Article 12:
Redefining God As Human-
Part 1
by Wendell Krossa
(From the series "Creating A Horizontal God", Copyright, W. Krossa)
The following points intentionally overlap with the previous features of the human self. This is done purposely because God is a truly human reality and therefore what is truly human will reflect the character of God.
It needs to be stated clearly again that God has always been humane. God has always been loving, oriented to serving or relating horizontally, a generous God, endlessly forgiving, not dominating, not possessive, and never threatening or given to punishing. These are the central features of truly humane reality and God has always been more humane than any person. He has always been the supremely human God. All true humanity originates ultimately with God.
In stating that God is human I am simply recognizing what God has always been about. From the earliest awareness of transcendence people have projected the basest features onto God- possessiveness, domination, control, anger, and punishment among others. In recognizing that God is humane I am rejecting all the pagan projection that has taken place over the preceding millennia.
The following features do not present a final nor even a complete view of God. God is an immense idea and reality to explore and as new information about life continues to emerge, new information will help to inform human understanding of God in an ongoing process. These features only suggest some general contours for a new emerging view of a more humane God.
I am aware that we can not describe God in any final sense. God is ultimately unknowable and indescribable. And any attempt to define God always runs the risk of distortion. As Karen Armstrong has said well, early monotheists "were quite clear that their ideas about God were not sacrosanct but could only be provisional. They were entirely man-made- they could be nothing else- and quite separate from the indescribable Reality they symbolized" (1). She notes further that the reality we call God exceeds all human attempt to express.
But at the same time we can not live in a vacuum. We need something descriptive or definitive on which to focus our imagination and emotions. It might be something allegorical or symbolical. "All religion must begin with some anthropomorphism. A deity which is utterly remote from humanity, such as Aristotle's Unmoved Mover, can not inspire a spiritual quest" (2).
But as Albert Nolan said, not all ideas are of equal value. Some are better by virtue of being more humane. And the standard of truly humane reality is a useful yardstick for evaluating ideas of God.
Ultimately a humane God is known most clearly in the lives of ordinary people trying to be decent human beings, trying to support and love their families, trying to be kind and helpful to others in their communities. This is where we find the clearest expression of what God is like.
Interesting in this regard is the fact that Jesus never said anything about God in himself. He spoke repeatedly about loving the neighbor in the most ordinary activities of daily life. This he said, was where the kingdom or realm of God was to be experienced. This is where God was present and active. His definition of God was basically- love your neighbor.
The particular features noted below were included because they are so essential to human relating and existence and they relate especially to freedom from control which is our focus in this study. These features speak mainly to the issue of the vertical/horizontal orientation in ideas of God and how that orientation influences human relating.
There is a simple logic behind these features. The logic is that God will not violate the basic nature of the universe and life that he is involved with. For instance, indeterminacy theory reveals that life is not predetermined, and therefore we can conclude that God can not be the predetermining God of traditional Western religion.
Note: Pardon my use of gender in referring to God. English does not have genderless third person singular pronouns.
The basic features of a humane God are as follows:
1. God is an entirely horizontal reality, not a vertical reality. God does not exist above life or humanity and relate down to people as a superior to inferiors. A vertical orientation of relating is a basic feature of animal reality and God has never been a part of that base existence. God does not approach humanity in a top down manner. Instead, he relates to humanity and all of life horizontally. And in fact it is not helpful to even think of God as some reality that exists separately from humanity or human consciousness.
The idea of God existing above life or humanity comes from an ancient worldview which, according to Michael Morwood, saw God as localized up in heaven, looking down on the earth (Tomorrow's Catholic, p.16). But modern information now demands that we view God as everywhere present as the life-force, energy or power that sustains all life. God is in all, with all and through all. Everything is permeated with God. This fact demands a new view of God as right here now, not above or somewhere else (p.36). This reality is foundational to the truth of God being horizontal and relating to all horizontally.
Placing God on a horizontal plane may at first appear blasphemous to some people, but it does not harm or diminish God in any way. Rather, it enhances God for it removes God from the arena of animal-like vertical relationships and places him within the horizontal orientation of truly humane relating. This is an elevation of the idea of God and it is where the humane God has always existed.
So a humane God relates to humanity and to all of life as an equal. This God is in every way the complete opposite of the old animal-like God who is viewed as a Supreme Ruler dominating all of life from the top of a hierarchy.And in saying that God relates to all as an equal I am not saying that humanity is God. I am only saying that God does not dominate others, but rather treats all as equals. This refers to attitude toward others and relationship to others, not to essential nature.
The nature of humane reality was expressed well by Jesus. He revealed that the true nature of God's kingdom was not about reigning kingship but rather it was about humble service to others. When people tried to force Jesus to become a king, he refused and fled. He insisted that he had come to serve, not to be served (1). He was stating that the kingdom of God as a truly humane reality was not about vertical relating with its inevitable expression of domination and control.
