This article is a continuation of an article written as a guest submission by Matthew Lowe, a Jewish educator in Boston, MA, and an lay leader at the Moishe Kavod Social Justice House in Brookline, MA.
In a recent post on State of Formation, I presented a new theological taxonomy, dividing up monotheistic models into “God1” and “God2.” Simply put, God1 is “classic God” – a supernatural being that has the capacity for a rich inner life (will, thought, etc) and outer action (physical power). God2 is my label for any model of God that lacks will and power—this includes pantheism, and the God of various thinkers: Paul Tillich’s “being-itself,” Mordecai Kaplan’s “the force that makes for salvation,” and Gordon Kaufman’s “serendipitous creativity.” I ended my post with a series of questions that I hope to address here.
This was my ending:
But should God2 be called “God”? What is a God without will and power? Yes, the word “God” carries many significations—but are certain significations essential? Does God2’s lack of agency disqualify it from deserving the label “God”? Think of what the mass of people right now, and throughout history, mean and meant by “God.” To them, God is a conscious over-being with the power to save and the right to judge and kill. That’s God1 aka God. What can you do with a God2?
As is clear from the title, I do not believe that God2 should be called “God.” I want to make clear that my primary reason forthis assertion is personal. Growing up as a religious Jew, I took the Tanakh (Old Testament) and Siddur (prayer book) relatively literally. While I may not have insisted that there was light because God said “Let there be light,” I believed that the creation of the world was somehow the result of God’s planning and acting. I believed in the exodus from Egypt quite literally, and I saw the historical truth of the exodus as a pillar of Jewish faith. The exodus is referenced far more times than the revelation at Sinai in the Tanakh and the Siddur—this is because the exodus serves as the past model and future promise that God will save His people.If God did not literally redeem us from Egypt, then we have no assurance that God will redeem us in the future—and Jewish tradition is chock full of assurances that the exodus happened and something like it will happen again. That God acted, acts, and will act in history is central to the Jewish myth. Even in the first commandment (Exodus 20:2), God lists the exodus from Egypt on his resumé rather than the creation of the world!
This sounds philosophical, but the fact is this: In prayer, I counted on God to be a being with will and power. The language of the siddur is difficult to turn into a metaphor—we constantly refer to God’s past, present, and future actions, and constantly refer to God as “You.” This “You” was essential to my faith—it established and reflected a personal relationship with a personal being. There’s mutuality; there’s dialogue. As I attempt to regard God, similarly God is ‘there’ regarding me.I am not alone.
God2 does not decrease my aloneness. The wonder of interconnection does not make me feel less alone when I am alone. The wonder of interconnection neither shares my joy nor brings solace to my pain. The wonder of interconnection is neither friend nor partner nor father nor king. Face it, God2 is a flat God, a silent God, an impersonality that bears no resemblance to the God of my Bible and my prayer book. I can believe and feel inspired by the wonder of interconnection, but I cannot worship it, talk to it, feel regarded by it. The wonder of interconnection can never be my living God.If I cannot truly address it or be addressed by it, I only find it sad and (literally) ironic to call it “God.”
So that is my personal reason for rejecting God2 as deserving the title “God.” However, many adherents of liberal religion find God2 very handy for their theology and do not find an ironic reading of the Bible or prayer book problematic. What do I have to say about God2 for those whom the concept “works” for?
To God2 lovers, my guess is that one or more of the following statements describes you (obviously not all of them, as several contradict each other):
A) You are a thoughtful person who struggles faithfully with your conception and relationship with God.
B) You have a commitment to religion that depends little on theology. Thus, God2 is your available alternative to the problems of God1, and you do not think about God that often or too deeply.
C) You do not pray that often.
D) You pray, but have a high tolerance for irony. You rise to the challenge of interpreting prayers metaphorically, or abstracting core values from the literal meaning of the prayers.
E) You pray, but you pay little to no attention to the text. You pray for generally non-theological reasons (to be with others, to commune with yourself, to step back from everyday life, etc.).
