In preparing to share some thoughts on "Is God evolving?" I am particularly challenged by the fact that the subject seems to be so variously perceived
This is further complicated by the fact that we, who are interrogating this question, appear to concede from the outset that we are only minimally aware of the extent, in all dimensions, of our subject matter.
To conclude, therefore, that God is (or isn't) evolving is perhaps like an oceanographer examining the contents of a "standard" rock pool and concluding that the oceans are (or aren't) changing. We have no agreed 'standard' for rock pools nor can we tell whether changes in the pool are just another fresh view of an unchanging ocean, or a real indication of general change.
We seem therefore to have two challenges: to consider whether WHAT God is is undergoing evolutionary change, and also to consider the QUALITIES of what God is and whether they are changing. In considering these we are aware of the problem of the reliability of our conclusions when we are only in a position to examine our perceptions on the matter rather than to reveal objective realities.
Capricious potentate
On the issue of the nature of God, "Throughout much of the Old Testament, God is depicted as behaving like a capricious potentate from whom one never knows what to expect from one day to the next" (Deb Whitehouse, Ed.D., GOD: PERSONAL, ETERNAL, AND NEW).
This personification, not too different from the Greek view of its many gods and displaying the same reflection of human-like attributes, seems, in western theological understanding, to have changed in a linear sort of fashion over the past two millenia.
God has steadily become less easily defined while also becoming more reliable and consistent. The "laws' revealed by science have become part of our understanding of the nature of God and have had a great impact on the matter of 'miracles' which defy natural process. This applies not only to the behaviour of the physical things of our universe but also, to a lesser extent, to how we see the interactions of man with man and of man with nature.
It may be that the appeal of Jesus is, at least in part, the fact that he is so much more 'real' a figure than the more distant "God, the Father", and that for many Christians today, identification with a familiar 'human' Christ, with qualities that accord with those we are familiar with, is very comforting. Nevertheless, the image of God today seems largely to remove Him from visual imagery.
Star Wars - may the force be with you
We are faced with questions such as, Does God have a gender, is God internal or external to mankind - or even to the whole of creation? A pantheistic view would tend to see God as the sum of all that is, i.e. the universe, while God as Creator implies that God is more than and distinct from the universe which he has created. We come across the hesitantly stated view in movies such as "Star Wars", that there is a "Force" into which we might tap if we ourselves display the necessary 'goodness'.
Whereas a personified God is interpreted in terms of human characteristics, and is therefore seen as stern, gentle, vengeful, "jealous", loving, benevolent, etc., these qualities are difficult to apply to a God who is perceived as transcendent, at a remove from us. God-the-Father brings us into a closer and warmer relationship but has also lost much acceptance as a supportable image of the nature of God.
However, it does open up yet another area of enquiry , viz. is the nature of God such that we can have a "relationship" with God. Is God accessible to us? Can we speak to him (or God to us), can we call upon him - and I use "him" in the absence of a non gender-specific pronoun - and can he respond in any practical way?
I hope we are no HIS side - Lincoln
Or would that be violating the very constancy and evenhandedness we might expect from God.? Abraham Lincoln said, in relation to the Civil War, "God is not on our side, but I hope we are on his". He did not see God as likely to influence the course of the war but saw him rather as the yardstick by which to measure the decisions and actions of humans.
Whereas God, in times past, by his unpredictable nature could be conceived of as the reason for all things not fully understood, our scientific view of phenomena has slowly reduced much that was attributed to interventions from God into the frame of understandable and consistent events.
While some may see this as a steady erosion of the territory occupied by God, it may be that we are becoming aware, rather, that God is not an 'interfering' influence in this wonderful universe at all and that it is our perspective that has been at fault.
This raises yet further considerations. Does God have a purpose for mankind. Does God even exist in the absence of mankind? What is God's relationship with the destiny of man? Do we 'owe' anything to God? Why, if fact, does mankind have aspirations to be better; to be 'good', worthy, holy?
An intellectual construct?
What seems true is that God remains an intellectual construct while outside the bounds of personal experience; experience of the "something else", "greater than all yet present in each", as Terry put it in his fine contribution last November. Where this "something else" is used to explain the as-yet unfathomed it can serve as a gap-stopper in our understanding. Where it actually produces a result it becomes evident by the experience of its working. In inspiring, strengthening, motivating, nurturing, sustaining it gives evidence of its presence.
To the question then of whether God 'needs' to be praised, loved, or whatever, the answer is probably "No". But if God does not 'need' to be worshipped it is perhaps we who, in worshipping, are blest. It is perhaps we who, in searching for that "something else", find God. And it matters not that we use that name or not.
"I exist - that's what matters"
Even in the time of Moses he hears God speak, in answer to his question, "Who are you?" and say, "I am that I am". Perhaps loosely interpreted as, "I exist; that's what matters". If God is the personified vision of man's highest aspirations, is that not good? If God is a mechanism by which we can get into harmony with ourselves and this universe of which we are a part is that not good? If a consciousness of "something else" allows us, when all else has been considered, to ask, "What does God tell me?", is that too, not good?
In conclusion it seems that God, as we perceive God to be, has indeed changed and evolved in response to the evolution of man and society, and seems likely to go on changing. What seems not to have changed is our ongoing search for meaning in all things and for an inner authority or reference point by which we can gauge the affairs of our lives.
And strangely, however little we may recognise the presence of a God-image, and however much we may have achieved by the sweat of our brow, there remains an inexplicable urge to say a silent "Thank you!" to something outside of ourselves when beauty, love or success comes our way.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
For South African contact details
Durban - Johannesburg
Cape Town - contact form
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
For South African contact details
Durban - Johannesburg
Cape Town - contact form
