Myriad divine options have existed, and in some places continue to present themselves to humanity. A supernatural smorgasbord of deity flavors “existed” in the ancient world, replete with idols, rituals, sacrifices, rigmaroles to procure security within a turbulent world. So what is one more? Is the God of the Jews and Christians simply the lucky survivor of that not so lucky myriad, yet offers no appreciable difference from them?
In the previous post, I described the credible presence of theism within the past and present of the science community. Of course, some theists do not believe in a personal God; they simply believe that the rationality, informational coding, and order apparent in the world lead to the evidential conclusion of a brilliant Mind behind it. I alluded to this as Einstein’s position, for example, and he merits quoting here: “Every one who is seriously engaged in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that the laws of nature manifest the existence of a spirit vastly superior to that of men, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble” (ctd. in Flew & Varghese 2007).
Now, if this “spirit vastly superior” to us were to reveal Himself to us, it seems reasonable to conclude that given His brilliance in creation, He would be markedly different from the localized deities often representing or merging with elements of that creation or human political powers. Therefore, a God who genuinely transcends nature and humanity would indeed be different from the gods blended with nature and the human ego.
One credit the localized deities merit is their revealing of humanity’s natural religious impulse. And I have no problem citing that impulse as natural. It’s indicative of a desire for transcendence, further evidence of a divine presence beyond our world. Considering it a consequence of natural selection seems another imaginative stretch (see previous). Still, the ancient world being unfamiliar with God (having lost that relationship in the Fall--more on that in future posts), its peoples would logically extend their worship and spiritual adherence to natural and political powers--the moon, the sun, stars, earthly items, Pharaohs, Caesars, etc. It’s a reverb effect: the people call out and quest spiritually; they are not aware of anything beyond their immediate world, so their spirituality bounces back in idols representing familiarity--gods related to the skies, seasons, fertility, waters, storms, powerful political entities, etc.
Not surprisingly, people locked within nature become trapped within a deterministic fate--roles are assumed and assigned, hierarchies are established; temple prostitutes are determined, even human sacrifices are set. Of course, individual wills are not considered: your role in relationship to the order of things is predetermined. Individuality is a relatively modern notion as is linear thinking or the prospect of an open future.
With this, we need to be aware of anachronism--the tendency to assume the ancient mindset was somehow similar to ours, that concepts we take for granted were part of ancient people’s awareness. However, this is not the case: individuality, freedom, progress, future, justice, equality are not the products of evolution or localized deities. In fact, those concepts fed and continue to feed the demise of localized deities--our modern world’s familiarity with those concepts make it difficult for localized deities to sustain their powers once people become aware of those notions. These concepts are the products of the same “spirit vastly superior to that of men” (cited above). This Spirit approaches humanity in history and that has changed everything.
The Old Testament records God’s approach of Abraham and his subsequent Jewish descendants which display that gradual, progressively revealing--and thereby at times messy--encounter between the God of the universe and darkened human nature. Thomas Cahill’s The Gift of the Jews: How a Tribe of Desert Nomads Changed the Way Everyone Thinks and Feels effectively discusses the challenges and transformations the early Israelites partake in as they become the people to which and through which God introduces himself: For the ancient Sumerians, “only impersonal survival, like the kingship, like the harvest, mattered; the individual, the unusual, the singular, the bizarre--persons or event that did not conform to an archetype--could have no meaning. And without the individual, neither time nor history is possible. But the God of Avraham, Yitzhak, and Yaakov [Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob]--no longer your typical ancient divinity, no longer the archetypal gesturer--is a real personality who has intervened in real history, changing its course and robbing it of predictability. He will continue to intervene. And these interventions will gradually bring about in Avrahams descendants enormous changes of mind and heart” (1998). These drastic changes clearly display that their source was not any localized deity, a projection of human desires, but rather from a Source with very different desires for humanity.
Of many examples that could be delved into, one I find particularly intriguing is God’s forbidding the ancient Israelites against representing Him with any sort of image or idol--a radically new notion, which the Israelites struggled with repeatedly--the golden calf debacle being among the earliest. They had to learn to relate to a God who cannot be contained or represented in any sort of image. However, the rationale for that command, and for this I’m indebted to Pastor and Professor Gregory Boyd, is because God created man and woman in His image. He already has an image--it’s us; therefore, no fabricated images or idols are necessary. Gradually through the Old Testament, wherein the prophet’s routine pleas for their fellow citizens to be attentive to justice and mercy if they claim to follow God, and culminating with sharp clarity in the New Testament in person of Jesus Christ, who routinely taught and demonstrated that love of God and love of people are intrinsically bound concepts, the binding of faith and love was formed. Sarah Ruden’s Paul Among the People: The Apostle Reinterpreted and Re-imagined in His Own Time thoughtfully captures the drastic contrast of the burgeoning Christian community against a backdrop that never would have naturally evolved it: New Testament content “shows a great concern with the link between religion and getting along with other people, caring for them, allowing communities to thrive. Among those who had grown up as polytheists, there was nothing trite about this program. On the contrary, it set out a new way of thinking that must have been quite exciting, a hope for something beyond exploitation, materialism, and violence--a plan not for competing in purity and denial of life, but for the sharing of life in full” (2010). This new way of thinking then eventually transformed our world in ways the modern mind cannot fully appreciate due to our distance from the ancient minds.
While certainly more could be said, clarified and exemplified, my intent here was to concisely demonstrate that the God of the Bible is well-beyond compare to any localized, mythical deities past or present. The contrasts are profound, and the subsequent impact on our world has been profound. I would suggest that humanism’s roots and the pillared assumptions of Western culture are comfortably traced back to what was supernaturally new to the peoples of the Old and New Testaments. Therefore, when non-believers suggest they can be “morally good” in our day without Christianity, I don’t find it surprising they can. And really self-assessed goodness is not the point of the Gospel. Nonetheless, we all presently exist in an inherited consciousness that history reveals carries God’s handprint. Still, while we enjoy the Giant’s shade of individual dignity and freedom and their necessary complements, it’s wise to recognize the Giant providing it, than to just assume these profound shadows were somehow simply contrived by humans alone (to borrow from G.K. Chesterton).
No comments:
Post a Comment