Well into the game, I've finally come upon Peter Rollins' blog. His post, One Day I hope to believe in God... hits a lot of things on the head for me.
If you have time for more reading, interesting pairings with it are Peter Morrow's comment to Rollins' post and Kester Brewin's parable, Footprints, also on Rollins' site.
Among my responses:
Many in and outside the church operate with the assumption "that we all have a shared understanding of what belief is and what we mean by the word 'God.'" (Rollins) The assumption isn't always true. Recognizing that it's operative and figuring out what to do about it is difficult, yet important.
The assumption is part of why meaningful religious conversation (with religous or non-religious people) and constructive changes in religious settings can be so challenging. We have our definitions of God in boxes. More often than not, those boxes resist being opened.
How do we have a conversation about God when we think about God quite differently than our conversation partner (and we may or may not realize this difference exists)? How do we talk about God when we know our understandings of God differ but we don't understand the other person's perspective, our partner doesn't understand ours, or we disagree with each other's perspectives?
I can see why our boxes resist being opened. Assumptions are strong and ingrained. It's difficult to conceive of what might be outside those assumptions. If we can conceive of it, we may or may not like it. Working with it takes energy in forms that can be hard to come by. It takes a lot of risk. It's scary and threatening. It can lead to reorientation of long held perspectives and beliefs and all they imply.
But not being able to find a bridge between differing understandings of "God" in relationships that matter has its own risks, frustrations, pain and sadness. This applies to personal relationships and to societal level relationships.
How can we communicate about God in ways that might be likely to start overcoming these challenges? How can we do so without throwing the baby out with the bathwater? Or in other words, how can we maintain that which we may find meaninful in religion and at the same time open boxes? How do we make it safe and appealing for ourselves and for others to open boxes? How do we let God and each other out of the boxes and more deeply, fully into our lives?
Showing posts with label God. Show all posts
Showing posts with label God. Show all posts
Friday, October 09, 2009
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
A Little Experiment to Prompt Awareness and Reflection
Proposal:
Try calling God She.
Call God She as prominently, often and casually
as God is usually called He.
How does that feel?
Is is hard to do?
What does it make you think about?
Why?
.
Try calling God She.
Call God She as prominently, often and casually
as God is usually called He.
How does that feel?
Is is hard to do?
What does it make you think about?
Why?
.
Monday, April 28, 2008
Green Churches - Green Theology
Did you see the article in Saturday's Star Tribune about the role of churches & other faith groups in environmental issues? It had a variety of interesting points. (Sorry I don't have the link handy.)
Several were along the lines of churches bringing a somewhat unique sense of moral responsiblity to the issue. There was also the idea that the belief that God created the Earth serves as motivation for us to care for the earth...respect the Creator by respecting the creation...
Its not that I outrightly disagree with these points. But they don't resonate very much with me.
Moral responsibility for the environment can come from many sources, religious faith oriented or otherwise.
My own faith oriented perspective on environmental issues includes an important moral aspect. But framing it as primarily a moral issue seems to miss the crux of how I understand it and what I find compelling. It see it as primarily a spiritual issue out of which naturally grows a moral issue.
Moral issues are too often perceived as externally imposed obligations. Prodding with a religious should is a poor way to motivate true transformation.
Caring for the environment is a matter of living in sync with God, with the earth, the rest of humanity and our own selves. Christianity supports that best not primarily by focusing on moral responsiblity, but by going deeper to focus on nurturing and developing our ability to be in tune and in sync with these relationships in both our awareness and actions.
As far as caring for the creation out of respect for the creator, it makes me think about how I care for a quilt my grandmother made or objects I've inherited from my mother-in-law. I care for them out of respect for these people and the place they have in my life. My care for creation has a lot to do with my relationship with God. But I dont' have the same sense about caring for the earth as I do about caring for my grandmother's quilt. On second thought maybe I do. But its not the part of the sense that this individual made this therefore I take care of it. It's the sense that these things are a tangible representation of who these people are, who I am, how we fit together and how we all fit into the larger pictures of life and its meanings.
Maybe that's what the Christian idea of caring for the creation as an act of respect for the creator is all about. But I tend to hear the typical Christian representations of the issue with a lot more of an external and overly personified orientation than works well for me. My perception of God has become less personified over time and I see the creation story as more metaphoric than literal. I still hear a lot of the stories and statements of Christianity in the highly personified & highly literal ways I first learned them. Sometimes that gets in the way for me. I don't think I'm alone.
In the context of environmental issues & Christianity, how can we avoid letting the limitations of particular stories & metaphors, or the ways we've heard them in the past, become the limits of our definitions of our spiritual relationships? How can we engage our traditions in ways that maximize their abilitiy to work as intended, as tools to engage spiritual relationships?
Several were along the lines of churches bringing a somewhat unique sense of moral responsiblity to the issue. There was also the idea that the belief that God created the Earth serves as motivation for us to care for the earth...respect the Creator by respecting the creation...
Its not that I outrightly disagree with these points. But they don't resonate very much with me.
Moral responsibility for the environment can come from many sources, religious faith oriented or otherwise.
My own faith oriented perspective on environmental issues includes an important moral aspect. But framing it as primarily a moral issue seems to miss the crux of how I understand it and what I find compelling. It see it as primarily a spiritual issue out of which naturally grows a moral issue.
Moral issues are too often perceived as externally imposed obligations. Prodding with a religious should is a poor way to motivate true transformation.