This was a radical reorientation of the idea of God and such tampering with old vertically oriented ideas of God cost Jesus dearly. Ever since the emergence of god consciousness, gods and God had embodied vertical patriarchal domination and elite control. Now Jesus was stating that God was an entirely different reality, a non-controlling horizontally oriented reality.
This reorientation of God turned the world upside down and made the first last and the last first. Few people of Jesus' time could even comprehend what he was saying as it appeared too blasphemous to imagine. Most reacted violently in rage- rejecting out rightly any such move away from vertical domination toward horizontally oriented and egalitarian relationships.
In the statement about the kingdom of God as service, Jesus demolished forever the dominant/subservient relationship of animal-like gods to humans. He ended forever the idea of God as a superior controlling others below him. In this one statement, Jesus condemned utterly vertical hierarchical relating and any form of control of others.
He was announcing to the world that the old vertical existence had ended and God had come to establish a new horizontal existence with free egalitarian relationships. There would be no superior/inferior or dominant/subservient in God's world. Control and coercion now belonged to the animal past, while relating as free human equals would become the future. This statement of Jesus' about the kingdom of God as service to others profoundly damns all hierarchy and authority over others as inhumane and not worthy of any place in a truly humane existence.
Most religious people react fiercely to any suggestion of equality in relating with God as an effort to diminish God in some way. So let me be clear once again- God is qualitatively different from all his creation. God is, I might say, better, but not superior in the sense of being above in location or distance or relationship. God is not better in terms of human status or hierarchical position. This is the central point in Jesus' teaching on the kingdom of God as service and his argument that the truly humane response is to serve and not lord over others. It is a relational issue.
So God is beyond knowing in terms of the infinitely better quality of his love and humanity. He is beyond imagining (transcendent) in those terms. But he is never above in terms of superior/inferior relating. Vertical relating with its essential element of domination reflects animal reality and existence and such ideas when attributed to God, only diminish him. Jesus' teaching on status, power, and prestige show us that God is never above in such terms, but is actually below as a servant. And to serve others is such a supernatural and elevated expression of true humanity that ultimately it takes the power of God to express it.
It is an animal-like response to take opportunities to dominate others. It is the expression of the basic animal drive of domination to want to climb to the top of any hierarchical system. But it is supremely human to refuse to dominate others and to insist on remaining as an equal with all others. This is the essence of the story of Jesus.
I want to emphasize strongly that the humane God exists separately from all hierarchical relating and all hierarchical structure. A truly humane God does not exist in or support any form of hierarchical relating or any form of vertically oriented institution. It is a purely animal drive and mentality that seeks such hierarchical arrangements and competitively climbs hierarchical structures. It is animal to dominate and control others. But the human God has nothing to do with such vertical structures or any form of vertical relating. We only degrade God when we drag him in to validate such institutions and relationships.
Domination is a great evil that has brought humanity endless misery and conflict. In Jesus we see that not only does God not dominate or control, but God also actively opposes domination or control by others in any shape or form. Jesus' life is the story of vehement opposition to dominating religious leadership and controlling religious institutions as well as all other relationships or structures of control.
This fact should lead to serious questioning of contemporary religious institutions, such as those of Christianity, with their rigidly hierarchical arrangements of relationships.The Vertical Always Dehumanizes- Brinsmead
In regard to the horizontal orientation of the human God, Brinsmead argues that Jesus claimed to be fully human- the son of man or the son of humans. He was the first to be truly human with a truly human worldview. Jesus' worldview, says Brinsmead, showed that "to be truly human is to love on a horizontal plane, to relate to others horizontally and not vertically and hierarchically" (2).
Jesus, argues Brinsmead, refused to acknowledge all forms of vertical authority thinking because they were inhuman. He then makes this profound and radical statement that "Jesus regarded the exercise of authority as a pagan characteristic" (3). Jesus condemned all vertical relating and control as animal-like and destructive to human life.
Brinsmead further argues that Jesus came and demolished the vertical dimension of both God and religion (4). He adds that "Jesus abolished the vertical and devotion to the vertical. He taught our duty to love on a horizontal level takes priority over everything" (5). Jesus was on all points opposed to vertically oriented religious ideas, practices, and structures. Jesus placed humans on the same level as God and God on the same level as humans. This, says Brinsmead, was seen as blasphemy by the religious authorities and they put Jesus to death for it.
The core reason for rejecting the vertical dimension to God, according to Brinsmead, is that devotion to a higher good always results in the mistreating and dehumanizing of people (6). Devotion to a non-human reality such as God above humanity, always leads to non-human behavior toward others. Devotion to something non-human results in devotion becoming inhuman.
Brinsmead notes perceptively that "every religion professes to work for the good of humanity but each assumes a higher good than humanity and so humanity is always subordinated by religion. Humanity is therefore mistreated and dehumanized whenever there is devotion to some good higher than humanity" (7).
