In
church, as a child, I learned about the Holy Ghost, God’s continuing presence
with us. A less frightening “Spirit” was
later substituted by church fathers (no mothers) - no difference in
meaning. In more recent years I have
tried to understand why God, whom I think of as spiritual presence (“God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in
truth.” John 4:14 NIV), needs a second identity, let alone a third to
explain the second. I find it at least
challenging to accept that a multiple God- identity is a God-inspired
concept.
Christian
Church history informs me that the term “Holy Spirit (Ghost)” first came into
faith language as a means of explaining
the presumed divinity of Jesus - God in human form, having a time-related human
beginning and human ending. This
God-concept sees God as Father, Jesus as Son, and Holy Spirit as a necessary pre-existent
and continuing presence. It would seem
that absent the human construct of a divine Jesus, God’s continuing presence is
sufficient unto itself, requiring no division of function – a single entity
does it all. No second or third persons
are required lest we reduce an infinite God to the confines of our finite
understandings.
Why
is it necessary for Jesus to be God in human flesh any more so than you or I? Does it satisfy and make real the
understanding of human sacrifice as a necessary substitutionary compensation
for an “original sin” condition that renders humans otherwise unacceptable to
the God who created them, and without which they are destined for an eternity
of separation from God – damned to a hell from which there is no escape or
relief?
Did
Jesus have to experience an agonizing death to close the gap between me and
God? Why would I subscribe to such a
theory? Am I so flawed as to be
incapable of closing that gap myself?
Whose judgment would make me so?
Why is a substitutionary sacrifice necessary for Christians for whom
systems of reward and punishment are worldly realities, but not a reality of
the God of love and forgiveness personified in the life of Jesus? The Biblical account of Abraham and Isaac
teaches me that God puts no space or requirement of sacrifice of things between
God and me. “The
sacrifice acceptable to God is a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O
God, thou wilt not despise.” (Ps. 51:17 RSV)
I
choose to see Jesus as a flesh and blood human being, like me, but a clear and
complete reflection of the character and personality of God, having achieved
the highest level of God-likeness and God-consciousness. Perhaps God is not a being, somewhere “out there,” separate and apart from me, but pure being, present in every aspect and
dimension of all that is, yet incomprehensibly greater than all that is. If I choose to see God as a being, I can objectify God as subject
to my personal construction and manipulation.
I can thus fashion God in my image, serving my purposes, subject to my
agenda. Such an image can give license of
“higher authority” for worldly claims and justification for worldly ambitions. History is littered with evidence of the
destructive effect of such belief.
But
there is ample evidence also of the work for good of those who choose to
experience God as “presence within,”
awaiting manifestation in the life of each of us. Only as I acknowledge God as being am I able to experience God’s full
and constant presence in my life as a force for goodness, wholeness, and unity
that makes a positive difference in the way I live my life.
Is
it not possible for all of us to be one with God as an abiding presence
within? No doors for entry and exit, no
sacrifice other than self, no cosmic court, no reward for success or penalty
for failure beyond the natural law of cause and effect. Can a follower of Jesus envision such a
God? Perhaps, but only a new kind of
Christian I think, more concerned for the present and future than an ancient
past of limited knowledge and unsophisticated understanding, and responding to
a simple invitation – “Come and follow me.”
I
welcome your response.
No comments:
Post a Comment