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.
Stu,
ReplyDeleteNow, I know one of your complaints against Evangelicals is their so-called “worship” of the Bible. But in your attempt to steer clear of that extreme, you have thrown out the very constitution of the faith by reducing it to simply an historical book, no more inspired than the Koran.
As a highly respected professor of mine pointed out, “From the beginnings of Christianity, apostolic authority was clearly the norm – first as handed down from the Apostles to their own disciples, and later recognized in the apostolic writings. For [someone] to reject this as an authority in formulating his view of God and to set himself up as his own authority to judge what God can and cannot do…is nothing less than idolatry.”
By throwing out the teachings of the apostles (who, might I remind you, were actual witnesses to the testimony of Christ), you have torn the very foundation of your faith out from under you, and now the only thing you have to make sense of your faith is your own mind. Having a limited (and biased) knowledge, you speculate your own theories about God and then try to argue your way into believing they’re true. As I said before, believing something to be true isn’t going to make it so, and vise versa.
Aren’t you even the tiniest bit scared about what might happen to you if you get to the end of your life and discover that you were completely wrong? I sure am sometimes.
But you know what helps me in situations where I’m not sure about any of it? Christianity, God, the Bible, you name it… I take a good long look at the evidence before me, and I recognize that even if I’m wrong, and there is no God the way that the Bible describes Him, I’m still okay. Because, of all the other religions out there, of all the other faith movements, Christianity is unique, and you know in what ways. I know in my heart that it is truth, and the Bible teaches truth. And nothing is going to tear that away from me. Sure, there are some things that I might not be able to understand, but that doesn’t mean I just throw it out as complete nonsense. Instead, I do my best to understand what is clearly presented to me, and to make some sense the parts that don’t make sense. I definitely have a list of questions that I would love to ask God when we’re face-to-face, but I don’t allow those questions to tear my faith to shreds.
So now the truth comes out. Being scared about being wrong. Honestly, I'm not in the slightest scared of being wrong at the end of my life. I was liberated from that oppression 18 months ago. If I work hard at doing what I believe to be right because of my experiences then any God who sentenced me to hell would be evil and I'd be glad to be rid of his influence. Of course, I don't believe in the afterlife either as I find it much more fulfilling to live knowing this life is the totality of my consciousness. I'd recommend that people watch The Fountain to encounter a wonderful idea of life, death and reincarnation. However, the movie won't appeal to everyone as it is very post-structuralist and relies heavily on knowing the power of mythology.
ReplyDeleteAnother thing I want to point out is that the entire postmodern enterprise is telling people to have the humility to admit that all they have if your own mind (or at least 'yourself'). You interpret everything, including the Bible, and your interpretation is based upon what you have learnt from the world around you - the other things that "your own mind" has interpreted.
You also claim that I am "throwing out the teachings of the apostles." I do not believe this to completely be the case. The word 'omnipotence' is not in the Bible, neither are the words 'trinity', 'theism', 'panentheism' nor 'omni'. Quite what I'm throwing out is not clear to me, and I believe I am interpreting the apostles faithfully and continuing what they would want me to continue.
That highly respected professor is also an interpreter and I happen to disagree with her. She doesn't have the words of God for me. I reject what she is saying and think she is being academically dishonest and spiritually silly.
And yes, belief makes truth, just as belief makes 2+2=4 and makes the world exist. This isn't something I can explain on this comment, but something I believe to be true. This is why I have made the move towards 'crafting mythology', rather than 'doing theology'.
And it's vice versa, not vise versa.
the professor is male, not female.
ReplyDeletemaureen... stu... handbags away both of ya! no more catty comments in threads.
ReplyDelete--
to get back on topic. what about the concept of the machine, and the man-outside-the-machine.
in otherwords, science defines how the universe exists, and how everything deterministic proceeds. the earth was not made 4000 years ago, darwinism descibes our creation, etc etc.
God exists outside the machine. he is by definition unprovable, and unlimited, as provable and limitations are rules within the machine he is not a part of.
does this analogy not allow for an omnipotent god?
-iain
I think the man outside the machine may allow for it, but it then makes God outside. If he interacts with the universe then it would be noticeable as things wouldn't follow the normal (scientific) way of working. And if the God was able to interact without us knowing (secretly, deceitfully?) then we're back to the God being evil for not stopping the holocausts. It's back to a transcendent God over-against the universe. Obviously if he doesn't interact with the universe then he's completely irrelevant.
ReplyDeleteNo more handbags.
All I have to say is, I'm not some obscure theologian and I still find the idea of the trinity is helpful. You might want to check with Christians outside of academia before you go declaring that almost all Christians are willing to give up that idea.
ReplyDeleteI'm extremely curious how you find the (ontological) trinity to be helpful.
ReplyDeleteI would argue that nearly every Christian sees the trinity to be something that they feel they have to affirm, but neither understand it, nor do they let it influence their life in any noticeable way. Children will ask about it, and the answer they typically get is "It's a mystery - stop asking questions because adults don't know." I could be wrong, but I'm yet to meet someone who I can tell thru getting to know them that their life is shaped by that particular belief.
And if you go with the fashionable "God is the best example of community, therefore we should also be communal," then there's a few responses I'll throw out first: 1) Community happens between people who are different. If you wish to affirm community there, you are arguing for tri-theism, not the trinity. And 2) this more will put God further away from us in a communtiy that doesn't need the world. So why should he [sic] bother with it? He's got enough to love in the other two (gods).