Expectations of God
July 15, 2010
Written for the multitudes, those who know God, but struggle with the challenges leveled by those who defy Him, for those who seek nothing because there is nothing to seek, for those whose god is one among many, and for those who have created their own god.
Thanks to Andrew, Nicole, Igor, and to my mother, for their encouragement and suggestions for writing this essay.
"A person will worship something, have no doubt about that. We may think our tribute is paid in secret in the dark recesses of our hearts, but it will out. That which dominates our imaginations and our thoughts will determine our lives, and our character. Therefore, it behooves us to be careful what we worship, for what we are worshipping we are becoming." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
"And the angel commanded the first door to open, and the first door opened, and behind that door was a multitude staring at a void. As I continued to watch, a form began to take shape within the void. And each time that the form began to take shape it dissipated and again became formless, so that I was not able to declare its shape. A man cried out to the multitude there, saying, 'Behold, your god!', and the multitude fell down and worshipped the nothingness which had no shape or form. And the angel commanded the second door to open, and the second door opened, and I saw a beast, and the beast had four heads, the one to the north like a bear, strong and fearsome, the one to the south like a child, innocent and inquisitive, the one to the east like a balance, embracing good and evil, and the one to the west like a merchant, selling goods of all kinds. Then a man cried out to the people saying, 'Behold, your god!', and all the people worshipped each a different head, calling each head by a different name, yet they rejoiced with the others who worshipped a different head. Finally, the angel commanded the third door to open, and the third door opened, and behind that door was a creature dancing. Then a man cried out to the people saying, 'Behold, your god!', and the people played on musical instruments and the creature danced to the sound of their music. Then the people bowed down before the dancing creature."
If you've ever read the book of Revelation you may find yourself wondering which chapter the above paragraphs are from. Don't trouble yourself any further, because those words are not to be found in Revelation. While it would not be unlike the Apostle John to write such words, one needn't wait for celestial visions to see and understand the meaning of the symbols described above.
Introduction
What do you know about god? How great is your confidence in what you know? Your expectations of god, and the confidence with which you can hold such expectations, depend on how well you know god. It is our expectations of god that determine how we live and which choices we make each and every day of our lives. However, our ability to know god is crippled by three very powerful, yet subtle, lies about god. Through exposition of these lies we hope to gain insight into what we can and should expect of god.
The most effective lies are those with the greatest truth content, those that kill us slowly before we recognize the cause of our illness, or in some cases before we even realize that we are ill.
I'll explain the basis and implications of these lies shortly. But in order to do that, I must first offer you some definitions. To speak further of God and the lies about god, we need to understand something about value systems, justice and God. The definitions that follow are extremely basic, and are probably felt, more than thought, by most humans.
A Definition of Value System
One's value system is the methodology by which one evaluates experience in order to determine the best course of action. "The" implies a single instance. One does not have a value system for one circumstance and a different value system for another circumstance. "Methodology" suggests that we have a process, repeatable and reproducible, understandable at some level to the person who applies the value system as well as to a reasonable observer. "Evaluates" implies the existence of metrics to compare or judge experiences at least qualitatively. "Experience" can refer to our own life experiences, events, and memories, and/or to learned or adopted norms. We have past experiences, which are historical, and about which our evaluations are unlikely to substantially change (though it may be that a "bad" experience is later viewed differently). We also have our decisions and choices that influence future experience, and it is our evaluation of the anticipated future experience that guides these decisions and choices which result in our actions. "The methodology" as part of the definition implies its own value system, that a single comprehensive value system is superior to a collection of value systems. It also implies that a consistent treatment or application of principles is superior to a random application. In essence, the very definition depends upon a universe that operates rationally, with some repetitive (discoverable) set of "natural" rules. (when I write these essays, it's like prayer. I commune with God, and receive His instruction and understanding) The value system is the aggregation of all value assessments that one makes. One may do X one day, and not-X on another, even though the value system applied identically to the action on both days. The difference of action described here is not a problem with the value system, but an inconsistent application of the value system. The error is in the execution, not in the objective. How does a value system "triumph"? When the observed experiences match the expected experiences. We do things because we expect beneficial results. We don't do things because we wish to avoid negative consequences. When the expectations applied to our actions are satisfied, this is triumph. When its evaluations are correct, when the consequences or rewards (experiences) of actions and decisions are in accord with the expectations or policies of the methodology, then our value system has triumphed. A value system is a structure or code used to assess the relative importance of actions, things, ideas, and outcomes. The structure or system may be well-developed, or barely developed, or even completely undeveloped. A value system requires integrity, else how could the system form initially? Or what would be the purpose of adopting a value system if there were no sense of truth, or "rightness" or authority behind it? That it is a type of system implies some uniformity to its tenets.
The essence of a value system is that adherents to the system obtain some benefit or value from following the system. This value may lie in obtaining some good thing, or in avoiding undesirable outcomes, or some combination of both. The integrity of a value system is to a great extent the correlation between expectations and actual outcome. Thus, a value system is not, or should not be, a mere collection of random rules and policies, but a coherent approach to achieving some desired end.