F) You are transitioning from theism to atheism, or at least, from a religious life-style to a secular life-style.
How did I do? Please let me know where I have described you faithfully, or where I missed something. Based on the statements above, I would guess that God2 adherents will follow certain trajectories:
1) Do the “liberal theology shuffle” forever. Perhaps pass it on to their children, if ironic readings of religion are transmittable enough. If Jewish, these individuals will be Reform, Conservative, Reconstructionist, or they will found Hebrew College Rabbinical School or write a book called “Everything is God.”
2) Be “spiritual but not religious” in a relatively unreflective and unengaged manner. These individuals have a god (God2), but will not theologize, nor truly commit much of their time, energy, or care into living within the perspective of God2. These people are generally secular, or largely culturally religious.
3) Be like me, and eventually lose faith in God2, just as I lost faith in God1.
Am I still on target? I apologize if these lists seem glib or dismissive—I figured
polemic would be a nice way to make this article interesting and provocative.
So what? Do I want to ‘save’ people from some of these trajectories, given my own disappointment with God2? Well, yes. Right now I am very new at being an atheist, which means that I’m very much in that early immature stage of wanting to proselytize. Still captivated by my own loss of faith, I find it hard to imagine that others (especially God2 adherents, who have already stepped away from ‘classic’ theology) won’t follow suit, especially after reading what I write. Now that I see my own God2 stage as transitional, I have that‘true (un)believer’ optimism and self-righteousness that propels me to call upon others to do the same.
Perhaps I will grow out of it. I mean, at bottom, what is my issue with God2? Only calling it “God.” I am glad to follow and develop the sentiments that lead people to give caring attention to the wonder of interconnection, to love, to serendipitous creativity, and so on. I am glad to encourage people to seek transcendence within the natural world.These are all worthy, secularly spiritual pursuits. And I understand that the word “God” seems to be the ultimate gathering-term, entry-term, for people to begin speaking about and tending to those matters of ‘ultimate concern.’ So if they want to use the word “God” and their values are basically humanistic, what’s my complaint? If that’s the word that works for them, let it work them.
But does the word “God” really do that much for you? God2-lovers, after you say “I believe in God, and God is…” is there much else you can really do with the word? Do you talk to God2, expecting no reply? Do you recite the traditional prayers, knowing that every “God + verb” statement is a lie, or at least, a poor rendering of the truth? In the end, I have to be dismissive about God2 and ‘his’ proponents—they are all either not thinking about what they are saying, or ultimately they do not care that much about God. Even though I am now an atheist, I am certainly still a theologian, and I think “God” deserves better than that.Alternatives to God1 are the work of individuals torn between tradition and integrity, nostalgia and reason, “God” and all of the other words available in human language to express where we come from, what we are, where we’re going, and what matters most to us.
**Thanks so much to Honna Eichler for allowing me to guest-post on State of Formation. I will be continuing to explore available terminology for developing secular spirituality at my blog The Empty Throne.
nice. my thoughts: I think your definition of God1 is too narrow and reliant upon religious myths. You are just throwing out possible revelation because the traditional Jewish line on revelation is not historical or at all reasonable — and then by negating any possibility of Divine will in God2, you are making God2 not God. Sigh. So basically, without biblical literalism and the Exodus and being totally Orthodox in our theology you are killing any chance of God. I mean, I’m with you on God2 not being God. Kaplan, et al never appealed to be because a God without agency seems like the deification of nature and thats idolatrous blah blah and not at all Godlike to me… But I do think there are other ways of saving God1 but admitting that human beings have a. gotten it wrong; b. rely upon myths and metaphors in their spiritual language and c. may never ever know what is truly up with God. You know what I think — God is an impossibility rationally, therefore immanently possible and always beyond us. My idea of God relies on a healthy dose of appreciation for the mysterious and humility that we are mortal and probably don’t know shit. So, though I agree that both God1 and God2 are respectively nonsensical and not God, I still do believe in a God but prefer to call that God, God!!?