He also sets forth the example of Paul in the New Testament who, because of his devotion to a non-human God, found himself committing "profoundly inhuman acts" (8) out of dedication to his God. "His religious devotion drove him to subordinate human impulses of compassion in order to serve a higher good, a non-human God" (9). Loyalty to God and to the law of God came before compassion to humans.
Brinsmead's conclusion is that devotion to a superior God inevitably dehumanizes. Submission to any vertical religious authority causes people to act inhumanely toward themselves and toward others (10). The vertical relationship always dehumanizes (11). This is inevitable because vertical forms of relating is activate and reinforce residual animal impulses in humans to dominate and control. Such animal drives then effectively supplant egalitarian human impulses and emotions.
I have made this point repeatedly that vertical relating and vertical structures validate and encourage the expression of animal drives to control. The great tragedy in all of this is that the idea of God has been used throughout history to validate these arrangements of relationships and structures which cause such immense damage to human well-being. In doing so, the idea of God has been used to justify the most inhumane actions and abuse of others. God has been used to validate the basest of animal reality and behavior.
Nothing, then, but inhuman existence and conflict has resulted from devotion to God as a non-human vertical reality. We can all start the journey toward a new view of God, says Brinsmead, by rejecting everything vertical or dominating in God. These are base animal features that have no place in a human God. A truly human God relates to all horizontally as an equal.
2. God is free and lives in freedom with all life. A free God does not control people nor coerce them in any way. This God does not control at all. A human God is a non-determining, non-dominating, non-controlling, and a non-commanding being.
This feature relates to what we noted earlier from Zwemer that it is not possible to command the human self (12). It is simply not possible to command love, trust, commitment or cooperation. These are only genuinely human responses when they are spontaneous responses.
And it should be noted here that God's relationship to humanity involves inspiration and invitation, but never coercion or threat. God invites free response.
Armstrong notes Paul Tillich's thought that "A God who kept tinkering with the universe was absurd; a God who interfered with human freedom and creativity was a tyrant...An omnipotent, all-knowing tyrant is not so different from earthly dictators who made everything and everybody mere cogs in the machine which they controlled. An atheism that rejects such a God is amply justified" (13).
Armstrong argues frankly that the view of God as a divine tyrant imposing his will on unwilling human servants has to go. She states that terrorizing the populace into obedience with threats is no longer acceptable. The idea of God as Ruler and Lawgiver is not acceptable in the modern world (14).
Brinsmead also claims, "More and more thinkers now say that this kind of theism is dead because God does not intervene in human affairs as a compulsive force and does not manipulate the world by arbitrary power. This kind of world relationship could not help human progress, but would only destroy human freedom and identity" (15)
The idea of a God who denies freedom and controls all things has flourished in Western religions such as Christianity. To quote Armstrong again, "in the West there has been a tendency to regard the Bible as factually true in every detail. Many people have come to see God as literally and physically responsible for everything that happens on earth, in rather the same way that we ourselves make things or set events in motion" (16). But such a view of an omnipotent Ruler simply does not fit with reality as we know it today. Such views of God are no longer valid in light of our contemporary understanding of freedom in life.
We also recognize today that early people projected their own experiences and ideas onto God and thereby created gods in their own image. For instance, during the emergence of kings God came to be also viewed as a king and eventually the king of all kings (19). This reinforced the idea of God as omnipotent Ruler or Lord of all.
True freedom demands that God does not determine life or the future of life. Brinsmead notes that the old view of God holds the idea that before the beginning of history God had determined everything that would happen in human history (17). The old God controls all of history and all human activity.
That God who created the world and rigidly determined its laws, says Brinsmead, now sits above the world determining its destiny. He says that under that God "nothing new or unpredictable and creative could ever happen because God planned it long ago" (18). This is the same view of God that shaped Newton's ideas of a closed, mechanistic universe operating by fixed, eternal laws. It was a universe totally devoid of the true essentials of freedom- spontaneity, chance, creativity, and free choice.
The old determining God is the product of the predestinarian theology of Augustine, Luther, and Calvin, according to Brinsmead. That ideology presents a God who controls the entire world and every detail of every life in it. In this view of God there is no freedom for every detail of life was planned long ago. It is a view of God where "God forces his will on everybody through omnipotent coercion... God has omnipotent coercive control of the world and its destiny" (19).
Jesus, says Brinsmead, introduced a new revelation of God but his followers soon integrated it into the old views of God (20). The free and human God revealed by Jesus was soon turned into the same inhuman deity as the old God who omnipotently controls all.
In the old view of God, early people had refined control into its ultimate expression. Animal-like control was raised to new heights, even to the point that it was made the fundamental principle of life and the universe. At the very pinnacle of human thought, that control was embodied in the idea of a supreme dominating King who predetermined the life trajectory of every atom in the universe.