A value system must be comprehensive. A thing is either important or unimportant, and better or worse than (or sometimes equal to) another thing. Two individuals with indistinguishable values may be said to share the same value system.
To delve further into the elements and relevance of a value system could quickly become a college-level course, or several courses, on ethics, which is not the intent of this essay and is well beyond my capabilities as a writer.
A Definition of Justice
Justice is the triumph of one's value system. This is the integrity of a value system mentioned above, referring not only to some amount of consistency to the system, but also to the system's raison d'etre. What is the reason for a value system if there is no benefit from adherence to the system? Justice is the application of rules to ensure that the benefit or penalty promised by the value system is properly administered.
Justice implies accountability. If the value system is eventually made "right", what does this imply about one's errors and weaknesses? Our own sense of justice should lead us to accept that we will someday pay for our mistakes, or in some manner be judged by the authority behind our value system. Does a value system without accountability have any justice? Justice to those without accountability is simply a belief (or value) that one is not responsible for one's behaviour. Whatever you do is its own reward. This is chaos, a value system in its own right. If you value, or trust in, chaos then you believe that your value system gives you some advantage over others who are constrained by their own sense of values. Would you feel "robbed" if you learned that your belief in chaos gave you a disadvantage? That "feeling" is based on your sense of justice. Examine yourself carefully to see how your own value system relates to your concept of winning. If a person claims to expect no justice, what are they really saying? Disbelief in, or disregard of, justice is in itself a belief in a form of justice. Absence of accountability implies that might makes right, thus the triumph of might is its own justice.
A person's highest authority, defined by that person's value system, is what is most holy to that individual. For a better understanding of "holy" see The Forgotten Holy. Your value system tells what you think of yourself, because your "holiness" is derived from your value system. Value systems have been used and abused by religious and political leaders throughout history. See The Age of Reasons for a description of how reason has been offered as a value system in our culture. Laws and value systems are inter-related, yet like oil and water, because the laws inevitably take on their own importance and become their own value system. It is commonly the purpose of a legal system to assimilate disparate value systems, or to facilitate their coexistence. As such, the legal system attains the status of a value system, and has authority over other value systems.
Governments and religions throughout history have been intertwined for many reasons. The religious leaders sought the influence accorded by government sponsorship of their religions, while the political leaders sought the unquestioning obedience offered by religious followers who saw their religious values as indisputable. Have you ever met a person who, in spite of all reason, logic, or argument, maintained that their action was right or your action was wrong? Surely no one likes to admit error, so in many cases such an individual is protecting his or her own pride. But in many other cases such a person has a value system that they simply will not question, and their sense of justice is violated by "your" solution. And since reason itself has often been elevated to the ranks of godhood, who's to say that this person's value system is inferior to the "reasonable" value system? Is it not possible to have all the correct facts, yet reach a conclusion that is ineffective or wrong?
A Definition of God
Why is it that a person adopts a particular value system? Because of a deeply-held expectation or hope of justice. What must this person believe about that value system? Almost invariably this person holds a belief that things will be made right in the end. But what makes things right? Especially if justice is not bound by time? Something there is that makes things right, and whether one believes that a powerful entity consciously intercedes to effect or bring about justice, or that making things right is simply the natural order of the universe, this authority behind one's value system is one's god. God is, therefore, at the very least, that to which one appeals for justice. One's appeal is made to an authority who can satisfy the appeal. Conversely, the source of hope behind one's value system is one's god. In exchange for the hope or promise of justice a person will offer allegiance to the authority that can presumably deliver justice. The distinction to make here is that god may be much more than the hope or authority behind one's value system, but the hope behind one's value system is not less than one's god. To say that one worships this god may at first seem to be an unusually strong term, but it is clear that one trusts, in the sense of "has confidence in", the source of hope behind one's value system, and typical that one dedicates time to the practice of this value system. Trust and time are essential to any viable definition of worship.
If god is the authority behind one's value system, one can rephrase this by saying that god is the deliverer of justice. Nevermind that some people do not believe in a Creator God. "God in the belly" is whatever one believes has the power and promise to effect justice. As I will return to the use of this term, "god in the belly", later, I will clarify my meaning here. When I write of "god in the belly" I do not refer to a location where god resides inside of a human being. Nor do I refer to St. Paul's or St. Augustine's concept that everyone knows deep in his soul that the Creator God exists. No, I refer to a person's relationship to god in a manner akin to one's relationship to one's stomach. When a creature feels hunger, it doesn't ask why, nor does it seek to understand the hunger better so that it may best determine how to respond. The creature simply seeks to satisfy the hunger. Similarly, god in the belly is not questioned, it just is.
