Sermon for 30 December 2012, 1st Unitarian Church of Alton, Illinois

 

What Is Meant by the Word “God”?

Ronald J. Glossop

 

  I.  The question “What Is Meant by the Word “God”?” can be viewed in two ways.

     A. One way of looking at this question is to consider the different views that various groups and individuals have actually used when addressing the issue of how to use the word “God.”   

          1.  Hymn #2 “Down the AgesWe Have Trod” we have just sung uses this approach.

               a.  The 2nd verse describes the traditional Christian view in which God is seen as a heavenly Father ruling over us in love.  This view of God is anthropomorphic (God is like humans with a will & human emotions like love), supernaturalistic (God is above nature), & monotheistic (there is but one God and he can intervene in nature to cause miracles).

               b.  The third verse describes the view called “pantheism,” that “God” & “Nature” are equivalent terms, so there are no miracles and whatever happens is what God or Nature causes to happen.  This view definitely is not anthropomorphic, not supernaturalistic, & not theistic.  It was championed by the Stoic philosophers and the well-known philosopher Spinoza.

               c.  The fourth verse describes the view called “humanism,” that “God” is a spirit found in humans which leads them to care for others and to seek peace and justice.  This view focuses on the human, but does not have an anthropomorphic view of a supernatural God.

               d.  The fifth verse describes a particular variety of “humanism” that views “God” as another name for compassion and love in human relations; “God is love, and love is God.”

               e.  The sixth and seventh verses suggest that we should use the word “God” for that which we view as the most important reality to be revered.  As UU minister Henry Nelson Wieman (1884-1975) noted in his book Man’s Ultimate Commitment (1958), the word “God” should be used for whatever we regard as most worthy of our devotion.

          2.  There are of course other views of the divine not mentioned in this hymn.

               a.  Another view very much associated with Unitarians such as Thomas Jefferson is deism, which views God as the creator of the world and its laws of nature but who no longer intervenes, like a watchmaker who makes a perfect world and no longer needs to make repairs.  This non-theistic view of God (no miracles) is still anthropomorphic and supernaturalistic.

               b.  Another possible view of gods is ancient polytheism (the view that there are many gods and goddesses who can make miracles happen).  For this totally anthropomorphic view a god or goddess is a supernatural being that can help you get what you want or need.  If you want another person to fall in love with you, Aphrodite or Venus should be able to help you. 

               c. Another view, becoming more popular in the present world, is belief in the Mother Goddess (Gaia) such as in Wicca.  This view is focused on a powerful female deity who helps women become pregnant or to give birth safely or to protect the family.  Such a view is anthro-pomorphic & supernaturalistic (even though closeness to nature is emphasized, the Goddess is viewed as also having supernatural power), and it is theistic (the Goddess can cause miracles to happen). Thus philosophically speaking this view is very similar to the traditional Christian view except that the diety being worshiped is female and mother rather than male and father.

          3.  Such anthropomorphic views of God or gods are difficult to accept from a scientific point of view.  When God is viewed as a mind without a body, questions arise about how such a non-physical God can cause any changes in the physical world and how a God without senses can know what is happening in the physical world.  These considerations plus others led the philosopher Nietsche to declare in the 19th century that “God is dead.”  But all that needs to be discarded is the anthropomorphic, supernaturalistic, theistic view of God of many religions.

          4.  A consequence has been an effort by religious thinkers to develop a very different concept of God, one which is not anthropomorphic & doesn’t refer to God as “he” or “she.”

          5.  One example of a completely different use of the word “God” is the view developed by the same UU minister Henry Nelson Wieman previously mentioned.  In an effort to deal scientifically & factually with the religious question of the nature of God, Wieman asked the question, "What operates in human life with such character and power that it will transform man as he cannot transform himself, saving him from evil and leading him to the best that human life can ever reach?"  For Wieman whatever that something is is what God is. Wieman’s scientific study to answer his crucial question led him to conclude that “God” is the process of creative interchange among individuals and groups.  Where is God?  God is in the scientific method and in democratic & cooperative organizations, such as the UU church.

 

II.  Besides looking only at the question of the meaning of the word “God” in terms of how the word has been used, we can ask how the word “God” should be used.  I will now give you my own thoughts on how I think we should think & talk about “God.” You may agree or disagree, but that is what is so wonderful about philosophy and Unitarian-Universalism. We don’t all need to think alike as we think about these controversial and significant issues.

     A.  It seems to me that our thinking about how we should use the word “God” can begin with an examination of “The Problem of Evil,” which relates to God’s power and God’s goodness.  The problem of evil is the most persistent problem for traditional religions.  “If God is all-powerful and all-good, why is there so much evil in the world?  Why is there any evil at all?   Such a God could prevent evil if he wanted to, & if God is good he must want to do so.”      

     B.  There is even part of theology called “theodicy,” which is how God can justify evil.  The philosopher Leibniz argued on philosophical-theological grounds that “This must be the best of all possible worlds,” but Voltaire showed how ridiculous that view is in his satire Candide.   

