God is Good

-
November 1; Anabaptist Mennonite Biblical Seminary
“As much as possible, youth workers should do their best to teach the whole message of the Word of God so that young people in both subcultures [the upwardly-mobile strivers and the 'punk-rock' groups] will know what they're called to become instead of believing in gods that only affirm what they already are.” (Campolo, Tony: The Church and the American Teenager, 1989 – p.49)

I'm sure much of what Campolo wrote in his analysis of teen subcultures and the church would be different if he were to rewrite the book today. Teen subcultures shift and change so rapidly in this technological age that it's hard to pin them down into identifiable groups as he did in 1989. But the question his book raises is no less pertinent to youth ministry today than it was then: how does the church faithfully raise its children in a multicultural, multilingual, everything-and-everybody-is-technologically-connected kind of a world?



The point he makes that subcultures recreate God as one who affirms what they already are has much broader application than just to teen subcultures, seems to me. In fact, I don't see how anyone, anywhere could visualize God, His/Her nature, His/Her vision for humanity other than through the lens of his own experience. There's an old saying that Man created God in his own image; in the image of Man created he Him. To those who see God as static and immutable, as an anthropomorphic, grandfatherly figure, the possibility that we have assigned attributes to Him that reflect our own worldview, our own biases, may seem heretical. Sociologically, anthropologically, however, the observation that the gods reflect the environment and culture of their believers is undeniable.



To the Hebrew people of the Old Testament, God was often warlike, retributive. Christians, particularly of the Anabaptist tradition, see God reflected in Christ, who was neither of those. Pastors and teachers have expended a great deal of effort toward marrying the conflicting visions. 

The concept of a God reflecting circumstances, the worldview of the times, eases that tension. I think it's called, "reading in context."

One could lament the observation that people simply need a static, immutable, anthropomorphic God in order to hold onto faith, but that might in fact be true for many. Far be it from me to undermine the foundation that gives many lives their meaning. On the other hand, my view that “God” and “Good” are not only etymologically derived from the same idea, but that they are in fact, the same thing can arguably be seen as creating God “in my own image.” In other words—Campolo's words—“believing in gods that only affirm what they already are.”

The sermon this morning at Prairie Street Mennonite Church wrestled with the idea in Matthew that Christ's followers should strive to be perfect as God is perfect. Given this sure recipe for failure, the speaker summarized those passages in the Old Testament that list attributes of God—compassionate, forgiving, slow to anger, etc—with the contention that it is these characteristics, not discrete actions, that are meant to define perfection. A good point and a wonderful sermon, but, obviously, leaning on the vision of a god created at least to some degree in the consciousness of the writers of a given time.



The sermon and the concepts it presented resonated well with the congregation; Anabaptists in the 21st Century in the vicinity of Prairie Street Mennonite are affirmed by the image of God as described by some Old Testament prophets and sages—at least where God is described as compassionate, forgiving and slow to anger. The warrior God, not so much.



Good is indivisible. It exists only in consciousness and consciousness exists only in humans, at least in the sense in which we define it. Good is summarized in a central tenet of nearly all religions: we think about and act toward other people and other institutions and groups in obedience to the principles that contribute to our own happiness and well being. I see no way of reaching so desperately-needed Christian unity before we allow the principles of the Sermon on the Mount and the Golden Rule to define our “Good.” Along with this radical consciousness, we simply can't any longer cling to the Gods we've created in our own images; surely the incessant divisions among Christians is proof enough that we have found it more important to defend our individual Gods than to strive to perfection, embrace the common GOOD. 

We are smack in the middle of another episode in which Christians are speculating on their own particular God's opinion regarding covenanted gay relationships. I think our youth will respond best to an acknowledgement and application of the principles of GOOD to this conundrum. "Do unto others as you would be done by," and read the Sermon on the Mount every Sunday morning, and strive toward perfection by applying it during the week.











Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Democracy or bust

-
Image
  Politics . You can tell how people relate to this word by the way they use it. “I’m not much interested in politics,” for instance, equates it with the day-to-day news about our current government, elections, party dynamics, etc. A narrow definition.                By whatever word we use, it’s clear that the setting and enforcing of the principles under which we form community—and function as community—existed before the word was coined. In families, in schools, in workplaces, on the roads, in the economy, the making and respecting of agreed-to behavioural expectations in a community is the necessary defense against chaos.                How behavioural expectations come to be, how they are altered, how they are enforced … and most importantly by whose authority … is fundamental. The “benevolent dictator” model has a long history: give...
Read more

Do I dare eat a peach?

-
Image
  All the talk of Joe Biden’s unfitness for the position of president of the USA must have others of his age—80 plus—wondering about their own fitness. Most of us octogenarians are well aware of our physical limitations, I think, but mentally? How can I know, for instance, if the lines I’m writing are logically sound, or if they fall somewhere between inane and gibberish? How can I know if my diminished capacity can be trusted to make such a judgment? And what if my friends are too kind to tell me when to close my laptop? Hearing an aging loved one tell the same stories to the same people every day has the able-minded nodding knowingly and cluckingly (that’s a word, isn’t it?). We’re obviously too kind and too hip not to know that people experiencing obvious dementia deserve to be “handled with care,” and we’ve devised places and strategies to preserve for them whatever dignity is still possible. But it’s not dissimilar from the pain-relieving, ointment applying, chair-exercisin...
Read more

Stories We Live By

-
Image
  David Brooks, writer, philosopher and journalist, said in a recent speech to the Aspen Ideas gathering that the current divisive, belligerent mood among the people of earth can’t be attributed to our real-life situations. We have space, food, water, shelter, healthcare enough for everyone, and more. We don’t fight because we need to, he said, but because we carry stories in our heads to which we respond. It's clear that he doesn’t mean story in the same way I meant it when I published a collection of short stories , but there’s something to be gained in connecting the two, particularly when behaviour is guided by, for instance, The Holy Bible , or the Quran , each telling a story by which adherents understand life and by which their actions are governed. Scientists, as a rule, act according to a very different story of life, their exploration guided very much by the saga of evolving nature and the incontrovertible principles that govern all things. Our stories —I think Broo...
Read more