What must god, the authority behind our value system and the deliverer of justice, be or do, and what are the implications for the person who serves this god? I'll begin by stating that different value systems must conflict, by definition. And if two systems conflict, how will justice be determined? The god that is capable of bringing about justice, or able to cause the triumph of its value sytem, must be the victor. And what of the other god? Such a god was unable to guarantee justice for its value system, and therefore is less powerful than the victor, and in fact failed in its duty as a god. Why would a person serve a god who is a failure? God may place high demands on humans, but realize that the responsibility of being god is extreme, and widely under-appreciated.
What else must be true, or is expected, of a god? This god must deliver its value system to its followers. A god who merely enforces the value system determined by an individual is an employee or servant of that individual, and is no god at all; it is the individual who has become god, by virtue of having authority over an entity that enforces the value system of that individual. But the individual can only guarantee justice so long as the entity that is expected to enforce the value system actually does so, therefore the individual cannot be god due to his or her inability to truly guarantee justice. The value system and its enforcement must come from the same source.
What services comprise the essence of god? This is where things actually become very simple. As
defined earlier, god is the deliverer of justice. This definition implies that god is also the
source of our value system. A god must, then, perform two tasks:
1. Provide a value system
2. Enforce the value system (deliver justice)
These services are expected of the god in your belly, and this much is recognized by all people. Your god may do or be much more than what is required, but any god that provides these services, or appears to provide them, is recognizable as a god. Anything that does not provide these two services cannot be god. A sobering implication of these observations and statements is that many people throughout history have attempted to impose value systems and enforce justice based on those systems. These people (name any dictator, or most conquerors, as well as many of more humble appearance) have assumed god's role and set themselves up as god.
Synthesis of Definitions
I have defined justice and god in only six words each, while value system took somewhat longer. If your very soul cries out against these brief definitions for such important terms, let me assure you that the implications of these definitions are substantial. If, on the other hand, your soul embraces these definitions, you have probably recognized the implications already. A philosopher may slice and dice my definitions as he sees fit, but I do not care. These definitions are better felt in one's belly than discussed in an ivory tower.
So that your belly be better satisfied, let me now further explain the definitions. Everyone capable of making a free choice has a value system. However, as we are imperfect beings, we must inevitably err in the exercise of our value system. Such error results from weakness, from temporary suspension of our willingness to follow our value system, among other causes. A person's understanding of their value system also evolves over time due to acquired wisdom, experiences of all kinds, etc. This system represents to each person the highest authority. When one person disobeys another's command, and if this disobedience is not the result of our failure to follow our own value system, it is because that command was deemed contrary to our value system. Conflict with others is quite simply a conflict of value systems. Because our value system represents the highest authority to us as we evaluate choices, ideas, and actions, our sense of justice is tightly bound to our value system. We feel that justice has been satisfied when things go "right" according to our value system. However, it seems true that, while we hope for "justice" in our lifetime, a belief that justice will occur at some point after our death typically does not violate our expectation of justice. This ultimate event of "making things right" is the triumph of our value system, and such is our own gut-level concept of justice. How many of us would be able to face life's adversity if we had no hope of justice? It should be apparent that a willing and knowing violation of our stated value system is a good indication that our stated value system is in conflict with our actual values. Make no mistake, our actions are the ultimate statement of our value system, though some regard must be given for unintentional weakness.
Given the association of government with justice it is appropriate to address here the god-ness of government. How does a government differ from god? A dictatorship or socialist state sets itself up as the dominant value system. The stroke of genius in the U.S. Constitution and form of government was originally its ability to weave together multiple value systems without dominating them. A socialist state, similar to a state-sponsored religion, abolishes the independence of other value systems and asserts, because it depends upon, its own dominance. It rejects restrictions and proscriptions of other value systems and inserts its own system, often in blatant conflict with the value systems of its citizens. There are some significant differences between government and god:
Accountability is a natural consequence of any value system. One of the most significant implications of accountability is that justice cuts deeply. You may have heard it said that "People don't need justice; they need compassion." Do we avoid god out of fear of his justice? We run from him (or it)! Justice applies to everyone who adheres to a value system, and perhaps even to those who do not. What if the god behind your value system came to judge you according to your value system? The belief that justice happens also applies to you!
Can we say we have a god if we attempt to avoid that god? It begs the question of our own relationship to a value system. Does one choose a value system or does one choose a god? Selection of a value system implicitly selects your god. More on this later.
The Three Lies
Science and religion
Have often been at odds.
I find this very puzzling
For each has many gods.
Now that you have some definitions of value system, justice, and god, and have some understanding of their implications, it is time to address the three lies about god. I'll describe each lie, then explain its motivation and consequences.
The First Lie: The God With No Name
The Athenians of 2000 years ago constructed temples and worship places for all of their gods. They were so concerned with pleasing their gods that they even built a temple dedicated to The Unknown God, to avoid offending some god that may have been overlooked. Their gods were powerful beings, beings that could certainly intimidate a human, but they were imperfect and did not represent the sense of god from which could be derived more than a trivial, imbalanced value system. At best each god represented a very small subset of values. Their gods were petty, and error-prone, both deceived and deceitful. Inasmuch as their gods were petty and ungodly, there is an element of honesty to the Greeks' worship of the various gods of beauty, love, vice, strength, wealth, and wisdom. They at least understood the limitations of values. Today we worship these very same things, yet attach no name to them for fear of being dubbed a pagan, or out of pride because we do not wish to be seen as worshipping anything. Yet worship these things we do. We do not literally bow to these idols, but our actions make clear what we worship.
