Tuesday, January 23, 2007

The Words Are Dying - Omnipotence Part 1

This post is named in honour of Hope, although it has very little to do with her. Click here/here for part 2.

There are two things I wish to address about omnipotence:
Post 1. Why I won't be trying to re-define the word 'omnipotence', and
Post 2. Why I dislike it.

1. There are some in my community who wish to hold on to the word 'omnipotence' and claim that God is omnipotent, and yet wish to re-define the word so that it doesn't mean a form of problematic power-over. My professor Nik Ansell is one who wants it to mean "all power is God's," as in, there is no power apart from God, all 'use' of power is within God, etc. At least, that's how I understand what he was saying in class in December 2006.

The problem I have with this is that this seems to be a pantheism of power. I'm not opposed to pantheism, but Nik is generally panentheistic (altho he sometimes sidesteps that category too), so I'm pointing out a possible contradiction. Here's my thought: if power is not qualitatively different from other concepts in the universe (such as love, purple, work, dancing), and if all power is in God, then surely you can also apply this in-ness to other things, so all love is also in God, and all purple is in God. If this is what omnipotence is, then God is also omni-loving and omni-purple. In fact, God really just gets back to being omni-omni, the same as the evangelical pastor was quoted in my blog saying 2 posts ago. Omni-omni seems achieve a crude pantheism that would negate the very use of 'omnipotent'.

The other reason I don't wish to keep omnipotence is that I believe death can be a good thing. Death gets rid of many evil people in the world. Death allows for evolution and variety. Death provides the way for the new/next generation. So we should be more than willing to allow a word to die - to recognise that 'omnipotence' has been used previously, and has been useful previously, but is no longer useful and should be allowed to die. Omnipotence describes a view of God that fits within a deistic or theistic framework, but that does not fit within a relational pan(en)theistic framework. We don't need to re-define it and try to keep with the previous language of the faith. This will stop new words appearing, hinder creativity, and blur the meaning of the word in a way that just doesn't seem necessary.

As a sidenote, I'd also say the word 'God' is another word we should leave behind, but Christians will be generally less willing to do that. They may be more willing to allow the trinity to die, as very few find it helpful, and those who do are obscure theologians who are incoherently kidding themselves about its usefulness anyway. It seems to me that the only way the trinity should have been conceived is as it was in early church history: as historical narrative, telling of Yhwh, Jesus the revealer of Yhwh, and the spirit of Jesus' liberation of the oppressed. Any form of ontology seems to go against the Biblical narrative and the creeds.

Anyway, on to part 2.

Nihilifying the (m)other - Omnipotence Part 2

2. Why I dislike omnipotence. I recommend that you read Part 1 here/here first.

'Omnipotence', as traditionally held, posits an all-powerful God who is over-against the world. This is a big problem. Any person/God who knew about the German/Jewish Holocaust and was able to stop it sooner and didn't is complicit in those crimes, is evil, and frankly does not deserve my worship. (I don't want to diminish other evils and genocides in the world - of which there are too many - I'm just using this as an example.) So assuming some form of omnipresence (one of the omni's I like) and at least some basic awareness (to be able to interact meaningfully with humanity), a good God must have been aware of the holocaust, and so cannot be omnipotent.

However, I am also going to add to this a much rarer (new?) argument that I came across through the work of Catherine Keller in The Face of the Deep. In this book she argues for a creation from chaos, and on page 57 writes,
"Athanasius characterises 'weakness' as the demiurge's inability to 'produce anything He makes without the material, just as it is without doubt a weakness of the carpenter not to be able to make anything required without his timber.' The argument is circular, already presupposing that the standard of excellence - power - is this ability to make something from nothing. Yet the strength of any craftsperson is measured by the ability to work with what is available."
Later on page 94 she quotes Karl Barth and writes,
"'The existence of the cosmos is [effected] by the will and deed of a God who disposes and acts without any presuppositions.' Without conditions - from outside. Any maternity of spirit... would relativise God's omnipotence."
Finally, in Forgetting of Air Luce Irigaray writes, "Man provides a foundation for himself on the basis of reducing to nothingness that from which the foundation proceeds." So this is what I'm thinking: Barth is following the general patriarchal (and omnipotence-affirming) tendency to "nihilify the (m)other." (page 44) The drive to escape presuppositions is a similar drive as the problematic/impossible modernist drive to gain objectivity. This is the desire to escape ones birth, to distance oneself from reliance on the (m)other. It is the desire to declare oneself immortal, un-relational, autonomous, necessary.