There is absolutely no room for genuine freedom to operate in such a view of God, though theologians have tried long and hard to combine human freedom with views of a God who holds sovereign control of all things. These religious explanations have only resulted in the confusing and contradictory combination of mutually exclusive realities.
Jacques Ellul has also argued that God can never exert power over others for that would deny freedom. In his view, power and freedom are mutually exclusive realities. "Love presupposes freedom and freedom expands only in love... Freedom can never exert power. There is full coincidence between weakness and freedom. Similarly, freedom can never mean possession. There is exact coincidence between freedom and non-possession" (24).
Indeterminacy theory, also known as chaos theory, has also undermined the old view of a predetermining God who has preordained all history and all human life. It is now known that life and the systems of the universe are open to elements of indeterminacy or chance (21). The totality of choices and actions in any system or process can lead to an infinite variety of non-determined outcomes.
It is now becoming more widely understood that there is no place in the universe for a Calvinistic God who predetermines all. Chaos theory has irrevocably undermined the tight control that was so central to ideas of that old God.In the real universe even order is not order according to the traditional view of law which views life as being founded on basic principles or laws which are believed to be fixed, eternal, and unchanging. We now know that even fundamental material order and basic physical laws are subject to change. Fundamental laws are not like fixed eternal objects, but are more like processes which are subject to randomness and indeterminacy (22).
Indeterminacy theory has also undermined an ancient religious idea that has caused more confusion and distress than perhaps any other idea in human history. This is the idea that an omnipotent God who controls all things, actually punishes evil and rewards good in the events happening in people's lives. This is commonly expressed in the belief that if people do good then they will be rewarded or blessed. This is to say, good things will happen to them. To the contrary, if they commit wrong acts, then bad things will happen to them.
In religion, doing good is defined as doing religious things such as saying prayers, attending religious services, and fulfilling the myriad obligations of religious institutions. Doing wrong is defined often as not fulfilling religious obligations.
But no person knows the ultimate meaning or reason behind the often unpredictable events of life. To attribute these things to God only confuses and causes extra distress to already suffering people. It is a cruel and inhumane use of the idea of God.
Also, what are we to make of the fact that far too often horribly random tragedies afflict the very best and most innocent of people, while often the nastiest of people go through life in good health and enjoying great opportunities and material comfort.
Using the idea of an omnipotent punishing and rewarding God to explain the events of life falls completely apart when innocent little children die or when good people suffer from human error or natural disasters. To attribute such things to God is to create a monster. It can sometimes be terrifying, but we need to accept that there is randomness in life. Chaos and indeterminacy are frightening because horrible things may happen to the best of people no matter how hard they pray. While they are frightening elements of freedom, randomness and chance are essential for freedom to remain a reality where people are truly uncoerced and free.
The idea of a punishing and rewarding God has been used for millennia by religious leaders to scare people into submission to their religious agendas which they claim to be the will of God. Reward and punishment are ancient functions that have long been used to control people and these cruel responses were long ago projected onto ideas of God.
People who believe they are separated from God, guilty of sin, and subject to divine punishment are easily manipulated as they will do anything to find relief from their guilt and fear. Religious authorities know this well and are experts in using the threat of punishment.
These functions of reward and punishment are still used widely today in all sorts of organizational settings. Modern concepts of punishment in relation to systems of organizational law are ultimately derived from the ancient idea of punishing gods. Those ancient myths embody the belief that the gods gave a correct revelation or law and any disobedience to that law had to be punished. Out of those ancient mythical ideas punishment came to be viewed as a fundamental law of the universe. It continues to serve as an effective tool of control.
The idea of Hell emerged as perhaps the ultimate idea of punishment. It became the most frightful and effective ideological tool ever created by human mentality to control people. The threat of eternal burning has kept countless millions of people fearfully subservient to all sorts of inhumane systems and laws.
Tragically, this most inhumane idea ever invented by the human mind has become deeply embedded in the greatest reality that the human mind has ever become aware of- God. It has made the old God into a monster of incredible proportions. Ideas of a punishing God are simply the product of overheated religious minds full of vengeance toward humanity and trying to find validation for the expression of their own base drives for vengeance toward others. Hell is the sacralized expression of the very worst residual animal drives still found in human mentality. It represents the ugliest of animal emotions to destroy and punish. But since being projected onto God it has been very effective for scaring people into slavish submission to religious agendas.
The Process Of Co-Creation With God
Continuing with his argument for the free nature of God, Brinsmead states that life is a process full of chance, spontaneity, disorder, and unstructured reality (23). God, he says, is part of this process of trial and error. It is a process of emerging freedom.
The real God, according to Brinsmead, is overseeing the birth of free and equal colleagues, not controlled puppets. God has made us "co-creators with an infinite number of possible futures. There is nothing inevitable about life and the universe" (24).