What does it mean for a god to have no name? Naming a thing attaches some relevance or importance to that thing, and signifies at least a partial understanding of it. It makes a statement of and about your relationship to that person or thing. Naming something as god is a statement of your obligations and commitment to it, and of its obligations to you. So what are the implications of the first lie? The essence of this lie is the position that if a god has no name it does not exist or is irrelevant. Do people believe that god does not exist, and therefore needs no name, or do they recognize god's existence, but hesitate to name it and make their commitment to it? Both, I'm sure, are true. I've met many individuals with great dedication to their value systems, who claim to have no god. I've met many others who, in spite of or because of their value systems, simply refuse to commit to anything. Naming your god defines your responsibility, it specifies the authority behind your value system, and therefore declares your accountability and subjects you to justice and judgment. It's a commitment to a specific set of values. Leaving god unnamed is leaving it unrecognized or ignored, possibly in hope of its non-existence, possibly in hope that it will not be a target of attack by others with different gods or value systems.
In today's society imposition by public institutions of principles based on an established religion is unacceptable. But it is perfectly acceptable to impose values enforced by an unnamed god. One can surreptitiously seek advantage for a value system by allowing it to remain anonymous while simultaneously advocating a broader definition of church and state. One needn't search far for many examples of people and organizations who aggressively employ such tactics for exploitation of others. Such behavior is religious discrimination at least, and religious persecution at worst.
It should be clear from the earlier definitions and their discussion that everyone has a value system and relates to the authority behind that value system, even if it is themselves, as he or she would relate to god. That authority is their god. The truth content of this lie is that many people truly haven't put a name to their god. Consequently, the "God With No Name" may be an error of omission, or may be an outright lie. Either way, it is incorrect.
The Second Lie: The God With Many Faces
What does it mean for a god to have many faces? This is not the same as having many names. Most people I've met are diverse, complex individuals who are a pleasure to know. For most, I address them or think about them using their given name. However, the more important these individuals are to me the more likely I am to address or think about them using one or more nicknames. But the name by which I choose to address an individual, whether it is the same or different from the names chosen by other acquaintances of that individual, has no bearing on the face that the individual presents to me and to their other acquaintances. The face is constant. So for a god to have many faces it must present itself differently to different people. But to the human eye the face is the most distinctive recognizable characteristic of another person.
Why do people suggest that all gods are different faces of the same god? Even of those so-called unified religions such as Christianity or Islam there is a huge amount of variation in the description of the face of god. Extension of this observation leads one to The Second Lie. The truth content of this lie derives from recognition that people can see or hear identical sights or words, yet report them differently. But consider what must be true of a god who delivers different value systems that come into contact and conflict with each other. At some point the god must take the untenable position of being the authority behind competing values.
In addition to the above observation, I believe that The Second Lie is promulgated for social reasons. For some, The Second Lie is an attempt to avoid conflict or an attempt to avoid being criticized for being wrong. After all, if you and I worship the same god then we can appeal to the same authority behind our value systems to validate our positions. Especially in the case of differing positions we can make this appeal to god so that we can agree to disagree. Also, if you and I worship the same god then I am less likely to criticize you for errors, though I may attempt to alter your position on certain issues.
The Second Lie also serves as an attempt to avoid accountability. If you and I serve the same god and I then violate a common value of this god, I am not subject to your correction or admonition if I can simply suggest that my god has a face different from yours, and I can vindicate myself by suggesting that the face of my god is not as different from yours as the face of that other god "over there".
Creator God cannot be proved or disproved ("God in the belly" has no need to be proved or disproved). Similarly, it cannot be proved that the god worshipped by one person is, or is not, the same as the god worshipped by another. But if the value systems are contradictory then we most probably have different gods. Can the same god be the authority behind different or conflicting value systems? If the faces are contradictory then they must not be faces of the same god. Care should be taken, however, to determine that what appears to be contradictory actually is contradictory.
The Second Lie builds upon the first. The huge number of value systems adopted by humanity attests to the variety of gods. Leaving them unnamed makes belief in one god with many faces more palatable, because one need not reconcile the vast differences in values between thousands of value systems; reconciliation of a few major religions is satisfying to most. But some people, those who are undeniably evil at least, must serve a god other than a good god, else god cannot be good. And if god is not good, then what terror do so many humans worship? Clearly, it is more convenient to ascribe many faces to god if we can "un-name" the gods behind so many value systems, and by virtue of not having a name we call them "not god".