@Suzie — I would love to hear more content about the God you believe in. Your details about your God are more… structural? I’m hearing: possibility, beyond us, mystery, humility. These are various poses in relation to God, but I just don’t see how they can be the basis of a rich, active relationship with God, which is clearly what I am looking for.
What about the sort of God that, say, Hans Jonas considers in “The Concept of God After Auschwitz”– a God that has will, but diminishing, or limited power; a “God 1.5”, perhaps? Such a God, it seems to me, would be capable of the rich inner life you mention, and would be capable of acting– if not in the historically significant ways a believer in “God1” might expect–and thus be worthy of some sort of prayer.
Hi R.J.L– thanks for reading! Please read my original article “God1 and God2” https://stateofformation.org/2011/06/guest-post-god1-and-god2/ and look for the list of modified God1 ideas (deism, heaven, limited theism). There are your God1.5s! And my issues with them. Granted, I have not read enough Jonas to speak on his theology.
Thanks for this follow up to your earlier post! I really appreciate the way that you explain your personal investment in this distinction–both the concept of God(1) that meant so much to you, and the enthusiasm you feel in your new position as an atheist.
However, I do wonder how/why you move from your points A, D and 1 to your statement “In the end, I have to be dismissive about God2 and ‘his’ proponents—they are all either not thinking about what they are saying, or ultimately they do not care that much about God.” It seems that on some level you acknowledge that those who are working with God2 concepts may be authentically struggling/engaging with the tension they find in certain traditions or God concepts, and yet simultaneously you are dismissive of that struggle. While it was a transitional stage for you, I wonder if existing in that tension, wrestling with it, acknowledging both the wisdom and spiritual depth of traditions and the values with which these practices might conflict…..couldn’t that in itself be a way of connecting with something Ultimate…something that we call God not knowing whether it’s God1 or God2 or something else, because, as Suzie suggested, we are mortal and probably don’t know much at all?
I think the struggle to engage intentionally, and simultaneously, with traditions and conflicting values and conceptions of God is far from evidence of thoughtlessness or not caring about God. And I don’t think admitting that we don’t agree literally with everything about God in our scriptures and traditions means that we need to throw out the word God–rather, maybe we can frame our continuing struggle with the Ultimate as a continuing struggle to connect with/understand/know/not-know that which is beyond us, and that which we name God perhaps because we feel we are still struggling to understand/connect with the same thing we did when/if we believed the God of the scriptures literally. Perhaps IT hasn’t changed, but only our understandings/ideas/hypotheses about it,and therefore calling it by the same name identifies a certain continuity in our struggle with this unknown.
@Anonymous– Fantastic challenges! I’m not sure yet what to say to your first large paragraph– you are right that those who are struggling, and engaging in ironic interpretation… clearly they care about God and the words they are using. If they didn’t care, they wouldn’t bother to reinterpret. So I think have to concede here… for now…
Your second large paragraph is pretty heavy, so I’ll try to address it bit-by-bit, starting at the second sentence (the first seems to be connected more to the paragraph before it). I am not arguing that we throw out the word “God” on account of not agreeing literally with everything in scripture. I am arguing that those who do not believe literally that the central character of scripture (God) is in reality something like a character (a personality)– those people should throw out the word “God.” If you want to talk about “the Ultimate” or a mysterious, noumenal “IT,” that’s great– but using the word “God” suggests continuity with the Biblical character.
Do you really believe that the God you used to struggle with (back when God had a clear backstory, agenda, sacred tradition) is the same Ultimate that you are struggling with now? What exactly do you think the Ultimate has in common with God the Biblical character? There must be some similarities that you are leaning on in order to continue using that word. If not, then call it The Ultimate, or merely IT– changing the name you use will demonstrate that your ideas truly have changed. If what you are dealing with is, ultimately, the unknown, show it more respect and stop calling it by a familiar name.
