So, if God can’t do everything, God can obviously do nothing. Right? That’s the kind of look people give me when I say “God… can’t…” I know this idea (the non-omnipotent God idea) is new, even disturbing to many people, but where did I ever say I believe in an Impotent God?
God is.
There’s the action.
The very name of God defies an impotent, do-nothing, characterization. The very name tells us that God cannot do nothing. God is action, movement, energy, being, doing. Though I have scant little of my Hebrew vocabulary anymore, I remember the insight I gained in learning that the Tetragrammaton (the divine name, transliterated by the English letters yhvh) is a name that essentially derives from the “to be” verb (haya in the past tense, hove in the present tense). (If the good Dr. Polaski is reading, I may need a little correction!)
So… when Moses asks for God’s name, it’s not Andy (you know, “Andy walks with me, Andy talks with me…”), nor Howard (“Our Father who art in heaven, Howard be thy name…”)… it’s a VERB. Just a verb — “yhvh” — which, with the vowels added, becomes Yahweh, and in an English translation becomes Jehovah.
My parents were both English majors. Especially my father. Meaning, he practiced his major throughout my childhood! (I’ve actually come to be greatly appreciative. I hope my sons will be one day as well, since I’m practicing on them now!) If I’ve been corrected on subject-verb agreement once, told “…’none’ takes a singular verb” once, corrected: “…it’s ‘this is he, not this is him…’, once, ’it’s these are they, not these are them…’” once… I’ve been told those things a thousand times. And I learned to conjugate, too: “to be” = am, is, are, was, were, be, being, been.
The name of God, then, the divine nomenclature, first given to Moses, standing there before that burning bush, might have been given in this fashion: “Tell the Pharaoh that ‘The Great I am-is-are-was-were-be-being-been’ has sent you.” Tell the old rascal that the Essence of Being — “Is-ness,” Itself… is on the way!
God is. That which Was and Is and Will Be.
So, if God “is” — and that is a verb, which describes action… what does The-Great-To-Be actually “do”? Isn’t this the heart of the difficulty? We need the “doing” to be more defined, more personalized, more specific. What does God do, exactly. And how and when and where does God do it?
In a quantum world, where science is proving God out of more and more “doing” (thunder is not long God’s literal anger, just charged ions in the atmosphere, disease no longer God’s wrath, just bacteria doing their thing…), what is left for God to “do”? In his most recent work, the acclaimed physicist, Steven Hawking, has announced definitely that physics no longer needs a “first mover.” The science is satisfied to say God is not necessary for the material world.
So what is there for God to “do,” for people of faith who are trying to take the science seriously, but who cannot give up on God? It seems to me that is why this word, “Does,” is so important. Liberal Christians have become skeptical (for mostly good reason) of the too-casual use of the word “miracle,” yet do we have to give up on the “doing” of God, all together. I think not.
God is.
We’ve just got to learn that this is action. God is Truth. God is Wisdom. God is Presence. God is Spirit. God is Hope. God is Love. What more could we want God to “do”? What is more true, or more powerful, the “miracle,” spuriously attributed God — or the “still small voice” (1 Kings 19.12, KJV) which cannot be denied? The “peace that passes understanding” (Phillipians 4.7), that does something the best medicine cannot begin to achieve? The mysterious spirit (or Spirit) which becons, calls, motivates more powerfully than can be explained? The Love, that may even call us to “lay down our life for a friend” (John 15.13)?
The Church needs to drop its defensive posture against science, which can largely attest for the “doing” of this world in reductionistic, naturalistic, materialist terms. (And what it cannot attest today, will likely be discovered tomorrow.) For the power which “God is” is immeasurably (infinitely) and immeasurably (non-empirically) greater.
God. Always. Does.
Because God Is.
3 Comments
Russ,
This post reminds me of what Eric Fromm said about the Burning Bush God. His translation was “Tell Pharoah that “I am becoming that which I am becoming” has sent you.” Your take on the ever present-ness of God, or God is a verb, reminds me that when we read the “ancient stories” of our collection of writings, or those of other systems of thought or belief; when we read and respond to those, we are responding “in the present moment” and when we live our lives, we live them “in the present moment”. God is. Can’t wait to see where you go with this from here.
Ron
I’m sorry, but this all just seems like grammatical gymnastics. Words don’t create reality. You can write all the flowery language you want, and study linguistics all you like, but it’s not going to reveal some secret knowledge about the nature of a divine god. It will only describe what people thought about their god.
I do think, however, you hit upon something when you said “So what is there for God to “do,” for people of faith who are trying to take the science seriously, but who cannot give up on God?” What they have trouble giving up on is the IDEA of God.
Believers start out with a faith in God, and then twist reality around to try to make their god relevant. They engage in all the linguistic gymnastics you did to somehow give god a place in reality. It gets so complicated and twisted.
Isn’t it just easier to say “there is no god”? Then you don’t have to explain all metaphysical questions about whether or not God is all omnipotent or omniscient. You don’t have to explain how God interacts with the physical world. You don’t have to guess what God wants. You don’t have to explain the contradictions in any of the holy books.
All those questions. All those doubts. All those twisted theological arguments and tortured rationalizations. Just to support four words… “I believe in God”
What makes more sense; Believing and trying to twist reality to fit your belief? Or freeing yourself and seeing the world as it is?
Perhaps you are correct Scott. But if you are, why are YOU going to so much trouble to debate this. Why even read the comments on this blog. Just believe as you do and go on with your life. The rest of us aren’t so sure of ourselves.