The Third Lie: Designer Gods
"Ye have wearied the LORD with your words. Yet ye say, Wherein have we wearied him? When ye say, Every one that doeth evil is good in the sight of the LORD, and he delighteth in them; or, Where is the God of judgment?" -Malachi 2:17
The Third Lie proceeds from the Second Lie. If god has many faces, or presentations, it follows that there must be multiple acceptable modes of worship (conveniently discounting the modes of worship of those un-named not-gods). With such flexibility we should be able to worship or serve god as we see fit, according to a value system of our own choosing.
Why do people design their own gods? For starters, today's public loves "cafeteria commitment", which is the presumed opportunity to select whichever commitments you are willing to make, and leave the others behind. Today's public is both ambitious and fearful. Surely it is fearful to think that one's god might ask one to do something unpleasant, so if one can actually design the god then god is no longer a threat. Others are simply the ambitious sort who cannot relinquish control to anyone, and a designed god is the perfect answer to their quandary. But if you design your own god then you may as well put your own name and your own face on your god. This common behaviour is sometimes known as "self-worship", arrogance, conceit, among other names. Psychoanalysis aside, how is god-design any different from ancient idol worship? While you can certainly list some obvious differences, such distinctions are trifling. A god crafted by hand served only as a visual symbol of the authority behind the craftsman's value system. The visual symbol may be missing today, but all else is constant.
The truth behind this lie is that value systems can be extremely complex, so it is reasonable to believe that two people can emphasize different aspects of the same value system. However, since emphasis is an element of a value system, even this fails to pass muster. In the end, the designer god is nothing more than an idol, one's own creation, and nothing less than the foolhardiness of setting oneself up as god and delivering one's own value system, which task is simplified if one need not name this designer god. Administration of justice by such self-gods is typically in the form of ridicule of contradictory value systems, or dismissal of "unbelievers" from one's circle of associates.
The Threat of Justice
We have opened three doors and exposed three lies about god, demonstrating the failure of these philosophies in terms of the most basic definitions of god, justice, and value system. You have seen how simple, nay, compelling, it is to leave one's god unnamed, and how quickly grow the weeds of more lies upon the first. These lies have led us to question the quality of justice and the existence of a true authority behind that justice. Based on our definition of god as the authority behind one's value system, as the deliverer of justice, we need now to investigate what it means for a god to deliver justice.
One of the motivations for following a value system is the hope of justice at some point in time. If a god is the authority behind a value system, and enforces that value system, then one must surely ask what is the sphere of influence of this god? Does justice apply only to the adherents of the value system that is being enforced? Or does justice apply equally to all individuals, and therefore to the adherents of other value systems? Does each god get its own shot at everyone? Is a god responsible for protecting its followers from other gods? How do "the gods" decide which individuals their justice applies to? Do "the gods" poach followers from one other? Do they, or are they able to, punish others who have abandoned them for a rival? Is the god willing or able to exist within or be judged by its own value system? Any hierarchy or system among "the gods" must quickly degrade into the ugly politics that we have observed among humankind for millennia, where the enemy of my enemy is my friend, and where those in power trade their values and their underlings without hesitation, if they see it is to their advantage to do so.
It is clear from the thousands of years of recorded history that humans are forever struggling against each other, pitting their own value systems against the values of those around them. If our gods are no better than this, then what hope have we?
If justice is delivered for a value system, how might it be measured out? One might expect it to be delivered equitably and impartially, and that the god must maintain a distance from those being judged. The god would likely monitor those who will be judged in order to determine their level of compliance. What is the triumph of a value system relative to a person who has satisfied the value system 25% of the time? 51%? 98%? Is it justice if one who satisfies the system only 25% receives the identical set of penalties and rewards as one who satisfies it 98%? Is the penalty/reward scale continuous, that is, are penalties and rewards regularly increasing as one moves up or down the "compliance" scale? Or are there discrete regions of compliance that merit a fixed penalty/reward over the entire region? Unless the authority behind your value system has explicitly informed you of the details of how justice will carried out, it is unwise to generate your own assumptions. If the value system requires one to travel from point A to point B then it may well be that anyone who does not reach point B, no matter how close they may have come, must bear the consequences of failure.
It should be apparent by now that the justice we hope for from the god of our value system may not be exactly favorable towards us. Perhaps we should be afraid of our god? Perhaps, indeed. Not only is the method of computing the justice for each person uncertain, none of us should expect to get a perfect score. No small amount of fear of our god or gods might be in order here. Have you yet abandoned hope? If your god is not The Great God then your value system will be either crushed by The Great God who is, or your hope for justice will be entangled in a mass of confusing and contrary value systems, with nothing to expect but human-like political wrangling and horse-trading. Our purpose in life should be to find that Great God if he can be found. But once found, have we any hope of surviving the delivery of justice if it is aimed at us, as it most certainly will be at some time or other? What should we expect of such justice? How can we look toward our trial and punishment with anticipation?