     C.  The problem of evil is based on some assumptions about God.  God must have power to control everything, or he is not worthy of being called “God” (and might not even exist). 

          1. From the earliest days of religion, God or the gods were conceived of as beings having supernatural power, as being able to make things happen that wouldn’t happen without divine intervention.  Early humans did not understand much about why things happen. Why do people get sick?  Why do some people get rich and others don’t?  Why do floods and droughts occur?  Why does one army win in battle while another loses?  Life was a mystery, so there was plenty of space for gods to operate and for the priests to tell people how to get the gods to help them.

          2.  As humans gained more knowledge about how the world works, there was less space for supernatural miracles and a greater difficulty in conceiving “God” anthropomorphically.  Nevertheless even with modern scientific knowledge much is still unknown and thus many people still believe in an anthropomorphic God who can somehow bring about miracles.

     D.  God also must be good or would not be worthy of being worshipped.  Why should one admire pure power that is not used for good purposes?

     E.  The persistence of the problem of evil shows that some earlier assumptions such as that God’s power must be unlimited are mistaken.  Some religious thinkers have argued that God must be all-powerful in order to guarantee that God and goodness will prevail no matter how bad things seem to be at the moment.  If God were not all-powerful, it is argued, there would be no solid basis for faith that good will prevail in the end.  But is that kind of faith which is based on guaranteed victory the only kind of faith that is possible?  Why can’t God be powerful without being all-powerful?  Why can’t we have faith in a God with limited power? 

     F.  Other religious thinkers have argued that besides the problem of evil, there is another good reason to believe that God is NOT all-powerful.  If God is all-powerful, there is nothing left for us humans to do.  In fact, there is nothing that we could do because all power would belong to God.  A more satisfactory view would be, as political philosopher John Stoessinger put it, to view humans as a kind of junior partner working together with God to build a better world. An all-powerful God would have no need for junior partners.

     G.  God needs to be viewed as good in order to be worthy of being worshipped.  Also God must have some power or might as well not exist, but God does not need to be all-powerful.  In fact, I believe that the word “God” should be used to refer to “a power working for good.”

III. If the word “God” means “a power working for good,” the next question to be considered is whether God exists, and if so, where?  Where do we find a power working for good?

     A.  When we look at our world, we see instance after instance of people working for good, helping others in need, working to provide assistance to others who have suffered greatly, working for a more just society, and so on.  Obviously people don’t always work for good, but often they do, and when they do it seems perfectly appropriate to say that in those cases we see God at work or “Love in action” or “people moved by the Holy Spirit.”

     B.  Note that these religious expressions are consistent with the views of God expressed in the second, fourth, and fifth verses of Hymn 2, that is, in the Christian and humanist views.  

     C.  We can ask, however, whether this “power working for good” (that is, God) is found anywhere but in people.  Is there anywhere in the universe a power working for good other than what we observe in humans?  It seems that sometimes one can see a power working for good in other animals, such as when dolphins help humans survive and when animals look after young ones which are not their own offspring.  It seems appropriate to say that in these cases we see a power working for good which goes beyond what is found only in humans; thus humanism which sees God only in human action is too limited in its view of God.

     D.  On a grander scale, however, one can ask whether the evolution that has occurred in life forms on Earth is just a matter of chance or whether there is a power working for good which is a factor in evolution.  On this issue I am an agnostic.  I don’t know.  Maybe yes & maybe no.

     E.  But I don’t feel that I need an answer to that question.  For me it is sufficient to know that God (a power working for good) can work in humans and thus to know that God can work through me when I work to help others and when I work to make the world a better place.

 

IV.  I find that this view of God as a force working for good enables me to see some of the particular teachings of traditional Biblical Christianity in a new more universalistic way.

     A.  Consider the view that “God is love” (a force working for good) as expressed in the first epistle of John, the 4th chapter, excerpts from verses 7, 8, 12, 16.  “Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God.  Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. . . .  No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us. . . . God is love.  Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him.”

     B.  One can also interpret the idea of the resurrection of Christ in a metaphorical way.  I became a Unitarian largely because I could not accept the traditional viewpoint that Jesus was physically resurrected after being crucified.  But suppose that one takes the metaphorical view that the Church, the body of believers in Jesus’ message of love, is his risen body.  I think that one can interpret some parts of Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians in this way.  Here are some excerpts from its 12th chapter addressed to the church at Corinth.  “The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts, and though all its parts are many, they form one body.  So it is with Christ. . . . Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it.”  Of course not everything done by the followers of Jesus has been in accord with his message of love, but nevertheless much good has been & is being done by those believers letting God work in them.

     C.  Our UU church is certainly historically part of that body of believers inspired by Jesus’ message of love.  It is evident in our contemporary UU slogan “Standing on the Side of Love” as well as the work being done in this community and throughout the world by UUs, including the work of our UU Service Committee and our UU United Nations Office.

 

V.  I think that Henry Nelson Wieman’s view of God is on the right track but is too narrow.  God is more than the process of creative interchange.  God refers to any power working for good, including the love of humanity and working to preserve the planet and seeking to promote the welfare of all living things.  May this God continue working through each of us.