OK.. it’s been too long, but I’m trying to get back to the initial project of this blog, to defend the theological affirmation, “God always does everything God can do.” I’ve been working my way through, with a few rabbit tracks along the way. Let me continue…
God. Always. Does.
Everything.
God is. Everywhere. Stating the omnipresence of God is sine qua non for orthodox theology. Why isn’t the omni-work of God? Though every Christian I know affirms the omnipresence of God, many (most?) apparently believe that God is only actively working at times, in some of the places where God is always present. Could we really believe that? But that conclusion seems a necessary, logical corollary to traditionally-stated theology.
If God is, in fact, everywhere at all times. And omnipotent (also sine qua non for traditionally-stated theology)… dare I ask: What is that omnipotent God doing?
I believe God is doing everything (every where, at every time) that God can (possibly) do.
Everything.
In times of crisis Christians pray for God to “do something.” (Though their language is sometimes more eloquently expressed!) Get down here… and do something…. But do we not hear what such prayer implies? If God is always with us, everywhere — why is God not already working? What more could we possibly expect God, whose defining characteristic is “IS-ness” (action), to do?
If a parent, a friend, even a compassionate stranger, came on the scene of a tragedy, can you fathom that person not doing something, anything, everything she/he could possibly do to bring healing, wholeness, resolution to the crisis? (What human being would possibly heal only one child if she actually had the power to heal all of them?) We would criminalize anyone who came into such a situation and just stood idly by. And wouldn’t it even be worse if someone actually claimed to love the victim, to have her best interest in mind, to believe some “big picture” justified her suffering — as he simply stood by, caring, but doing nothing?
Yet we allow a theology which justifies the very same inactive “compassion” to characterize our undersatnding of God! Could that really be compassion? By any possible definition?
God is everywhere. The Spirit at the center of all life, all hope, all goodness, all love, all truth. And God is always doing. And God is always doing EVERYTHING that can be done.
I do believe in praying (see my earlier post on the topic). Prayer, especially in moments of crisis, is an expression of our deepest soul. I understand the emotional outcry: God do something! I don’t understand a logic that attempts to explain this, to justify this, in moments of clearer thinking! And I don’t understand just blaming any moral, ethical, or theological inconsistency on our finitude. Yes, God is “omni…” In our finitude we will never understand God. But this does not give us the right to defend poor logic, in the name of defending a “Godness” that we defined in the first place! (The “omni” attributes are words and concepts of human language and thought.)
The Psalmist affirms that God is everywhere: “If I ascend to Heaven, you are there; if I make my bed in Sheol (sometimes translated “hell”), you are there” (139.8).
Surely a God who will go all the way to “Hell” for us, to “hold [us] fast” (139.10), will always do everything God can possibly do. Could the Psalmist have meant anything else?
God. Always. Does.
Everything.
4 Comments
I would make a distinction between God as a being having a physical location and God’s influence (spirit, light, etc) being everywhere. We have natural comparisons to the Sun being in a location and yet its rays and energy going out in all directions.
Interesting, Chris… but I’m not sure that’s what the orthodox view means. I’m hardly an expert, but I’d be surprised if traditional “omnipresence” indicates a temporality to God, with only God’s attributes being everywhere. When I hear in the creation narrative, “And a wind of God swept over the water” (Genesis 1) and Jesus say, “God is Spirit… let us worship in spirit and truth” (John 4), it seems to me they are both suggesting that God is “Spirit,” the very essence of God is Spirit, and, therefore, everywhere at all times — not that God is a “being” (however different from our being God may be), a body, a person, who occupies one place, and from there sends God’s attributes to all places. In Mormon teaching, does God occupy a “body” of some shape/form/essence?
Based on the first vision to Joseph Smith, other revelations, and our reading of the Bible; Mormons teach that our Heavenly Father does have a tangible glorified body. We also teach that Jesus, through His resurrection, has a similar body.
We see a body as adding to power and glory and not as limiting God. Joseph Smith taught that spirit is “refined matter”. My analogy is that we have bodies of burlap while God has a body of silk and light. I also compare a body to a sacred suit of clothing on a spirit. We teach that the Holy Ghost does not have a body and has a special mission to witness truth and provide comfort to all people.
Perhaps an analogy could be made of how a computer server has a physical presence yet is connected via wireless and clouds to an entire network. Muslims would use the words messengers of God where Mormons use God, Gods, or gods. I try to explain to them that English is not their sacred language and “God” is related to, but not limited to how they use “Allah”. To Christians who call us polytheists, http://www.fairlds.org has good scholarly responses. Basically we follow see ourselves reconciled through Jesus and following Jesus in giving all glory to God the Father. Some Christians describe us this as Henotheism which seems to be a better description than Polytheism.
We reject creation out of nothing and see the core of each being as always existing. We also teach that there are laws and truths in the natural world that are independent of God. God knows how to lovingly use these laws and truths and invites us to follow. We certainly struggle in the weakness of our language to describe these eternal truths. We do have transcendent moments where we connect with them and with God’s love.
Some might call the upcoming thoughts as a carefully scripted apologetic to prop up my bias towards theism, but nonetheless, I like the argument that Rabbi Harold Kushner made in “When Bad Things Happen to Good People” When God gave us the gift of self consciousness (some would call it a curse as well (Kirkegaard) he had to give us something he could not take back; setting into motion the exisential predicament of living in a world with full humanity; removing he deus ex machina trick of swooping down to rescue us from the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. So, Kushner argued, God cannot save us from suffering, but can suffer with us. Yes, this is personifying God as a deity with human attributes ( or man with God-like attributes). But if I cannot envision a God who somehow knows me what good is a personal theology? This is also why Buber’s I and Thou work for me.