sign in sign up
<<
Home , Deity, Deus, Immanence, Transcendence (religion)

LESSON SIX

M O D E L S

O F

G O D

If there is a ,

HOW

does this God exist?

KEY CONCEPTS AND CONSIDERATIONS

2

* Key Terms

Transcendence; ;

Creation ex ; Creation ex nihilo

* Models of God

Pantheism

Panentheism

Theism

Deism

OVERVIEW

3

This lesson is best understood as an extension of the previous lesson. In this lesson the attention shifts from debates about the fact of God's existence to debates regarding the manner of God's existence. The question pursued here initially is: How does God exist? The focus is upon the possible relationships that God may have in relationship to creation, both at its point of origin, and with regard to its continuance. Four precise models are presented. These are: ; ; ; and . These models will be treated in a systematic fashion. Our discussion will focus upon: (1) an explanation of the for the model; (2) an identification of key thinkers associated with the model; (3) a listing of some of the tenets of the model; and (4) an assessment of the model which will identify both strengths and weaknesses. Before beginning our systematic survey of each model it will be necessary to define and discuss four key terms. These terms are: ; Immanence ; Creation ex deus; and Creation ex nihilo.

DEFINITION & DISCUSSION OF KEY TERMS

The four terms needing definition and discussion may be grouped into two pairs. Transcendence and immanence belong together, as do creation ex deus and creation ex nihilo. The first term in need of definition is transcendence. In the context of this lesson transcendence refers to: that aspect of the which is other than or remote from creation. This term is more clearly understood in its contrast with our next term, immanence. Immanence refers to: that aspect of the Deity which is identified with or is consider close (near) to creation. Immediately, the reader should sense a tension. If the Deity is conceived of in terms of transcendence, what about immanence? If the Deity is conceived of in terms of immanence, what about transcendence? The ways in which these two competing aspects of the Deity are conceived constitute a part of the challenge of this lesson. It is now time to comment on our second pair of terms. Creation ex deus refers to creation out of, or from, God. Ex deus is , meaning "out of God." This phrase conceives of creation as an extension, or manifestation, of the very stuff of God. In this view the "things" in creation are related somehow to the very stuff, or essence, of God's being. For example, in some systems the Deity is conceived as emanating the divine being out into the , different parts, or "things," or creatures of the universe are understood to contain, or reflect, varying degrees of the essence of this Deity. This view clearly emphasizes the immanence of the Deity in its relation to creation. The views of Pantheism and Panentheism are more closely related to these emphases. Creation ex nihilo refers to creation out of nothing. Ex nihilo is Latin, meaning "out of nothing." This phrase conceives of creation as occurring at a point in time before which nothing existed, except the Deity. This is, classically, the Judeo-Christian view of God's relationship with the creation. In this view God is understood as "other" than creation. Sometimes the phrase "wholly other" is used. Clearly, then, this view is to be more associated with the idea of the Deity as transcendent. 4

In the four models of God to be explained below we will see the Deity conceived of in different ways along a continuum which portrays the emphases and tensions of the terms just defined. In two of these models (pantheism and panentheism) God will be presented along the lines of a creation ex deus model. In the other two models (theism and deism) God will be viewed along the lines of a creation ex nihilo model. The models will range from a Deity (pantheism) which is presented as almost exclusively immanent, to a Deity (panentheism) that is immanent but does have a degree of transcendence, to a Deity (theism) that is transcendent, having a degree of immanence, to a Deity (deism) that is almost exclusively transcendent.

FOUR MODELS OF GOD

Pantheism

The term "pantheism" is comprised of two Greek words, "," meaning all, and "theism," referring to God. Hence, the term connotes the idea that all is God, or conversely, God is all. Several key thinkers have been associated with this model. Among them are: Spinoza; Parmenides; ; and Radharkrishna. Among the several tenets common to systems of pantheism are the following: (1) God is conceived of in terms more impersonal than personal. Hence, rather than referring to God as he, or she, the impersonal "it" is preferred. Actually, those espousing pantheism are not so tacky. God is most often described as the "Ocean of Being," or as the "Ground of Existence." (2) What follows from tenet one is the idea that everything in creation participates in this Ocean of Being called God, or is considered a manifestation of God, emanating, as it were, from the Ground of Being; (3) It is logical, then, for a pantheistic system, that creation be viewed along the lines of ex deus rather than ex nihilo; (4) An important correlative consideration in any systematic understanding of the relationship of God to creation is that of the knowledge of God. Namely, how does one come to know or become aware of God? In pantheistic systems the emphasis generally falls upon some kind of mystical experience or elevation of . Since God's Being permeates all things it is logical that one might be enabled to perceive God, given the proper state of consciousness; (5) The is an important consideration in any model of God. Pantheists generally view the Deity as beyond . Evil is often simply reduced to the status of illusion or understood as reflecting inferior states of consciousness in subjects. 5