Henri Bergson said the same about a century ago in his comment quoted by Daniel Boorstin, "(For) Bergson, who found his meaning in the seeking, evolution had become God's 'undertaking to create creators'" (25).
With the new God of freedom there is, says Brinsmead, "no servile submission. God expects free creative acts. God is not above and has not planned the outcome in every detail" (26). There is nothing inevitable about life or what happens in life, but rather, there are infinite numbers of options for the future.
"Closed, determined views of history are fatalistic and dehumanizing. They do not arouse people to a sense of their creativity and responsibility, but consign them to resignation. The enemy of responsibility is fatalism (the belief that God has predetermined everything and demands submission to this predetermined will). This stunts growth and curbs creativity" (27).
The very common idea that the way things are or the way things happen is God's will, and must be fatalistically accepted as such, is nonsense and leads to the passivity Brinsmead refers to. The way things are is too often the result of human choice and action, action that is still far too animal-like and which must be changed to a more humane reality. Let us not irresponsibly blame our situations on God. We have the freedom to choose to act and it is time to grow up and accept our freedom and responsibility to change life for the better.
Brinsmead continues, arguing that creation is a dynamic, ongoing process where nothing is programmed to follow a predetermined plan. God is not above, he says, planning the outcome of every detail (28). God's involvement in history is not coercive but is through the influence of example and persuasion.
God, says Brinsmead, has given people an open future to be free and human. It is up to people to take responsibility for the limitless possibilities of their freedom and creatively move into the future with a new God. Humanity has the freedom to move the direction of evolution and life in entirely new and more humane trajectories.
Evolution, then, can also be viewed as a process of co-creating with God, humanity, and all of life in a process of free cooperation. Evolution has no fixed direction (29). As Davies has said, creation is an ongoing process which is developing new structures, processes and potentialities all the time. New principles come into play which encourage the development of ever more organized and complex states. This means the future is unknowable, he says. There is in such a process the possibility for real creativity and endless novelty. "The universe is free to create itself as it goes along", says Davies (30). In particular, there is room for genuine human freedom and choice.
The human God also has a part in this open, creative process and will influence people toward more genuine humanity but this God will not coerce. God's will is freedom for diverse, creative action in this open process. As Brinsmead says, in this process God does not interfere but hides behind the neighbor to avoid overshadowing or inhibiting the development of the human spirit.
We need to realize with gripping, inspiring intensity that this freedom is the reason for and the central meaning of human existence. We are here for such freedom.
Fighting Freedom With Institution And Ideology
According to Brinsmead, while we have the impulse to be free, we all tend to fear true freedom. We naturally prefer security, certainty, and predictability. Consequently, we build material security and construct ideological edifices to defy reality (31). We want, says Brinsmead, an authority that will give absolute certainty and free us from the responsibility of deciding right and wrong.
It has been argued that the entire history of religion and human organization in general has been the attempt by people to retreat from freedom to the false security of a commanded and controlled existence. Jaynes has much to say on this subject in his excellent work 'The Origin of Consciousness'.
A tightly controlled existence was the reality of our animal and then bicameral past where strict hierarchies kept uncertainty and chance at bay until growing social chaos disturbed them. And ever since our forefathers left the supposed security of that tightly controlled existence, we have tried to escape the uncertainty of freedom by constructing social orders and law oriented institutions to control life and thereby create a sense of security and predictability. In a very contradictory manner our constant efforts to escape freedom deny our loud protestations that freedom is the supreme value we hold.Ellul states that real freedom is intolerable for most people. He says that, "It is not true that people want to be free. They want the advantages of independence without the duties or difficulties of freedom. Freedom is hard to live with. It is terrible. It is a venture. It devours and demands. It is a constant battle, for around us there are always traps to rob us of it. But in particular freedom itself allows us no rest. It requires incessant emulation and questioning. It presupposes alert attention, ruling out habit or institution. It demands that I always be fresh, always ready, never hiding behind precedents or past defeats. It brings breaks and conflict. It yields to no constraint and exercises no constraint. For there is freedom only in permanent self-control and in love of neighbor" (37).
He notes that throughout human history there have been those who on suddenly finding themselves in a situation of freedom have soon returned to bondage. Slaves, for instance, are often afraid of freedom and afraid of taking charge of their own lives which is harder and more frightening than obeying someone else (38). What people want when they talk about freedom, says Ellul, is not being subject to others and being able to go where they want to go, but hardly more. They "definitely do not want to have to take charge of their own lives and be responsible for what they do. This means that they do not really want freedom" (39).
Ellul has also noted the conflict between our desire for freedom and our fear of it. He says that "The more security and guarantees we want against things, the less free we are. Tyrants are not to be feared today, but our own frantic need for security is. Freedom inevitably means insecurity and responsibility. But we moderns seek above all to be responsible for nothing" (40).
