American Unitarian Conference Forum

I found the sermon at this link to be of some interest: http://unitarian.ithaca.ny.us/sermons/DG...080413.pdf

This is from a collection of sermons from the Unitarian church in Ithaca, NY (more available here http://unitarian.ithaca.ny.us/html/sermons.html), a church that I'm considering attending when I move down there and begin my master's degree at Cornell in a few weeks. Given that I'm disillusioned with organized religion in general these days I'm not sure that there will really by many options down there for me.

That aside though, while the minister here is clearly a "typical" UUA minister (i.e. the secular humanist type) I found this particular sermon of interest. A particular area of interest:

And that’s the first problem with God. God can’t be talked about. All we can
ever talk about is our ideas about God. And every idea we’ve ever had, or ever
will have, falls short. It’s like the Buddhist notion of the inexpressibles: those
things that can’t be accurately described. Indeed anything you say about them is
inadequate or misses the mark altogether. God is like that.
• You can’t say with precision that “God is A.”
• It’s no more true to say that “God is not-A.”
• “God is both A and not-A” is no closer to the mark
• And “God is neither A nor not-A” doesn’t help at all.
Nothing we can say can do justice to God. Nothing can fully capture it.

This area in context: Before are some thoughts about conflicting views of God, following this passage the minister draws the conclusion that due to the "impossibility" of God talk it only makes sense not to get bogged down into the debate at all (even though he admits that all viewpoints are useful) and that there is nothing wrong with adopting a non-theistic world-view. While I don't agree with said conclusion I have to admit I saw a bit where the UUA perspective may be coming from some of the time. It was certainly a thought provoking sermon.

I'm not sure what my "response" would be. I know that in my own personal view God by definition is a mystery as such, but we know that God is the Creator, a power beyond comprehension, so we have a basic starting block; and the mystic viewpoint usually sees some presence of the Spirit. As far as personal vs. impersonal, though, or other ways of defining God, my viewpoint is a mix of Christian, Jewish, Hindu and Native American views of God. All of this is challenging...

Any thoughts?

I also disagree with the minister's conclusion; true, no description of God can be exhaustively perfect, but then again the same is true of anything complex which we attempt to describe. Today, the sun is shining. What does that really mean? Certainly I could go into an unending description of stars, our galaxy, our solar system, how radiation travels through space, interacts with our atmosphere, etc. but when I say "the sun is shining" everyone knows what I mean.

Theology, works best when it takes the "sun is shining" route. It's hard to enjoy the sunlight if you're spending all your time trying to perfectly describe it And being unable or unwilling to perfectly describe it doesn't mean you have to lock yourself in a dark room either.

Yes, unless one is willing to identify God in some anthropomorphic image...be it Jesus or Zeus etc....I keep coming back to Mortimer Adler's negative rule in "How To Think About God:

"To say we know that God's real existence is both like and unlike the existence of everything else the existence of which we know is to say that when we apply the word "exists" to the things of the physical world and to God, we are using the word "exists" analogically. (See Analogical Speech.)

This usage requires us to say that, in formulating a definite description of God, we must first use negative words, such as "immaterial," immutable," "imperceptible,": "inconceivable." and "unimaginable." "Infinite" is another negative word we must use, and give that word meaning by saying that God is not a particular individual, not a member of any class.

But to say that God really exists and that we human beings also exist is to say something positive about God. Since anything said of God and creatures is said analogically, not univocally or equivocally, we must always add that we do not exist as God exists, nor does God exist as we exist.

Three more negative words enter into the definite description of God. They are "independent," "unconditional," and "uncaused." God has real existence from himself alone. His very being is to exist. Whereas the existence of all dependent, caused, and conditioned physical things is ab alio (from another), God's existence is a se (from himself). The unusual word "aseity" applies to God alone.

Finally, we can ask about God's being alive, knowing, and willing. If these three positive attribute cannot be added to the definite description of God, then God is not the supreme being, for there could be a greater being than one who is not living, knowing and willing. But when we say that God lives, knows, and wills, we must add at once what the analogical use of these words requires: the God does not live as we live, does not know as we know, and does not will as we will."

Very late in his long life he finally converted to Christianity though his reason reveals a bit of a gamble...in other words...make a choice before I die without one:

""My chief reason for choosing Christianity was because the mysteries were incomprehensible. What's the point of revelation if we could figure it out ourselves? If it were wholly comprehensible, then it would just be another philosophy."

Just as a happenstance...because the movie version of Brideshead Revisted is being advertised...I looked up Evelyn Waugh (the author).

Wiki states:

""Converted to Rome: Why It Has Happened to Me." It wasn't about ritual, said Waugh, nor about submission to the views of others. The essential issue, he believed, was making a choice between Christianity or chaos. Waugh saw in Europe's increasing materialization a major decline in what he felt created Western Civilization in the first place. "It is no longer possible ... ," he wrote, "to accept the benefits of civilization and at the same time deny the supernatural basis upon which it is based." He added that Catholicism was the "most complete and vital form" of Christianity. His faith and his conviction persisted throughout all the chapters of his life."

Again, we have a faith decision that came about not through conviction of the faith claims...but as a response to the current culture.  So, Adler, Waugh...and even C.S. Lewis seem to have become Christian in round about ways.....the actual claims having very little to to with it...at least that is my impression.  I think the claims are justified after the acceptance of the faith.... not before.  Often, a faith acceptance is just something that happens...I guess that is called Grace...it is not due to an intellectual reasoning process.  That seems to come later...as part of the justification / apologetics.

I feel that God is personal insofar as that God possesses some level of intelligence (intellect)-looking at the design of creation; and some level of emotion (Love, specifically). So at some level God has attributes which we could call "personal" As Marcus Borg noted once, the majority of mystical experiences tend to identify the Spirit, the "Other", as a presence of some kind (not an impersonal energy), more as a "You" than an "It". On a metaphysical/ontological level its impossible to say if God is 'personal' or not, but it would seem that at least part of the definition of personal would fit the Deity.

The Western tradition/Christianity specifically would say that we are made "in God's image". Unfortunately usually its the other way around-but then again, as John Shelby Spong noted, people can hardly be faulted for imaging God like themselves. After all, as he rhetorically asked, if a "horse had a god, would it not look like a horse?" I think the real lesson is not that God is "human-like" but rather that some of our characteristics are like him-namely, Reason (the mind) and Emotion (the heart). These reflect the Creator in some unique way. Beyond that God is an overwhelming "Other", who is beyond comprehension and can only be experienced.

I think people 'saw' God in Jesus because of the fact that the Spirit was so present in him, and that the fullness of Love manifested itself strongly-I think the Unitarian belief in the personal level of God may be in our own Souls, especially as we become more god-like.

Just my own thoughts.

I don't think God is like me, I expect God to be better than me