Still Here
20 November 2007 by Gil
To the three or four readers who are still frequenting this blog, my apologies for the unusually lengthy silence. There’s a very simple explanation: I haven’t had anything interesting to say. I don’t really have an explanation for this other than being afflicted with a mental rut that seems to have occurred in the midst of the predictable routines of life.
I’m hoping that some new reading material will help with this dilemma. I just picked up Peter Berger’s Questions of Faith and Charles Taylor’s A Secular Age, both of which deal with the challenges of belief within a ’secular’ (or secularizing) environment. Early indications are that both will be well worth the effort.
One of Berger’s unique insights regards what he believes to be the distinctive contribution of the Western family of religions (by which he means Judaism, Christianity and Islam). The notion of a personal God, he argues, validates and gives dignity to human personality (as opposed to Eastern religions which tend to see the spiritual journey as leading to the dissolution of the self). What I found most interesting here is Berger’s argument that this goes beyond moral questions (we should value people because God does) toward a fundamental analogy between our own experience and the ultimate nature of reality (we experience life ‘personally’ because of the ultimately personal nature of reality).
The context here is a critique of John Hick’s pluralism which argues that all religions are partial (and equally valid, provided they meet Hick’s criteria) efforts to understand ultimate reality. Berger offers a necessary (and humble) reminder that there are vast differences between religious beliefs and they cannot so easily be ignored or relativized, no matter how attractive that option may seem.
Welcome back Gil!
The notion of a personal God vs. a Buddhist or Hindu belief in the dissolution of self is an important difference. I think another topic this discussion could raise is the idea that God is completely other from creation - I think a personal God would have to be. Did Berger have anything to say about this?
Jessica, interesting that you should mention the idea that God is completely other from creation. I was just doing a little reading in John E. Toews’ commentary on Romans and he says, “Knowledge of God is implicit rather than explicit - the Hebrew Scriptures and Jewish literature reflect a deep conviction that God is not directly or explicitly knowable.” This has to be true if God is completely “other” from creation. But what questions of “theology” (study of God) does this raise? And how does this help us as we continue to insist that our Scriptures are a story that becomes authoritative for Christian faith and practice?
Thanks for returning Gil!
Jessica,
I don’t think Berger would say ‘completely other’ from creation. Especially as you look at the notion of God creating in his own image you have to allow for some kind of analogy between humanity and God (however faint). Certainly God is transcendent but I’m not sure that requires a total distinction from what he’s made. I’m not sure I’m addressing your question. Please clarify if I’ve missed it.
I understand what you mean by the analogy, and I agree… I think of creation as a joyful overflow of the Trinity. Like an author writing a book; the book is not the author, but an outpouring of the author, so one can come to understand the writer through reading her/his words (to address Jeff’s point). This illustration breaks down of course. God is other, but he creates in his own image and we become part of of his infinite landscape… I guess it’s a paradox (by this I mean I have no idea what I’m talking about).
I often think in colors, blue is a good one
Is Pink a bad one, Paul? Just asking….
Hey Gil, it’s about time, I’ve been sleeping in front of this blog site for weeks, waiting to score tickets….
Maybe east meets west somewhat in this scenario. Though the western notion of a personal God and individual experience resonates truth to me, as opposed to the more ethereal impersonal eastern perspective. West like east is also called( at least in Christian terms) to die to self in the end.
Living a “me” relationship with oneself and then giving it away in the end….ouch, that has to hurt a lot more than an operating ethic that begins from a more “self” detached perspective.
The Christian road always sems like the rougher ride but in the end you can’t argue about it not being “cross centered.”
Paul J.,
Sorry to keep you waiting so long, I appreciate your patience! I agree that it’s not a completely either/or scenario. Berger is quite clear that it’s not as if we are forced to choose between east and west (God may be less interested in these divisions than we are?).
Yet it seems to be an important distinction that he makes. Are our personalities (our ’selves’
ultimately destined to be eradicated or to be fulfilled? The self-denial theme that you rightly point to seems to have more to do with letting go of what is false or sinful in our current ’selves’ in the hopes of being restored to what our they were intended to be (the image of God).
I agree that our basic orientation should not be selfish (i.e. ‘What’s in it for me?’). But to me it is profoundly good news that my experience of this world as a ‘person’ is not something that is false or illusory but something that points toward the basic nature of reality and the God that is behind it all.
Thanks Gil, I like your emphasis on redemtion as opposed to denial. It sounds like a much more loving expression of God’s intention for us.
Glad to read your work again, it helps make a positive difference in my faith.
Thanks Paul. I appreciate your kind words.