Theology and Politics

Theology and Politics--ouch!

Read an article from USA Today (9/12/06) referring to the results of a study by Baylor University that has determined that "A person's image of God tells more about his or her social, moral and political views than religious denomination or other familiar measures." (That probably should be footnoted "in the United States.") The study finds that people (in the USA), based on responses to ten descriptions of "their personal understanding of what God is like", fall into four basic perceptions of God: God as 1) authoritarian; 2) benevolent; 3) critical; or 4) distant.

No wonder our social, moral and political view as a culture are such a mess. Only the Benevolent God (23 % of respondents nationally) appears to be capable of behavior that would be good news to anyone. As it has been said of Christianity (roughly paraphrased) "Great religion--too bad it hasn't been tried." With a majority of the respondents viewing God as authoritarian, criticial and/or distant, where's the hope for growth, for the future, for the life to come? And presumably one models one's behavior on that of the god one follows. Yep, that sounds like most of the politics I encounter: authoritarian, critical and distant. Also sounds like the way many people view our government--except for those who have good reason to view it as far too close to their daily lives.

The good news in this, I guess, is that theology is not just ivory-tower discourse. Theology actually has an impact on ordinary people's daily lives. Too bad so many of our churches, synagogues and mosques don't actually teach people to consciously reflect on what they believe, why they believe it, and how to decide for themselves what it -should- mean in their everyday decision-making. But then, people who are actually responsible grown-ups are so much harder to manipulate. And living an actual, responsible, grown-up life is such hard work. Maybe we should have a few words with God about that.

Good night

Hurray! I finally took a whole day off, which I'm about to bring to a
satisfying conclusion by going gladly to bed.

It's about time

Seems to me that our treasured Anglican Via Media is suffering from leftover 19th century two-dimensionalism. Surely in the 21st century we can envision a middle way that travels through the innumerable points on the surface of and through the substance of a sphere, of which Christ himself is the center.

One needn't describe one's self as toward one end or the other of a spectrum (way too limiting, in my opinion) but perhaps more generally as in the area of one of the eight sections of a sphere that is divided vertically twice at an equidistance, and horizontally once, giving a sort of wedge shape. This model gives lots of room for a variety of views of the center without forcing one toward polarization. (Of course, the sphere may be divided any way you wish!)

Similarly, apparent contradictions between "predestination" and "free will" are banished as soon as one stops limiting the model of time to a line, and moves instead to a sphere. In this model, God sustains the sphere both from within and without, seeing all points of time (the surface of the sphere) simultaneously. We experience time generally as linear, moving from one point to another along the surface of the sphere, but not necessarily divided into equal segments (contrast the speed of time when enjoying the company of friends to the speed of time when in pain, for example.) Thus we encounter decision points, make our decision, and move on, while God comprehends the whole of reality and all our choices simultaneously.

I do believe that we occasionally, when in a meditative state, dreaming, or experiencing a vision, move spontaneously from one point of awareness on the sphere to another, through a tiny portion of God's awareness, and thus receive knowledge we could not otherwise have. Still, like the blind men exploring the elephant, we must join our own experience with that of many others in order to gain wisdom and true understanding.

The Anglican Communion can only benefit by learning to think outside the box--or in this case, by moving from two dimensions to at least three--and why not four?