Jaynes argues that religion is the expression of the search for security and certainty in old hierarchies where all was controlled by gods (32). Prayer, for instance, is one common religious practice which is often nothing more than the expression of this ancient desire to be controlled by gods or God. It is too often an effort to avoid personal responsibility and freedom. Many people pray straightforwardly for God to take control and do things for them. In doing this they are abdicating personal responsibility and they are desperately looking for some sense of security and safety in being controlled by another.
Jaynes views science as a similar effort to find the lost certainties and predictability of a commanded and tightly controlled existence.Freedom means responsibility to choose action and then to accept full responsibility for the consequences of those choices. It means people will suffer from their own mistakes and the mistakes, carelessness, and even intentional cruelty of others. This is a frightening responsibility for it means the future of life and the universe is completely up to us. It is frightening because of the unpredictable and undetermined nature of life. But it is also exhilarating because it offers unlimited possibilities for free choice and creativity.
An Institutional and Religious God- the Ultimate Enemy of Freedom
Brinsmead continues, noting that through religion we fabricate vertical authorities and hierarchies which promise freedom for the price of surrendering freedom (33). The God of these vertical hierarchies does not want freedom but only servile submission. To our instinctive fear of freedom the hierarchical authorities add the fear of blasphemy- the fear of challenging the old vertical God, says Brinsmead. Sin in this hierarchical system becomes any infraction of their authority. All doubt is damned, especially human curiosity and the drive to freely investigate.
Faith in these old controlling religions is to believe and submit to the dogma, teaching, and rules of the ruling authorities. Such faith becomes, according to Brinsmead, a refuge of cowards (34). True faith to the contrary, he says, is expressed in doubt and a willingness to investigate. This is courage and human progress, not unbelief.
Religion, continues Brinsmead, despite its claim to bring freedom, has become the greatest enemy of true freedom. "Christians have more often imposed restraints than championed liberty. The church has been authoritarian, people have been taught obedience and submission to authority, not freedom and personal responsibility" (35). "Religious creeds were drafted with meticulous rules, rules, and more rules on how to think on every conceivable theological subject" (36).
Religious authorities never wavered in their conviction that the great God of heaven desired total control over the lives of his people in all their thoughts and actions, says Brinsmead. Consequently, all religious organizations are no better than cages of human oppression where people can neither think nor act for themselves (37). This is, according to Brinsmead, the worst outrage against the human spirit because freedom is the indispensable condition for being truly human. The church has not embraced the freedom of the horizontal but has instead denied human freedom and sanctioned oppression.
Further, every advance in human freedom and progress has been made in opposition to some authority, says Brinsmead. Progress comes with human freedom which is often achieved despite religious authority. In fact, the Christian church has seldom been in the forefront of the struggle for human freedom (38). More often the church has actively opposed human progress such as the struggle for women's rights.Despite this religious opposition, many people have rebelled against such inhuman oppression and the arbitrary authority of institutions like religion and struggled for the freedom to be truly human. They have been denounced as enemies of the church, but they have often been more free and more human than church people, says Brinsmead.
Fortunately, for all those people desiring freedom from oppressing religions and other controlling institutions, the humane God has absolutely no involvement with religion or institutionalization in any form. Religion and other institutionalized authorities are often the expression of purely animal-like drives to control others. The free God has nothing to do with these institutional efforts of people to control others.
In thinking of a God who grants freedom from control, we also need to question one of the most sacred beliefs of Christianity, which is the submission of children to parents. My argument is that at a very early age children must begin to learn to take responsibility for their own lives. Parents often have great difficulty in providing the restrained guidance that will help their children become fully responsible and unique adults.
Out of concern for their children's well being, parents tend to control their children excessively and beyond a reasonable time when parental guidance is needed. That time in much of Western society is considered to be the legal age limit of around 18 years of age which is set approximately to basic educational requirements of our societies. But this is often well beyond the age when most young people already feel able to make their own choices. In many cultures, young people around the ages of 11- 13 years of age are already considered adults able to make their way in adult society.
Continued control of children only produces resentment, humiliation, anger, and a struggle to break free of parental control. This conflict can lead to destructive behavior and ruined relationships between parents and children. This need not be the end result if parents would back off and allow their children to begin to exercise responsibility for their own lives and behavior at an earlier age.
Children will make mistakes as they learn to make difficult decisions. This is not to be feared or avoided but accepted as a natural part of the development process. Common sense will usually advise parents when to intervene to prevent serious damage and at what age such intervention is still appropriate. Until children are old enough to control themselves, we must not vacate all parental responsibility by refusing to provide some proper structure for them.
Brinsmead says regarding the parent-child relationships "Children need parental guidance and some pedagogical instruction. But again, we reject a vertical relationship between parent and child. As a human spirit, the child is equal to all human beings and entitled to the respect and dignity of being fully human... To be truly human means to live on the horizontal level" (39).
