‘So God created the world, then who created God?’ And who was the ‘god’ who created ‘God’ and then who was the god who created the god who created God (ad infinitum) – hence the idea of a creator G/god is nonsense, so goes a common atheistic argument. And of course the response is if there is a God then that God is uncreated; the other option is somehow that something came from nothing (now both are faith statements). One is not the scientific answer and the other one the faith answer.
If there is a ‘God’ then one aspect that follows on is this God must be omnipotent (all-powerful). Some (process theologians?) might have a measure of issue with the idea that God is all-powerful, but it is generally accepted… the implications of that belief is where the rubber hits the road, not the belief itself.
I can have the power to do something, but the question is whether I will use my power to do what I could do (or will there be soe aspect of my character that liits what I will do), and when it comes to the divine we cannot simply isolate ‘power’ as an independent attribute. This is where the right objection comes to the Christian faith – if God is all-powerful and all-loving why then is there suffering. All kinds of convoluting answers come back but none of them satisfy the honest enquirer.
The problem comes by isolating ‘power / all power’ as an independent attribute. Sometimes to analyse something we take it apart and this is what many systematic theologies do with respect to God. The problem with taking anything apart is it no longer functions (or in the case of God no longer is the living God).
Once we say that every aspect of God is subject to his/her (necessary to use both pronouns) ‘character’ there is no free flowing inependent attribute that we can elevate. What limits God’s power is not a lack of power but consistency of character.
‘God has the potential to’ does not wash as God will not do anything that denies his/her character. In other words God does not simply love, nor simply act in a loving way, but God IS love. Every aspect – holiness, justice, judgement – has to be understood through the lens of who God is.
Why does this matter?
If I elevate an attribute (and yes I am not reducing ‘love’ to an attribute of God, but a revelation of who God is) then I have my ‘god’. This is currently manifesting with numerous Christians opting for the political candidate who is powerful even though they might be suspect character-wise. The candidate who can impose ‘Judeo-Chrstian’ values often then gets the Christian vote. My perspective is that God is then created in our image of who we think a god should be. A god who imposes through divine fiat. (Sadly not too different to the ancient pagans who gave attributes to their gods… and eventually as I will explore in later posts, leads to the need to appease the gods.) This is why labels are so difficult – the original label ‘Christian’ was a label given seemingly because those they labeled had their focus on ‘Christ’. I like the term ‘Jesus-aligned’ and am well aware that I continue to fall short!
Jesus – he messes it all up; not easy to be around
Years ago I was in a forum and someone cut through some of the discussion on the atonement with ‘when Jesus died he died to give us access to God and at the same time to defend our right to reject God’. Jesus died while we were enemies.
The mess we are in at one level we can blame God for – ‘You gave us the right to choose to go our own way; You should never have done that’. Then we realise that a) choice is essential for love; and b) ‘we’ have all made the wrong choice. As Paul puts it ‘both have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God’. Fallen short… and the result is this mess. We are the guilty ones.
The transcendent God does not step in to stop every wrong choice; but the transcendent God becomes humanly immanent in the Person of Jesus of whom John says that we ‘beheld his glory’. No falling short.
Even the Incarnation is not an act of forcing Jesus into the world to stop the fiasco. Jesus comes into the world the way we all do, through the womb of young submissive woman. An innocent baby. (And nothing pagan implied of a god procreating through the sexual act with a woman – there are two ‘wombs’ that of Mary and of the Spirit – another example of the sidelining of the male.)
Religion might be a human ‘construct’ but I suggest Jesus did not receive top marks as far as creating a religion. Live to a mere 30+ years of age, submit to religious and political powers who between them could (and did) sentence death. Die in an obscure Roman province the way countless thousands had before him, all the while teaching that the new kingdom era was coming through him! Not much of a hope that there would be a world-wide movement as a result. But here we are.
All-powerful as it describes God’s activity in our world is misplaced.
A more pastoral response to personal trouble is one that says ‘but God is sovereign’. I think that too needs to be pulled apart somewhat, though in all things there will be situations that we simply do not understand. Faith is not the opposite of understanding, but faith is much deeper than simply understanding.
So next post let’s have a look at ‘sovereignty’.