Setting Expectations
The authority behind your value system must now appear like something of an antagonist, perhaps even an ogre. Our hope for justice has been shattered, or exchanged for fear, not because justice might not be realized, but because its realization may be devastating. Perhaps it is because of this fear or hopelessness that you have not named your god? If you have identified your own god, what is your response to your discovery? Are you proud of your god? What value system has your god provided? Does your god have the power and will to deliver justice in accordance with that value system? What does your god know or care of you?
How does one identify the objective or goal of a value system? Does this objective benefit the god, the adherents, both, or neither? Might the god's objectives be different from the adherents' objectives? A true ogre might not even deliver its value system to us, preferring instead to savor the opportunity to mete out justice to the uninformed. Or he might deliver a system that enslaves or entraps us. It would seem that "god" is not such a divine concept after all. Our expectations have become modest, as they are almost forced to be.
One of our god's responsibilities, as noted earlier, is to provide a value system. This requirement is extremely general. Does "provide" mean that the god must make its value system available? If that is all, then how do we discover its existence, let alone find it and learn the details? Does the god deliver this value system to us? If so, how? Does the answer to this question have a bearing on the manner or protocols in which the god delivers justice? The answers to these questions are likely to be highly specific to the value system itself, so the requirement to provide a value system simply must be left without great specificity. We should hope, then, that the judgement we are likely to face will take into account our level of understanding of the value system.
To summarize our expectations, in addition to the basic requirements of providing the value system and carrying out judgement according to that system, we might expect our god to:
We can probably identify with Adam and Eve for trying to hide from god, because encounters with god may not have the appeal that many of us have been conditioned to expect. The bar for our god has been set low, but could it be that not all is lost? Might there be an attractive side to god? If I were to search for answers to these questions, I would begin my search with the basic god-responsibilities of providing a value system and enforcing that system. Has any god done more than provide a value system? Has a value system already been delivered to us? Are we aware of or have we heard of a god who can enforce a value system? If you and I have not heard god speak directly, do we know anyone who has heard?
I am certainly not neutral in this matter, for I have known much of what follows for many years, so I will come out and clearly state my position. Hitherto in this essay we have spent much of our time exploring key definitions and using these definitions to aid in uncovering and dismantling three lies about god. We have explored what we might expect of a god, and identified some troubling aspects of justice/judgement pertaining to the value system that any of us might espouse. To continue exploring the world religions and philosophies for clues and evidence of a real god is work that has been and will continue to be done by many authors for centuries. Find the books and start reading. But you might consume years of your time without reaching any conclusion. No more exploration here. I can tell you that I know of a god who does what a god is expected to do, and much, much more. Even when He does what is expected, He does it in ways that are unconventional and surprising. If you could design your own god, the God of Whom I write is what you would want to design. But He is truly far beyond what any of us could conceive. This God is Yahweh.
Exceeding Expectations
The Bible is collectively referred to as "God's Word", meaning that it represents a special case of God's communication with us, His revealed word. I will present several significant instances of Yahweh's delivery of His value system. The first hints of a value system appear during His communication with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. Later, we find strong indications of God's personality in His dealings with Abraham. We find the value system delivered more explicitly during the time of Moses, specifically with the Ten Commandments. Following the Ten Commandments we have 1400 or more years of human failure to follow God's heart, leading up to Jesus' birth. During Jesus' ministry we are given a revitalized value system, in combination with a great many instances that show us the mind of God and what He wants of us. During this section of study I'll demonstrate God's will to enforce His value system, and provide evidence of His ability, with respect to both power and wisdom, to deliver justice and to judge each and every one of us. I'll conclude with an amazing display of God's love for us that allows us to face judgement without fear. You will be astounded not only by the contents of Yahweh's value system, but by its delivery and its promise to us.
Adam and Eve
The first communication between God and man that bears resemblance to a value system is found in Genesis 2:15-18: "The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to till it and keep it. And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die. Then the LORD God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him."
We now have a statement of purpose, "to till it and keep it", which is not required of God in the Belly, a statement of rules, "You may freely eat of every tree ...you shall die.", which is not atypical of value systems, and a statement of value "not good.. be alone". One might wish to consider the phrase "you shall die" as a threat of judgement for failure to comply with the value system, but it is not clear to me whether this is a statement of judgement or of identified consequences. Also of interest here is that it was God who identified what was not good for man. This represents concern of God for man, which is beyond the simple requirements of god, as well as detailed knowledge of man, also not a requirement of God in the Belly.
From this brief passage we have identified an effort to deliver a basic value system, as expected of a god, but we also find that God gives purpose to man, and expresses concern for man's well-being, and has the ability to affect man's well-being. Very importantly, Genesis 2:15-18 comes on the heels of Genesis 1:28: " ... and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth." Such a statement is not, I think, a command. It's almost as if God is saying to us, "Look at what I made for you. Go, and enjoy my gift to you because your dreams are my pleasure." We therefore have additional evidence of God's concern for and interest in us. Further, these passages are placed at or near the conclusion of God's creative efforts. We are told that God created everything that exists, including ourselves. Are God's creative activities also an element of the value system? Quite possibly, as these activities demonstrate both God's actions on our behalf, as well as some highly significant aspects of our relationship to Him.