"The object of all child training must be personal freedom and responsibility... Wise counselors now recognize that young children would not be so readily victimized by sexual abuse if they were taught to be more self assertive with respect to their own bodies... Submission to elders and control by elders are unacceptable, even for young children" (40).
Children are some of the most controlled and dehumanized members of society and therefore some of the most abused people amongst us. It is no wonder that they grow up resentful and angry and then sometimes leave with ill will when they are physically able to break free of their parent's or teacher's domination. They are often not prepared for responsible freedom.
It has been argued before that it is only in full freedom that we can become truly and fully human. The fact that God is free and grants freedom to all life- this fact must become the basis for new forms of social order and for new forms of relating and human existence in all spheres of life, starting with the family.
Also in regard to controlling children, it is interesting to note that recent research on childhood learning has concluded that even young children need the freedom to learn in their own creative way. Too much of contemporary education is based on the archaic idea that children "need to be taught by being told, rather than being encouraged to take charge of their own learning" (41). This idea of enforced learning has led to a "dangerous dependence on adults and schooling" (42). It is all part of the destructive control built into all of our social institutions.
Rothschild states in regard to domination and child education that "Even at the preschool level, the qualities of the bureaucratic personality are unconsciously, but relentlessly conveyed to children" (43).
A humane God who is oriented to freedom may also help in a small measure to explain suffering, brutality, and war. For humanity to develop in a genuinely free manner God must not coerce, overwhelm, or control human life. Life and the universe must exist as spheres of freedom for people to create whatever they wish to create.
Tragically, residual animal drives have often overwhelmed emerging humanity and the result has been oppression, war, and all sorts of inhumane behavior. Human cruelty and its consequences are not the result of God's action or will. They are all the result of free people acting more like animals instead of like the human beings they were intended to become.
We are all still in transition from animal reality on our way toward a more humane existence. Unfortunately, some of us are still giving in to residual animal drives to aggressively compete and control and making little effort to develop our humanity. This giving way to animal drives by some people has immensely destructive consequences for the rest of humanity.
God is free and will not violate or override the freedom of people. This means that we alone will suffer the consequences of our choices and actions. While this makes human existence uncertain and frightening at times, it also offers great potential for change. We have the power to radically change life, social attitudes, history, and the ultimate direction of life in the universe. We can make life better and more humane. We have this power in our equal and free cooperative association with a free God.
This awesome freedom will take some getting used to. Most of us have been raised to believe in a God who ignores human freedom and often overrules the mistakes that people make. We are comfortably used to the idea of a God who rushes in to save people from any tragic consequences of their unwise choices. Religion has taught us that our place is simply to find the will of this God and then slavishly submit to it and all will be well. But such ideas do not reflect the reality of daily life.
In stating that God is free, I am not trying to undermine the sense of security and safety (in an often chaotic world) that many people find in the belief that God predetermines and controls everything in life. I simply want to prevent the horrible distortions to the idea of God that come from attributing all sorts of accidents and evil to God's control. That only leads to confusion, discouragement, anger, and ultimately blaming God for active involvement in evil. Theologians try to excuse this involvement by the creation of the fictitious permissive will of God- God permits evil, they claim. But nothing but confusion comes from these efforts to mix mutually conflicting realities.
This teaching about God controlling all things not only results in God often being blamed for evil as though he were a cruel and vengeful monster, but it also violates God's freedom as well as human freedom. It also leads to irresponsibility and passivity as people feel they can not do anything to make effective changes to events, but must instead, unquestioningly and passively submit to some predetermined and fixed will of God.
In saying all of the above I am not denying that God may be involved in life and even intervene in a radical manner to change events in life. But it seems arrogant for us to declare that we know when and how God may have intervened, especially when such claimed intervention often overwhelms and violates the freedom of people.
If God does use power to intervene in human affairs, then his intervention would be that of inspiring the response of love. Love shown to others makes God visible for love is the essential nature of God. If people express love then God lives in them and is manifesting his activity and presence. We all need this powerful intervention of God to help hold back improper anger, impatience, condemnation, greed, and selfishness- all animal-like responses. And we need God's power to forgive, be tolerant, patient, understanding, to give and share sacrificially. This is how we let God become visible in our lives and help us to develop as truly human.
In regard to God and suffering , Armstrong has noted that Jewish theologians have suggested that after the Holocaust we can no longer believe in the omnipotent control of God. She states that "When God created the world, he voluntarily limited himself and shared the weakness of human beings" (44).
Norman Mailer has suggested in regard to the Holocaust that God is not omnipotent and is in fact still learning. In the past, he has simply gotten some things, like the Holocaust, terribly wrong.
