Lecture 14 Outline

Lecture #14--Faith and Justice:  God

A. Philosophy, especially Platonic and other Greek philosophy, has heavily influenced
    “God-Talk” in the Christian tradition. Examples:

• “Cosmological” argument – classic example is Aquinas’ First Cause or Prime Mover argument: everything has a cause; God is the initial cause of all that is (critics argue that it’s just as easy to imagine a universe that always was as to imagine a Prime Mover).
• “Ontological” argument – most associated with Anselm (1033-1109, 11th century Archbishop of Canterbury) – “something that which no greater can be conceived.” If we imagine such a being then it exists in our thoughts. But if it exists only in thought it is less than a being that exists in thought and reality. Therefore it is contradictory to say this being does not exist (critics argue this is sophistry).
• Anthropomorphism – ascribing human form and/or characteristics to a non-human being, especially a deity (as Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Aztecs, Mayas, etc. did with their gods) – many Christian theologians have argued that the Christian God is not anthropomorphic, i.e. is beyond our human categories. González contends that, if we don’t think of God in anthropomorphic images, how can we think of God? Moreover, an outright rejection of anthropomorphism seems to contradict Biblical images of God and perhaps even the incarnation and the contention that humans are created in the image of God.
• The problem González sees with the limits of Christian “God-talk” is that we tend to substitute a Biblical view of God for one heavily influenced by Greek philosophy, especially the idea that God is changeless and immutable (note that the arguments for God’s existence offered above presume immutability as a core characteristic of God). This aristocratic idea of God as a supreme, unchanging, perfect spiritual being tends to sacralize changelessness as a divine characteristic. Consciously or not, this in turn provides divine justification for preserving the status quo: seeing change as bad and the current order of things (as well as the rulers and privileged who benefit from this order) as “the way God meant the world to be.”

B. González contends that philosophical reflections about God, especially God’s immutability,
    contradict the God of the Bible who is active in history and is a force for change on behalf
    of the oppressed. In fact, the God of the Bible is both the sovereign ruler of history and
    the victim of history! God is not far removed from the suffering of the oppressed, and
    even becomes a victim in order to redeem those who suffer. Scripture does not deny
    the power of God, but reveals a God who is both powerful and compassionate,
    transcendent and immanent, beyond human imaginings but also intimately involved with
    human life and history.

C. Question/critique: Does belief in an unchangeable God sacralize the current order of things
    as well as the social position of the powerful? If God is not immutable, what is there about
    God that changes? (Note, however, that González is not proposing to answer the question
    The question we ought to ask is “who is the God revealed in the Christian Scriptures?”)