgage of physicians) distributing them by hand. at this point in the story someone shouted from the floor
"way to go, bruce. you the man!"
which seemed to deeply embarrass him, as he was trying to raise awareness and people were interpreting these efforts as 'own-horn-blowing.' he tried to qualify and clarify, but eventually just sang 'if i had a rocket launcher' letting everyone in the crowd figure out for themselves who was in the crosshairs.
i remember it was an outdoor concert which coincided perfectly with a 90-minute interruption in rains that had beening coming in torrents all weekend. i will never forget all the people in ponchos, dancing in the mud as the opening strains of 'joy will find a way' came through the p.a. system.
Just wanted to put in a voice of dissension and say that there is a strong and well populated tradition that doesn't believe in a immutable or perfect God but a vulnerable God, a God who risks and a God who can suffer.
I can speak personally for a moment and say that this is far closer to my understanding of the divine than the traditional well defined and limiting notions of omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence we are all familiar with. Of course this is simply just another decision on my part. I'll agree that we can never know God and that the god we know is the one of our own creation. But I also want to state that this should never be used as an escape from theodicy or other hard questions. I may never be able to know God but I am still required to make choices and live a life of certain obligations and if I am to include the divine in those decisions then I must decide on only what I know, through a glass darkly as it were. Kierkegaard wrote that the moment of decision is madness and although I'm tempted to embrace a predictable "me-friendly" diety, I can't, in all honesty, do so.
"there is a strong and well populated tradition that doesn't believe in a immutable or perfect God but a vulnerable God, a God who risks and a God who can suffer."
thanks for this- you know, i think that there is a danger here of concluding that immutablity and vulnerability/ risk cannot coexist.
cannot God's person open up to risk and allow vulnerability without God's nature being threatened? i mean, if God is at his essence the personification of love, holiness, and the like while still being all powerful and immutable, then it is my view that there is a certain vulnerability that exists simply by virtue of God's making allowances for free will, for rebellion, for cruelty- for everything that is contrary to his holiness. in fact... to go in way over my logical head, i think that without these negative things, the grace of God would not be possible, since grace is 'unmerited favour' and the only way to have merited OR unmerited favour is to have some measure by which merit is assessed or calculated against that which results in demerit.
i think that God has risked losing us, his crowned of creation, by permitting our freedom of will. i think that this leaves the heart of God vulnerable to pain of loss.
i'm okay with an immutable, vulnerable, risk-taking God... i just can't imagine being one.
Maybe we are reading immutability in regards to risk differently. Immutable: adjective, not mutable; unchangeable; changeless. (from our friends at dictionary.com)
I think when I spoke of a God who takes risks, these risks would/could/do have consequences on God's character/nature. These consequences would change his character. So maybe we were meaning different things.
You wrote:
"...then it is my view that there is a certain vulnerability that exists simply by virtue of God's making allowances for free will, for rebellion, for cruelty- for everything that is contrary to his holiness."
I've never been to clear on the idea of holiness, what it includes or excludes, or even close synonyms and so its not a word I use to describe God but from my past experience with the word I would have a hard time fitting cruelty into holiness. I have a feeling that might not be what you were saying so feel free to correct that. What doesn't make sense to me though is how, if those things "free will, rebellion, cruelty" are meant to pertain to humanity rather than God, how is that a risk taking God?
It seems that an important element of a true and costly risk is that the outcome can't be known prior too and as mentioned above, that the (O)ne taking the risk has something to lose, loss being something hard to reconcile with perfection (or any of the "omni's")
i've been writing about God's cruelty for an hour and i've decided to save it and figure out what i'm trying to say...
however, in the meantime, let me respond to this:
"What doesn't make sense to me though is how, if those things "free will, rebellion, cruelty" are meant to pertain to humanity rather than God, how is that a risk taking God?"
with this:
"i think that God has risked losing us, his crowned of creation, by permitting our freedom of will. i think that this leaves the heart of God vulnerable to pain of loss."
shalom
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home