Great post, Matt. You dissected God2 very thoroughly in terms of why it cannot be called God. However, I think you are wrong. In particular, I think that you are wrong that God2 cannot be a personal God or “Being.”
Before I get deeper into these thoughts, let me back up and say that the only reason I’ve come to this conclusion is because I began with God1. God1 provided the framework by which my younger self could identify will and power — my actions impact God and God responds with God’s actions. (From an educational perspective think l’chanech na’ar al pi darko — teach a child according to his/her way. I needed to start with God1 but eventually grew out of it). There is a direct causality between myself and God which means that God and I are very close. If I did not start here, but rather began with the concept of interconnectedness (i.e. God2) then you’re right, there is no reason for me to call God2 God — the term “God” only appears by way of belief in God1.
But this is where I think you got it wrong. My movement from God1 to God2 does not mean I abandon all conceptions and understandings of God1. Consider what happens when you move to a different city. When I moved from Philadelphia to Calgary, I brought some of my “Philly self” with me even though I felt like a different person in Calgary. That “Philly self” that survived the move survived because it contained a part of who I was, a part of my inner self. It withstood the test of time. Likewise there are some things of God1 that I ascribe as incontrovertibly true even now primarily because it is part of my inner self; it also has withstood the test of time. And that particular part of God1 is that God is a personal God.
Now, you might say that I am just worried about leaving the term God behind, that I don’t want to give up something that feels good but I don’t really believe in. Well, perhaps there may be a little fear of losing the term God in there, but that fear is mostly that I might let my head get ahead of my heart. Praying to and conversing with a Personal God goes beyond any rational justification of God’s qualities. Just as recent as this weekend I found myself, in a moment of need, speaking to God. In that moment I admitted my theological doubts that “I don’t know for sure if You are listening or if it’s possible for You to answer.” My head was able to get in its say. But in the end my heart won out because the only thing I knew for sure in that moment was that it was satisfying on a level above my animal or even rational desires. It satisfied the part of me that connects to something greater. Speaking to God filled a need greater than I could fill by speaking to another person or speaking to “the universe.” It filled the need that can only be satisfied by speaking to the One who created me.
I know I need to answer the question on “will and power” and I will get that into another reply if we get there in this discussion.
– ari
Hi Ari– thanks for reading and responding! Right away it appears that we are talking past each other, and I need you to take a step back and recognize that I am defining God2 as a god that lacks personality. If you are talking about god with will and power, agency, or any kind of face/personality, then you are NOT talking about God2. Please respect my taxonomy, or be more direct about why you are objecting to the taxonomy I am setting up. You cannot just carry “personality” from God1 to God2– God2’s lack of a personality is exactly what distinguishes it from God1.
Your last paragraph says to me that it is important to your relationship with God to treat God as a personality. I get that– the universe does not make us feel less alone, does not help us act like we are in a relationship. Humans need a Thou to their I. But I’ll challenge you– what does this persona (mask) that you put in front of God do for you besides give you someone to talk to? I will put forth that, when your heart wins out, and you get your satisfaction, you are not necessarily connecting to something greater– you are just satisfying your primal desire to feel that the universe (or God) is regarding you. That is not necessarily connecting to something greater; that is just acting out some internal psychic drama.
Looking forward to hearing more from you! I hope my comments (esp. the 1st one) can make our convo more productive.
Thanks for your reply, Matt.