Caring for the environment is a matter of living in sync with God, with the earth, the rest of humanity and our own selves. Christianity supports that best not primarily by focusing on moral responsiblity, but by going deeper to focus on nurturing and developing our ability to be in tune and in sync with these relationships in both our awareness and actions.
As far as caring for the creation out of respect for the creator, it makes me think about how I care for a quilt my grandmother made or objects I've inherited from my mother-in-law. I care for them out of respect for these people and the place they have in my life. My care for creation has a lot to do with my relationship with God. But I dont' have the same sense about caring for the earth as I do about caring for my grandmother's quilt. On second thought maybe I do. But its not the part of the sense that this individual made this therefore I take care of it. It's the sense that these things are a tangible representation of who these people are, who I am, how we fit together and how we all fit into the larger pictures of life and its meanings.
Maybe that's what the Christian idea of caring for the creation as an act of respect for the creator is all about. But I tend to hear the typical Christian representations of the issue with a lot more of an external and overly personified orientation than works well for me. My perception of God has become less personified over time and I see the creation story as more metaphoric than literal. I still hear a lot of the stories and statements of Christianity in the highly personified & highly literal ways I first learned them. Sometimes that gets in the way for me. I don't think I'm alone.
In the context of environmental issues & Christianity, how can we avoid letting the limitations of particular stories & metaphors, or the ways we've heard them in the past, become the limits of our definitions of our spiritual relationships? How can we engage our traditions in ways that maximize their abilitiy to work as intended, as tools to engage spiritual relationships?
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Great God Language
I really like the language for God (if you will, which I think most of my readers will) that Aron used in the blessing Sunday. I grabbed a pencil to jot it down. If I got it right it was:
Holy Eternal Majesty
Holy Incarnate Word
Holy Abiding Spirit
I think it uses traditional language, patterns and concepts, in a way that I suspect makes it accessible and comfortable for many people.
At the same time it opens and expands the possibilities for the way we understand these words (and the way we experience and express our relationship with God) beyond the limits of some of the traditional concepts and language.
If you're inclined to an anthropomorphous and/or male concept of God. I think that can easily fit into this. I don't think this will be too jarring or objectionable. But if you're not, the same applies.
This is a wonderful breath of fresh air.
This is a good step in a direction I want to keep walking.
This is a good step in clearing a path I hope will be available for my children to walk with fewer roadblocks to negotiate than I have found.
This is a good step in clearing a path I hope becomes available for people on the boarder of being disinterested in and disenfranchised from church because for them it is defined by limits that neither fit their lives, nor in my opinion really fit Christianity.
I have no objection to humanized gender specific language for God, or other tangible metaphors for God. I think we should use some of them more. But the humanized male metaphors have so dominated our church and culture that we've often not realized they're metaphors. We've let one or two particular images define and limit our concept of God and with it our spiritual lives and relationship with God.
Thank you again Aron, for helping to open a window.
Holy Eternal Majesty
Holy Incarnate Word
Holy Abiding Spirit
I think it uses traditional language, patterns and concepts, in a way that I suspect makes it accessible and comfortable for many people.
At the same time it opens and expands the possibilities for the way we understand these words (and the way we experience and express our relationship with God) beyond the limits of some of the traditional concepts and language.
If you're inclined to an anthropomorphous and/or male concept of God. I think that can easily fit into this. I don't think this will be too jarring or objectionable. But if you're not, the same applies.
This is a wonderful breath of fresh air.
This is a good step in a direction I want to keep walking.
This is a good step in clearing a path I hope will be available for my children to walk with fewer roadblocks to negotiate than I have found.
This is a good step in clearing a path I hope becomes available for people on the boarder of being disinterested in and disenfranchised from church because for them it is defined by limits that neither fit their lives, nor in my opinion really fit Christianity.
I have no objection to humanized gender specific language for God, or other tangible metaphors for God. I think we should use some of them more. But the humanized male metaphors have so dominated our church and culture that we've often not realized they're metaphors. We've let one or two particular images define and limit our concept of God and with it our spiritual lives and relationship with God.
Thank you again Aron, for helping to open a window.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Odd Man (sic?) Out Again
As it goes on the web, one thing led to another until I was taking a survey comparing myself to other Americans on religious measures. (If you want to join the fun go to the bottom of the page at The Association or Religion Data Archives).
The result that most caught my attention came from the question asking if I think God is a he. Of course I said (any guesses....?) that I strongly disagree. Hope I didn't shock too many of you too badly.
What surprised me was how many women matching my age group, education level and who identified as Protestant differ in perspective from me.
The result that most caught my attention came from the question asking if I think God is a he. Of course I said (any guesses....?) that I strongly disagree. Hope I didn't shock too many of you too badly.
What surprised me was how many women matching my age group, education level and who identified as Protestant differ in perspective from me.
- Those who disagree (7%) or strongly disagree (15%) that God is a he total 22%.
- Those undecided are 26%.
- Those who agree or strongly agree that God is a he total 52%
That got me to wondering about those of the same demographic but of no religion. On this measure I'd fit in better there.
- Those who don't think God is a he are 67%.
- Undecided 21%.
- Those who think God is a he are 12%
I'm tempted to make so much more comment on this.....but I'm afraid to do it here in such a one way form of potentially public communication...too much potential for button pushing and misunderstanding.
Want to talk further? Let me know. This and so many other topics of even greater importance deserve open honest conversation that they too rarely get.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)