If God created the natural world, why is it hard to imagine the possibility of the materiality of our existence as reflecting something about how God is? I know, I know, God is spirit, right? But what does that mean? Can we really claim to have figured where spirit ends and matter starts? And, what is matter? Is it atoms or energy or … ? Do we have such a small view of God that he could either be totally immersed in the physical universe (pantheistic) or totally removed and transcendental? Is it that hard for God to be involved here and now, yet not contained by it all? Why do we force ourselves to think about God in either/or terms? Why are we so enamored with a side of God (His transcendence), an attribute we can’t really wrap our minds around anyway, when there is so much of God we can experience right here, right now, with faculties God has gifted us with to know Him, to enjoy Him?
We long to know Him, to experience Him and yet wait for some day after death to fulfill our desires when God has created it all here just for that. I am wondering how insulted God must feel when he sees how low of a view we have of His creation. We want to meet Him and He is right here, surrounding us and showering us with His multifaceted presence. We want to know him in some abstract, spiritual way, when He is cooling us with a breeze and warming us with a sun ray. We look for God in miracles, in some out of this world (supernatural) phenomenon and we miss Him in so many, many ways every single day, every single moment. The question is not where is God, but where are we? As Jesus said it in so many occasions, God’s kingdom, his presence, is in us and all around us, the question is: do we have eyes to see it all, to enjoy Him and live abundantly?
- Matter is the closest we get to understand and more importantly know (experience) God. It is the medium He chose to place us in and the means for communication.
If matter does not matter what can we make of the Incarnation? Matter is the point of contact between God and us. We can’t really know God outside the realm of the material, can we? Last time I checked, matter was God’s idea and he declared it GOOD. If we are spirit and matter and we are made in God’s image, what does that say about God?
This is where you take the conversation further … I’ve raised a lot of questions and I’ve offered some suggestions. What do you think? Engage. Do you see eye to eye or see it differently? What questions did I miss?
What I long to understand one day is this: if God exists and he is so clever why did he choose to comunicate through third parties? I know that some people say that they talk with God truly but even if we believe them they don’t seem to be very convincing. They are often more similar to those thousands of people convinced that they met alliens.
Why the need to punish mankind by switching off the sound when the best and the easiest way to communicate is through language?
Doesn’t the anthropomorphic terminology become more and more problematic? Does it sound strange to you when you read your words and then realize you are talking about something that may be “non-material”, yet you continue to refer to it as a “he”?
I feel like this language has been to restrictive, because of the literalistic approach we’ve so often taken. Anthropomorphic symbolism can be helpful, but it’s overused. I wonder what would happen if we put it aside for a few generations and try it again after it lost all the associated baggage.
Mike, I don’t think there is a way around it. We’re human beings, so we’re bound to use human language. Once we’re aware of this “limitation” we can work quite well with it. Understanding linguistics (semantics, etc.) is an essential block in doing theology.
The use of pronouns are limited and restrictive. See the problem with 3rd person singular pronouns that could refer to both male and female. Some have suggested to use “they”, but it doesn’t always work perfect. It is what it is. None of the 3rd person singular pronouns work perfect for describing God. The pronoun “they” would be closer to describe God as a Trinity, but not good in talking about God as One. In short it is OK to use limiting language as long as you’re aware of the limitation.
The only way to apply your suggestion is to avoid completely the use of pronouns when referring to God.
Florin,
That may be a good solution!
I understand what you are saying about the limits of languages, but it does seem a little bit like a cop out. Why do we need a pronoun at all? Why do we need to project human qualities onto our mysteries, or the “gap” in our knowing. Just because we can’t nail down every aspect of the universe, why must we use anthropomorphic language for the parts we don’t (yet?) understand? I understand that these literary techniques are valuable and are part of normal artistic expression, but we’ve used them almost exclusively to the point that they are now inseparable. To talk of God as something other than a person, has become something “less” rather than something “more”.
I think there are plenty of other options. Scientists recognize the gaps in our understandings all the time. In Quantum mechanics, physicists even recognize a “god particle”, yet you don’t see them using pronouns to describe it. What they can describe are the effects of it. I’d love to see us talking about God in terms of the effects of living faithfully, rather than idolize objects and/or concepts for worship. I think that would be more faithful to the story of incarnation, which imagines the possibility of making an abstract concept like God into something real, rather than speaking about the concept as if our conception was already reality.
I would add that we need to think about emergent properties, characteristics that the organization of chemistry into cells and cells into a human body may have, which the chemicals would not have in another configuration.
This means that things that in the past may have been thought of as a separate substance may perhaps be better thought of in other terms today.
And it means that it may be a mistake to look for God in between matter, as it were, rather than precisely in the aggregate of all that is.
Good Morning
I have enjoyed the discussion but I am surprised that there is no discussion of panenthiesm which is more inclusive and speaks to our post modern world more inclusively. For me at least, it leads me to understand the metaphorical language usage in various Holy Books, including the Bible.