After re-reading both of your posts I better understand what I object to in your taxonomy — that agency has a direct correlation to personality. In other words, if God does not have agency, then God cannot have a personality. However, I do not believe that this correlation is as complete as it seems to be in your posts. It seems to me that the existence of God as a personal “Being” is not only tied to God’s ability or inability to put out a forest fire but also to a human being’s subjective experience of God. Here’s what I mean: The exodus from Egypt is as significant as you described in your post not only because of the miracles (i.e. agency) but because it put God into relationship with the children of Israel (i.e. subjective experience). The significance of the creation of that relationship is so important that I would go so far as to say that even if you take away the miracles that enabled that relationship to occur (i.e. no more agency) the subjective experience of being in that relationship remains. It’s another version of Lamm’s contention that “it doesn’t matter how God spoke to Moses on Mount Sinai only that He spoke.” I recognize that there is tension in saying that if the agency which caused the subjective experience to occur is removed the subjective experience still remains meaningful; it is kind of like putting the cart before the horse. But that is part of the miracle of God — that God who is the Creator of everything, who is transcendent, whose agency (if there is agency) is mysterious can also be real, present and immanent in our personal subjective lives.
As for your other challenge, I think that having someone to talk to is an extremely important element of having a relationship with God. Yes, on a physiological level it may be no more than glorified self-talk, but that is irrelevant because we are not dealing with science but in naming our experiences. You may call it an “internal psychic drama” and I may call it “talking with God” — they are most likely the same thing but we name them differently depending upon the value system that speaks to us.
Speaking of value systems, this leads me to my challenge for you. You mentioned in this post that you don’t want to call God2 “God” because of your personal history growing up as a religious Jew. God1 regards you and God2 can’t, but because you cannot believe in God1’s agency all that’s left is atheism (at least that’s how I understand your spiritual growth — tell me if I’m mistaken!). But I’m wondering what happened to those feelings of being regarded that God1 satisfied? Have those feelings simply disappeared and if not how do you satisfy them now? My contention is that those feelings can never be satisfied as completely as belief in God, no matter how little or how much agency God has.
These are just thoughts that are in the process of development so I’m looking forward to hearing your comments. I hope that my first paragraph solved the issue of not dealing with your taxonomy earlier.
ari
Ari– I’ll respond to you in backwards order, as I find your later points most central to some deeper issues I am trying to get at. Thank you for raising them.
1) Without God in my life, I am always either alone or with people. Those are my only options. My need for ‘regard’ on behalf of something cosmic– that need goes unanswered. Sad as that might be, at least it’s very very honest. Better that my desire for cosmic attention and love go unsatisfied, than fooling myself and giving the Universe a face just to console myself.
2) If “internal psychic drama” and “talking to God” are indeed the same thing, then you are admitting that God is simply a psychologically-useful fiction.
3) Thank you for providing your own rebuttal– yes you put the cart before the horse in insisting that a subjective experience establishes a relationship regardless of whether God acted. Lamm asserts that God spoke at Sinai– that’s enough agency for me to respect the integrity of his claims about God. The relationship established by the Exodus is COMPLETELY founded upon God’s actions at that time– if God did not act, then there’s no Exodus, and no relationship formed. If a God lacks agency, it doesn’t matter whether or not that God has a personality, as that God has no way of conveying that personality to us.
Take a look at this article re: supernaturalism in sports
http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/soccer/20110718_Japan_finally_gets_good_news__upsets_USA.html
I am not saying he is correct, but that his belief that there is something more than we can see is a fundamental human element, and one in which the best term to ascribe to it is God or supernatural i.e. an aspect of life that is beyond our abilities to describe it with the categories at our disposal. I’m sure if the Americans won the same argument would be made given the polarities and danger of our current political debate. Again the point is not whether or not these beliefs are inherently correct rather that we think of them at all and they give us meaning.
ari
Ari– if ascribing things to the supernatural were fundamentally human, then everyone would do it. This guy is reading something totally unnecessary into a completely natural event. Are you trying to say that the Japanese victory lacks meaning if we don’t bring in the supernatural?? C’mon. The poignancy of this game and this victory are real, and do not need “something extra” added to make sense of it. I believe the appropriate expression is ‘gilding the lily.’
For anyone enjoying this kind of thinking, I just started a series of posts on theology and language at my website…http://theemptythrone.blogspot.com/2011/07/trading-in-god-for-good-part-1-faith-in.html