We find some actions of interest only a few verses later, in Genesis 3:23-24, after Adam and Eve disobeyed the commandment not to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil: "Therefore the LORD God sent him [Adam] forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life." Here we identify God's will to enforce His value system. Among other things, the judgement consists of casting Adam and Eve out from the Garden of Eden. This is coincident with an apparent reduction in communication between God and humans which was initiated as Adam and Eve's willful withdrawal from God's presence. That the first sin resulted in our separation from God is no coincidence. Sin is, in its very essence, any action, inaction, word, or thought that damages or hinders our relationship with God or His creation.
Abraham
We now move on to the story of Abraham later in the book of Genesis, where we find that some of the fellowship between God and Man remains or has been partially restored. In Genesis 17:5 we find God assigning new names to both Abram and his wife, Sarai. Giving of names represents knowledge of and authority over those being named. I believe we should consider this "knowledge of" to be of a very personal nature. In the story of Abraham, at least, this deep knowledge is demonstrated beginning in Genesis 18:1: "And the LORD appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre, as he sat at the door of his tent in the heat of the day. He lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, three men stood in front of him. When he saw them, he ran from the tent door to meet them, and bowed himself to the earth, and said, "My lord, if I have found favor in your sight, do not pass by your servant." Abraham's recognition of God is immediate in these verses. That is, the three visitors did not need to introduce themselves, but rather Abraham needed no additional information other than what appears to be a confident familiarity with his visitors. The familiarity is born out in verse 25, the beginning of a series of six petitions that Abraham made to God to spare the righteous who were in the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah: "Far be it from thee to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous fare as the wicked! Far be that from thee! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?" Abraham's statement that begins "Far be it from Thee..." is essentially a statement of Abraham's confidence in his understanding of God's nature, and that God's nature is not to destroy the righteous. Abraham clearly had some understanding of God's value system, and God confirmed Abraham's understanding by His response. Not only did Abraham express his understanding of God's value system, he changed the terms of his petition five times after his initial petition to spare the righteous. Thus, Abraham understood that God is patient, and slow to anger. Finally, Abraham revealed a great deal more of his understanding of God as he referred to God as "the Judge of all the earth". He realized that God is a judge, meaning that God is an active authority behind a comprehensive value system that is effective throughout the entire earth. Such an understanding certainly relates to value systems as we've discussed so far.
It is hugely important here to realize that Abraham's god revealed Himself. A god may be expected, but not required, to reveal its value system, but it need not reveal itself. Abraham's God behaved unconventionally. This god was personal. Abraham's god not only took notice of him, but stepped provocatively within Abraham's personal space.
Moses and the Name of God
The story of Moses should be at least somewhat familiar to most readers, mostly regarding the story of the Exodus from Egypt. But one of the most significant details about Moses lies in the story of God's revelation to Moses of God's name. God referred to Himself in the presence of Moses as Yahweh, which can be translated as "The self-existent one". Prior to this event, Yahweh was referred to by title or position, generally "Lord". The significance of God's revelation of His name, or a name by which we should think of Him, lies both in the familiarity of knowing a specific name of God, and in what we should understand about God from His name. Thus, we have found yet another instance of God's active role in our development of a relationship with Him.
More familiar to most readers than God's revelation of His name, is God's presentation of His value system, His delivery to Moses of The Ten Commandments:
One must not lose sight of the significance that the first four commandments address our relationship with God, while the remainder address our relationship with those around us. What kind of god would include constructive, beneficial relationship with its adherents as an element, let alone the basis, of its value system? Yahweh's value placed upon His created subjects exceeds expectations, and what is evident is that this value is not limited only to His adherents. The commandments do not say "You shall not steal from any of my followers", or "Honor your father and mother if they are followers of my teachings." No, these commands are for us to follow in relation to everyone around us.
In Leviticus 26:12 Yahweh spoke to the Israelites saying "And I will walk among you, and will be your God, and you shall be my people." These words represent a contract and a promise. This is yet another surprise, in that our God is willing to promise us more than justice. He promises us companionship, and the comfort of His presence with us. The better you understand our Adam- and Eve -like tendencies to retreat from God, the more surprised you will be by God's willingness to walk with us and to be our God.
The God of Abraham spent quite a few centuries with Abraham's descendants, slowly (and often painfully) teaching them His value system. This period is significant for multiple reasons. This period of teaching over the course of a thousand or more years shows God's commitment to and patience with His people. The basic god-in-the-belly holds no promise or expectation of patience with or commitment to its adherents. Once again, the God of Abraham far exceeds expectations. Another point of importance here lies in the amount of time that God spent to deliver His value system. The value system was so comprehensive that He did not expect His people to build it themselves, nor did he expect them to comprehend it in a single short reading. No, this value system is so comprehensive that it literally took many, many generations for the Israelites to learn and absorb. It is absolutely impossible for any person to devise a value system during a human lifetime that can compare to this value system that took a thousand years for the Israelites to absorb. Yet how many short-sighted people today believe that they can devise a viable value system based on their whims? Such thinking is preposterous as well as arrogant.
