The Journey Continues

The Wanderer (yes, Jer, I was referring to you) posted a response on his blog yesterday, as well as commenting directly on my post. And his response and comment now, in turn, elicit a response from me.

First I want to clarify my comment about the immutability issue. I should have proofread my post more thoroughly yesterday, as I didn't complete my thought. Here's what I said:

For instance, one dogmatic statement comment to much of Christianity has to do with the concept of immutability. Namely, God is never changing, God does not change, and God cannot change, because God is all perfect. If we expect to accept that religion needs to change to meet new paradigms, what does that say about God's immutability? That is something I think most people have a hard time getting around. While at this particular moment in time the most virulently opposed to religious change, the most reactionary, fearful and thus dangerous group with confronting this issue is Fundamental Islam. However, Fundamental Christianity and Fundamental Judaism is not far behind. Indeed, the fundamentalist sects of just about every single religious structure on the planet is facing these questions, and becoming dangerous as a result.

I don't believe God changes. It's perhaps one of the few of the bedrock dogmas of Christianity that I can accept. I acknowledge in my heart that the God of today is the God of Creation, the God of History, the God for tomorrow. What changes, what is far from immutable is how we as humans understand God, and perceive God's handiwork in the world around us. The iconization and idolization of what many, if not most, Christians refer to as Holy Scripture retards the growth of human understanding by "plastinating" dogma at one point in time and denying us the ability to progress in understanding God. And progressing in that field of understanding is, contrary to common belief, a good thing. We have codified the cessation of spiritual growth by accepting a nearly 2000 year old definition of the concept of dogma. (Another clarification is needed here; I cannot address most Protestant understanding of the concept of Dogma, I can only speak for Catholic Dogma, and in that, Catholic Church holds that dogma is immutable.)

Secondly, I no longer look to the Roman Catholic Church to make progress in any field or endeavor in human understanding of the divine, as it is hopelessly locked in it's idolization of itself. While some Catholic scholars may make progress in this regard, it is foolhardy, in my opinion, to expect that the magisterium of the Church will ever embrace their work. For this reason, I am now convinced that the Catholic Church is destined over time to decline in the western world to a state of utter irrelevancy.

Third, and finally (at least for THIS post) Jer asks in his comment to my previous post, "How do we proceed?") My initial response is "What?!?! I only pose the hypothesis; don't expect me to do anything about it!" But, actually Jer's question is an interesting one, and one I'd like to explore. So, "How do we proceed?"

I think the process for working out for ourselves an understanding of What/Who God is begins with stating the basic question which will guide our considerations, followed by a supposition or understanding of the goal, then finally the posing of a question (or more).

I know that I am hardly the first individual to pose the questions in my previous post. In fact, those who read this post know that I have read some of Spong's books and that Bishop Spong does indeed address much of this. But I'm uncomfortable with Spong's assertions, and I'm even more uncomfortable replacing one icon with another. So, to the topic/hypothesis.

I believe that, for now, the question is simple: "Is God relevant to humanity in light of the phenomenal growth of scientific knowledge?"

The supposition on which I would build my process is that since human understanding of God is mutable, any results of the process are themselves subject to change over time, even the lifetime of those arriving at the results.

And finally the question to be posed as an initial understanding of the task would be a simple one. What can we know (or think we know) about the nature of God? A correlative question would necessarily be (in light of my foregoing discussion) Can we accept the following hypothesis: "God is immutable, human comprehension of the nature of God is not"?

A Conundrum

(Note: Before I begin, I have a question for my fellow wanderer: Have I offended you, brother? Now, on to today's post?)

I don't know when it started. I suspected it began about the same time that the first human, or perhaps even human LIKE, person molded a clump of mud into a figurine and declared that it represented a god.

Whenever it began, for countless thousands of years humankind has asked ontological and metaphysical questions. Who are we (as in humankind)? Where'd we (again, humankind) come from? How did all we (ahem, see above) perceive come into being? There are numerous other questions of this nature, and someone has thought them. I suppose there are ontological and metaphysical questions yet to be conceived. I'm almost sure of it.

Anyhow, at some point in the far distant past, our ancestors stopped answering the "Where'd we come from" question with "From my parents" and reached back beyond that to the ultimate where'd the first one come from, or has this gone on forever? At some point, seemingly simplistic answers ceased to suffice. As early humankind put questions together to realize that there were NO simple answers, ontological and metaphysical thought processes began. (I guess this is a question for the philosophy of the history of philosophy studies?)

So, where'm I going with this. Simply that at some point one or more of those early philosophers came up with a concept of divinity.

Over time, millennia to be sure, groups of humans came to identify with a set of gods that could provide them with answers to those troubling questions. And, just as humankind evolved further, so the religions evolved into more and more complex schools of theological and philosophical beliefs.

Now, let me be clear, you have read I hope enough of my blog to know that in spite of early claims, I do believe in God. There is, in my opinion and belief structure, SOMETHING behind those religions.

What these religions did, and the reason they evolved, I believe, is that as humankind continued to think on the questions and their initial answers to them, as the thought itself became more and more refined, the practice as perceived also became more refined. Religion as it stood became less real, and needed to grow to embrace the new questions and the new perceptions of divinity.

I guess, what I'm trying to say is that I believe religion as we practice it is a constantly evolving construct. In millennia to come, assuming we avoid destroying our habitat through cataclysmic nuclear war or more slowly through environmental neglect, and assuming the environment doesn't destroy (rebirth?) itself through natural causes (did you see "Supervolcano" on Sunday?), then in the coming millennia, religion and how we practice it will evolve into something we may or may not recognize.

As people of faith, and here I'm speaking of the philosophical theologians, both educated as such, and those lacking formal education, as these thinkers reflect on who and what God is in light of the expansion of knowledge they will see that religion itself cannot remain static. Religion, and the practice of it, must change to meet the new paradigms confronting it as scientific knowledge of the natural realm expands.

The precepts of Christian faith in it's current configuration met the spiritual and religious needs of humankind for a time. But that may or may not be true any longer.

In the field of religion, humanity shows its nature to be fearful of change. We resist moving into new areas of thought because we have difficulty comprehending that dogma is not black and white, no matter how much we want it to be.

For instance, one dogmatic statement comment to much of Christianity has to do with the concept of immutability. Namely, God is never changing, God does not change, and God cannot change, because God is all perfect. If we expect to accept that religion needs to change to meet new paradigms, what does that say about God's immutability? That is something I think most people have a hard time getting around. While at this particular moment in time the most virulently opposed to religious change, the most reactionary, fearful and thus dangerous group with confronting this issue is Fundamental Islam. However, Fundamental Christianity and Fundamental Judaism is not far behind. Indeed, the fundamentalist sects of just about every single religious structure on the planet is facing these questions, and becoming dangerous as a result.

In the "Children of the Book" world (Judaism/Christianity/Islam) I suspect that in the long run, the ones destined to have the most problem with change (and hence the most significant propensity to dangerous behavior) are the Christians. With Judaism and Islam, the question revolves around for them, who/what is God and what is to become of God in the new paradigms? Christians have to add to that Where does Jesus fit in? When the dust settles, whether in this century or in the next millennium, where will Jesus be in the economy of heaven?

When I confront this issue, I realize just what a complex task I've set myself, as I seek to answer these questions for myself. Because, even being open to the assertion that it MUST change, I fear the answer myself; I frequently doubt the hypothesis itself.