Boorstin suggests that the problem of God and suffering is a problem created by man. He says "Why is Job not told why he must suffer? Why would a good God allow evil in the world? This problem, one that Judeo-Christian man had created for himself by his belief, has haunted Western thinking for millennia. It is plainly a by-product of ethical monotheism- a 'tri-lemma' created by the three indisputable qualities of an all-knowing, all-powerful and all-benevolent God. 'If God were good', the British writer C. S. Lewis once observed, 'He would wish to make his creatures happy, and if God were almighty he would be able to do what he wished. But the creatures are not happy. Therefore God lacks either goodness or power, or both'" (45).
Lewis, Boorstin is arguing, has created a God with certain qualities and as by-product of the God he has created, he finds himself with a serious problem in his view of God. Too often we get ourselves into logically unsolvable dilemmas because we project onto God what we feel are rational features. We then run into all sorts of conflict with our creation. Ultimately, we are led to agree that Armstrong spoke wisely in regard to this issue of God and suffering when she suggested that God is hidden in mystery, he is far beyond human thought or comprehension.
Douglas Todd states that for religious people the following string of propositions has always been troubling:
God is all-good
God is all-powerful
Terrible things happen
Trying to logically reconcile these three propositions has driven many people to reject belief in God altogether.
Todd notes that Job, the biblical patriarch, rejected the dominant belief of his Middle Eastern place and time- that God punishes people for their sins. He says that "Despite endless entreaties for a simple answer, Job finally concluded God's creation is so awesome, so marvellous, so vast, that it can not be fully understood by a mere mortal" (46). Todd quotes another scholar who says "Job leaves suffering in the realm of mystery... He accepts suffering and evil exist. It happens and nobody knows why it happens. Its not as if God willed it to happen. Its not because people were bad" (47).
One writer states that "Many Western faithful now believe bad things happen because God has voluntarily renounced divine power so humans can be free" (48).
In another article Todd notes a theologian whose niece was killed by a falling tree. It was a coincidence- a result of natural law, says the theologian. "She just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. That's not an act of God. Whose God does something like that?" (49).
This same theologian says that many Christians , Muslims, and people of other faiths have promoted a false idea of a God who controls every single event in life and at any time could magically stop bad things from happening. Todd notes others who call this the "fallacy of omnipotence" (50). David Griffin says this fallacy is based on misunderstanding the kind of power God has. "It is based on the assumption divine power is the power to stop, destroy, obstruct or prevent. Whereas, divine power is really creative power- to evoke, to inspire, to persuade" (51).
This is a particularly important point to note about the power of God. Contemporary views of God present the power of God as omnipotent power to coerce, force, dominate and control people and events. But, as stated above, God's power is the power to inspire by example, to invite, and to encourage to love and be more humane. It is never the power to coerce or to control. Persuading power is quite different from traditional forms of human political power and most other forms of institutional power.
Another scholar, Charles Birch, says evil- as well as conflict and disorder- are inevitable when both God and the world have their own creative power. "Every natural entity, every atom, must have an aspect of self-determination, of spontaneity. For God to completely control the world would be the same as to annihilate it... the reason providence does not eliminate chance is because a world without chance is a world without freedom" (52).
Birch argues that people who ask why God allows disasters and evil, "have not been liberated from the concept of God as omnipotent dictator of the universe who could, if he willed, change the course of events by sheer fiat. This concept has infused tragedy into the histories of Christianity and Islam. When catastrophe strikes people ask- why did God do this to me? It is a non-question because God does not manipulate things and people" (Michael Morwood, Tomorrow's Catholic, p.42). Birch further states that "Given the choice between God creating a repetitive, prison-like universe or one in which humans, plants, and even molecules have freedom- this is the better world... The choice is either God doesn't create a significant world at all, or else creates a world like this, where Holocausts and earthquakes can occur" (53).
But such vulnerability is hard to accept, says Todd. Consequently, the belief in an all-controlling God has been promoted by influential religious people for a long time. But the other view of a persuasive, co-creating God has also been around for a long time. In fact, many Western thinkers believe this co-creating God was revealed by Jesus, says Todd (54).
Yet another scholar states that holding to the view of God as an all-powerful emperor can be dangerous. "God does not need that particular false compliment" he says. "It leads to humans believing they are powerless and can do little to avert suffering" (55).
The view of God as co-creator, on the contrary, enhances freedom, creativity and human responsibility. " You work through in advance that life is risky, and its unfairly risky, and you may die prematurely, or lose a limb or lose your children. And at the time of a tragedy, you reaffirm that God is with you in your grieving" (56).
As Morwood says, "If our image of God focuses on the presence of God in all things and accepts that God can only work within and through a 'free' environment if there is to be ongoing, creative development, then we must also accept that some things will necessarily go wrong" (Tomorrow's Catholic, p.41).
From the series "Taking The Vertical Out Of God" by W.
Krossa,
copyrighted material.