Jesus
In response to His people's clear inability to follow His value system, and to their unavoidable appointment with justice, we witness the second most surprising and wondrous act of God that has ever occurred. God placed Himself within His own value system, fully subject to the judgement of that system, when He sent Jesus into this world as a little child. Not only was Jesus, as a human, subject to the judgement of Yahweh's value system, but as a human He became vulnerable to the weaknesses that contribute to our routine failures under Yahweh's value system. That Jesus did not succumb to these weaknesses is marvelous.
Among the benefits of Jesus entrance into this world is that we as humans needed to hear from someone or something like ourselves in order to better understand Yahweh's value system. Perhaps another reason is that we needed to see an example, to convince ourselves that what we have so often failed to do can be done, and has in fact been done. There is no better learning environemnt than having the teacher live among us.
Jesus gave us a new look at Yahweh's value system:
Matthew 22:35-40. Observe that Jesus' description is a clarification
of God's desires for us. God's law through Moses had become contorted by centuries of analysis and
interpretation, so that its original intent was obscured. In this passage from Matthew we find that a
man has come to inquire of Jesus:
"Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy
God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great
commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two
commandments hang all the law and the prophets."
Here we find some important distinctions between Christianity and other religions. The second greatest commandment, according to Jesus, is the primary objective of most other major religions. The second commandment is what universalists point to when they conclude that all major religions have the same focus, or that all religions serve the same god. But Jesus stated with clarity that the greatest single commandment is to love God entirely. This means one MUST KNOW Him. How can one love someone so whole-heartedly without intimate knowledge of the person being loved?
It is not provable, so far as I know, that the Judeo-Christian God is or is not different from the god in the belly of Buddhists or Taoists or Hindus or Muslims. But if Jesus was correct in His declaration of the greatest commandment, then these other religions are incomplete. Jesus has made a bolder and more demanding statement than any other. How many of us can say that we've done even a reasonable job of satisfying the second greatest commandment? How many of us then can say that we have satisfied the greatest commandment?
Sending Christ to live among us as an example and teacher was wondrous, but Yahweh's most remarkable action was saving us from the certain justice of His value system. He allowed His son Jesus to experience the full weight of justice, death, even though Jesus had not violated Yahweh's value system. The surprising insight into God's value system, though not quite so surprising if one studies the Old Testament and the concept of sacrificial offering, is that, though sin must be paid for, there is no constraint that the sinner pay for his own failure. Jesus was crucified, and subsequently resurrected. Yahweh showed mercy and love toward us in order to spare us that very justice which we could not avoid by any other means. He walks with us, and has given us a value system in which we ourselves are the beneficiaries, in which our own good is among the highest priorities of the system. What god would be so patient with us as Yahweh? What god would pay such a dear price for its subjects to be spared the judgement of its value system? What god would know us so personally, and make relationship with it the highest priority of its value system? What god could even imagine a way to spare us the judgement so expected of all value systems? This God is not detached or distant from us so that he may render impartial judgement, but so completely involved that He suffered greatly so that we can be spared that same torment.
The Good News
How can you not be intrigued by this God of Surprises? How can you be among the living and not respond to God's relentless, overwhelming love? The God of the Bible is consistently surprising, yet surprisingly consistent, as He repeatedly reaches out to us without forcing our response. Is it not wonderful to serve a God who has satisfied the requirement of justice for us, a God who guarantees justice, and heals our own failures by justifying us? We all do as Adam and Eve did, in that we violate God's value system, intended for our own good, and proceed to distance ourselves from Him. Our actions require apology on our part, and forgiveness on God's part. Forgiveness and apology are essential to maintenance of any relationship, but our salvation depends on justice, which is quite other than forgiveness. Our debt is real, but Jesus has redeemed us in full. Other religions speak of finding and worshipping God, but do any speak of redemption?
Salvation is not about adoption of a value system, or practice of that value system. We are condemned regardless of our choice of value system or our degree of success in following that value system. Condemned to eternal separation from God. Salvation, then, is deliverance from the judgement of God's value system, and the fellowship with God that makes His kingdom present in our lives. Salvation is not less than the combination of deliverance and fellowship. If a person claims to know God, and acts brotherly toward all others, but fails or refuses to acknowledge the redemptive action of His Son on that person's behalf, then what is the actual state of that person? We must know God, and God's Son, before we die.
Those who do not name their god either do no know their god, or are ashamed to state his name. But our God has a name, many names, and now that you understand the surpassing greatness of our God, how can you keep from singing, from proclaiming the Good News of our God to anyone and everyone who will listen? Proclaim Him to all who need to hear!
My God is Yahweh, the self-existent one, creator of all that was, is, and ever will be. He is the one who continually surprises us, who brings life out of death. He is "Wonderful", "Counsellor", "Everlasting Father", "Prince of Peace". This is my God. Who's yours?