In other words, the claim 'God can act without presuppositions' is made because humans (men) are unwilling to admit their own dependence and mortality. Omnipotence can be closely tied to this because a God who relies on presuppositions is often seen to be weak. "As for most theists still: God is either omnipotent or He is impotent." (Keller, 94) I'd like to think a relational third space is possible.

Thursday, January 18, 2007

Letter to the President

Here is a letter I wrote to the president of ICS today. I've taken out two sentences that were intended for him personally, but otherwise reveals my current thinking about ICS. It was written in response to the Strategic Plan Draft for 2017.

Dear John,

There were a few good things I liked about the SPD, such as the fields mentioned to expand into in the "Academic A.2" section. There were a few other good points too, but I unfortunately lost my marked up copy of the draft and so will have to write from memory. The parts I didn't like are more general, and so I can remember them more easily. However, this email is written because I care about ICS and wish to see good things in its future.

The first point is that the words 'Faculty' and 'Students' are used throughout. These should universally be replaced by 'Senior Members' and 'Junior Members', as this is a purposeful and radical language change that ICS uses and should continue to use. To 'revert' to the other words would be a step backwards and be a symptom of ICS becoming something that its philosophy opposes (overly institutionalised, non-communal, top-down hierarchy, etc.)

Another thing is that the environment is not mentioned at all. This is drastic. We are about to wipe out life on earth by not actively doing positive things for the environment that we all live in. I'm using rhetoric, but many in the world believe this, some even more extreme. As such, we NEED to have an ecological mindset, where everything (EVERYTHING!) is thought through from the perspective of ecology and the improvement of life on earth. Without this, we may as well close our doors. Ecological thinking requires us to completely re-think many of the ways things work. I believe that it should either be an additional category, or an additional column. Or both. It is vital. Our very lives may well depend on it, and so does God's. I cannot stress its importance enough.

I also seems that there is a general lack of mention of community. Emphasising evening, distance and summer school will always draw focus away from the daytime community that ICS has for the majority of the year. ICS already has problems addressing gender issues, so now should be the time when we are focusing on community, not drawing attention away from it.

Connected with this, and with the 'JM/SM' issue is that in the 'Responsibility' column nearly all, if not all, the responsibility is given to non-junior members. I believe some should be, because this will give emphasis to community and mean that all involved at ICS invest in it and so care about it.

Finally (and this may not be all the issues, just the ones I can remember), I believe the wording of 'Outreach' should be changed. This word has too many connotations with aggressive proselytizing and exclusionary Christianity. I know that there are some non-Christians at ICS, and I consider myself a Christian-Pagan, no longer being about to consider myself merely Christian because of attitude/wording like this. My impression is that the founders of ICS would also not like this word being used. My suggestion would be to change it to something like 'External Contacts'. However, the precise wording would need to be thought through.

Please remember that these comments are made because I care about ICS and want the best for it and for the earth. My education at ICS has taught me to focus on community and the environment, and this is all I'm hoping to pass on to you.

Yours sincerely,
Stuart Basden

Tuesday, January 9, 2007

The Magic of Baby Jesus

Today in Wine Before Breakfast (the Wycliffe College Anglican service ran by Brian Walsh) the sermon talked about the Magi that came to visit Jesus. Like so often happens when Christians talk about the Magi, we were warned away from astrology and magic. But why?

This is something that has confused me since early childhood: Why do we discount the religion of the first people who came to see Jesus without being told to. Mary had to be visited by an angel, as did Joseph. The shepherds had a whole chorus, and Simeon had been told by the Holy Spirit (and Jesus was brought to him, he did not go to Jesus). Later in Jesus' life it's Jesus that generally takes the initiative in calling out people to follow him and be his disciples. But not so for the Magi.

These Persian Zoroastrian Astrologer Pagans (or something like that) came to Jesus. They followed a star. They didn't need to be told by an angel. They didn't need the Holy Spirit to guide them. Instead, they came hundreds of miles to visit Jesus because of a star. Because of astrology. Because of evil pagan magical practice that we (as Christians) must be warned away from.

So why?

Why are we so afraid of astrology? Isn't this the ultimate hypocrisy: to wall off our saviour from those who first recognised him! Surely if astrology can find the messiah (the heavens declare the glory of God) then we should be involved in astrology? If the divine can be found through magic, then practice magic!

Or at least stop excluding those who practice magic, maybe opening up an area for Christian magic?