The above tenets have provided enough of a sketch of this model in order for an assessment to be given. On the positive side pantheism represents a comprehensive system. All of is included in the Ocean of Being called God. The unity of all things is clearly emphasized, God, perhaps, understood as the concentrated center of the Universe. In pantheism the immanence of God is stressed. God-consciousness is available to those willing to cultivate the states of consciousness needed for one to be aware of God. Pantheists are generally inclusive in their religious outlook. The diversity of is usually recognized as a healthy variety. Hence, there are several legitimate approaches to God. Yet, pantheism does have some drawbacks. Oddly enough, pantheism is unaffirmable by those of us who understand ourselves as independent self-conscious beings. In a pantheistic universe one finds oneself in the dilemma of affirming that God exists (since God is all and all is God) but denying (by implication) one's own independent existence. This of course is self- defeating. For to deny one's existence, or self-consciousness, one must first exist and be self-conscious. Other criticisms may be added. An impersonal being appears inferior to a personal one, especially by persons who value their personhood above all things. The treatment of evil appears far too casual, especially for the masses who often exist in a continual struggle with evil. If elevated states of consciousness are necessary in order to apprehend the good (God) in (or beyond) evil, then pantheism appears to cater to an elite group, namely, those trained in esoteric consciousness raising techniques. Finally, pantheism may appear all too close to . If the cosmos and its forces are all, and all consists of the cosmos and its forces (as is true with some forms of atheism), then one is left wondering what difference there is between an atheistic system which suggests that impersonal Nature is all, and the pantheist who simply uses the term God. Other strengths and weaknesses might be mentioned, but these should suffice in stimulating the reader's thoughts about the called pantheism.

Panentheism

This model closely resembles the previous model but is nuanced significantly by the insertion of the Greek preposition "" (meaning: in) between "pan" (all) and "theism" (God). Hence, panentheism means, "all in God," or conversely, "God [is] in all." The distinctive nuances created by the insertion of "en" will be made clear from a discussion of the tenets of panentheism. Unlike the other models, the key thinkers associated with panentheism listed here are all from the 20th century. The following are noteworthy: ; ; Schubert Ogden; Harold Kushner; and Sally McFague. The following tenets are typical of the many ideas associated with panentheism: (1) God is considered more immanent than transcendent. Panentheism is often referred to as bipolar theism. The idea here is that God has two poles to his Being, the one immanent, the other transcendent. As in pantheism, God is all and all is God, but, there is an aspect to God, in panentheism, which is other than all. This "other aspect" represents the transcendent pole of God's Being. Yet, panentheism puts its stress upon God's 6 immanence, as will be apparent from the remaining tenets; (2) God is considered related to the as the human is to the human body. This conceptual relationship could have positive value for a world in need of a more sensitive environmental consciousness. Environmentalists, and those opposed to the use of nuclear weapons, could access strong legitimations for their views from a panentheistic view of God (cf. Sallie McFague, 1987); (3) In panentheistic systems God is viewed more as a cosmic director than as a mere creator. This is because (4) God is viewed as being in process with the universe, on a journey with his creatures; (5) What follows from the previous tenet is the notion that God is limited with regard to evil. Since God is "evolving" with creation, there are certain limitations put on the ' capacity to control creation, and its attendant evils. God is viewed as a positive influence in the cosmos, attempting to lure creatures into a positive way of being, but far from having the ability to interfere with either or human freedom. The latter two notions are considered by most thinkers as the two main sources of evil. From the above tenets an assessment of panentheism can be given. Initially, panentheism may be seen as an improvement upon pantheism. In panentheism, as opposed to pantheism, a notion of a distinct transcendence is reserved for God. God and the world are not totally identified. In addition, panentheism tends to value God's personal nature above what may be considered the impersonal dimensions of the Deity. In panentheism God, although not portrayed as all-powerful, is understood as very caring. A God who is in process, journeying with us, seems more approachable and capable of empathy than does a distant all-powerful know it all. Other positive considerations may come into view from a panentheistic worldview, but these should suffice as a balance to the following criticisms. Panentheism's strength, a bipolar conception of God, is also its chief weakness. A bipolar conception of God teeters on the notion of ditheism, or the idea that there are two . In panentheistic systems the immanent pole of God is stressed, only apparent lip service being given to the transcendent pole of God. But isn't a transcendent God more worthy of than an immanent God? And, what about the notion of a limited God? Isn't God's power unlimited, at least in reference to his transcendent pole? The panentheists have attempted, and partially succeeded, in improving upon the pantheistic notion of God, but a look at the remaining two models of God will illuminate further the deficiencies of a panentheistic model.

Theism

This is the traditional view associated wilth the dominant world of , , and . Its name is simply associated with the Greek word "theos," meaning God. The key thinkers of this model are too numerous to list, they simply are the chief theologians of the dominant just mentioned. The important tenets of theism are the following: (1) God is transcendent, yet also immanent by means of a sovereign control of all that happens in the universe; (2) This God is clearly conceived of as a personal Supreme Being, an "I-thou" relationship with this God constituting the main goal or purpose of creation; (3) Creation is decidedly 7 ex nihilo. An emphasis is placed upon the distinction between an infinite creator and finite creation/creatures; (4) The universe is understood as operating by natural laws, but this sovereign immanent can and does intervene with creation at decisive moments. In other words, the theistic model embraces the idea of ; (5) Furthermore, as a result of divine intervention, God is revealed to his creatures by means of prophets, visions, dreams, writings, and the like, as well as by the natural testimonies of the created order; (6) One significant dimension of special is a revealed ethical code, such as the (Judaism), the Sermon on the Mount (Christianity), or selected Surahs from the Koran (Islam). This model carries with it the weight and authority of the three leading religions of the Western world. The God of this model is considered to be holy, omniscient, omnipotent, and loving, to mention a few of the more significant attributes of the God of this model. This God is deemed worthy of worship. This God appears to be in control of evil, directing, restricting, preventing, or allowing evil to occur only according to an all wise plan, a plan that has allowed for human freedom and thus human error. Truly, this model has attempted to balance the transcendent and the immanent aspects of the Deity more carefully than the previous two models. Nevertheless, a few criticisms are in order. If the God of this model has revealed himself through miracles, prophets, or ethical codes, in which of the three religions has he done so? Certainly, the religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam overlap in their teaching to some extent, but the criticism upon the fact that these three religions conflict on several essential points. For example, which prophet is to be considered the seal (final or definitive word) of the prophets, , , or Mohammed? Which day is meant to be hallowed as a special day of or worship, Friday (Islam), Saturday (Judaism), or (Christianity)? Other examples could continue. But, in order to move on, quickly and with greater force, additional conflicts may be seen, not so much between these religions, but within each of these religions. Which form of Judaism has preserved the correct revelation, Orthodox, Reformed, or Conservative? Should one follow Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, or ? What about Sunni, Shi'ite, and Sufi Islam? Further compounding the above concerns are the challenges being presented today by science and critical scholars of the the sacred texts of the traditions mentioned here. Modern studies have mounted huge challenges to those who claim that the theistic God has revealed himself clearly and unambiguously through any one of the three major Western world religions. Perhaps the next model of God will provide the needed corrective.

Deism

The term deism is based on the Latin word "deus," meaning God. Hence, the name of this model compares with that of the previous model, only a Latin term is used instead of a Greek one. Deism, as a of God, became popular during the Enlightenment (17th-18th centuries). Advocates of deism were: ; Hobbes; and . There are many similarities between deism and theism, yet some significant differences. These will be apparent from a discussion of the tenets of deism. 8

(1) The deist affirms creation ex nihilo; (2) God is viewed as one, transcendent and personal, as in theism, but the immanence of God is not emphasized in the deist system; (3) Hence, the deist views the universe as operating by natural law, apart from intervention; (4) Miracles, therefore, do not occur, neither is there room for the concept of special revelation (e.g., the use of , dreams, visions, prophets, sacred texts); (5) God is worthy of worship; and (6) is based on natural law and reason rather than upon the specifics of a given code. Deism is to be commended for its committment to the concept of a simple , transcendent, and personal deity. Reason is given prominence in deist thought over the competing claims of various religious traditions. Hence, deists offer a rational guide in the assessment of various , Christianities, or . This seems preferred over a blind or naive acceptance of the authoritative yet competing claims of those who appeal to special , fulfilled , or miracles. Deism is a view which enhances the separation of church and state, and is often seen as the politically correct view for a pluralistic society. Yet, deism, as true with the other models, has its shortcomings. The theist might argue that the deist's reasoning is inconsistent. If one allows for a creation ex nihilo, as the deist does, then, admittedly, the starting point of the universe is miraculous. Why exclude subsequent miracles? If one allows for at the outset of the Universe, what prevents one, theoretically speaking, for making subsequent allowances? Furthermore, if God is viewed as entirely transcendent, without any specific immanent manifestation or revelation, how is this God known, much less loved and worshiped? Classic to the view of deism is the criticism that God is too impersonal, abstract, cold and distant to win the affections of his creatures.

Summary

Four models of God, pantheism, panentheism, theism, and deism have been presented. These views exist along a continuum depicting varying emphases of transcendence and immanence, and the alternatives of a creation ex deus or a creation ex nihilo. Figure Six provides an illustration. The of these models have been explained, key thinkers have been identified, and tenets have been outlined. From these discussions both strengths and weaknesses have been assessed.

blank page for Figure Six

9

blank page xx

blank page 101

101

101

LESSON SIX:

R E F E R E N C E S

McFague, Sallie. (1987). Models of God: for an ecological, nuclear age. Philadelphia: Fortress.

10

LESSON SIX

WORKSHEET

1. Define the following terms:

a. transcendence:

11

b. immanence:

c. creation ex deus:

d. creation ex nihilo:

e. pantheism:

f. panentheism:

g. theism:

h. deism:

2. Essay: Choose a model of God and defend it. You may wish to stick with the models discussed in this chapter, or you may consider combining features from one or the other model thus creating hybrid models. Perhaps you have a way of conceiving of God that does not fit with any of the models presented here. Give it a name and a description and defend it. Remember, any model of God must negotiate the concepts of transcendence and immanence, creation ex deus and creation ex nihilo. Also, any given model will have strengths or weaknesses. Be sure to identify these. It will be interesting to hear what you come up with. Good !