Posted on by Abe Austin

God’s Body: Worshipping in Spirit

What is God?)

I have spoken of God as a super-entity, one that we are all components of. I have referenced both Paul’s allegory of the Body of Christ and the Hindu notion of universal consciousness.

This sort of aggregate view of God is different from other teachings that I believe, though. I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which has one of the most individualized notions of God, about as far away as you can get from viewing the Almighty as an abstract aggregate.

So, is all this talk about God, the super-entity, purely theoretical to me? An interesting thought experiment and nothing more? No. Personally, I don’t have any qualms about believing in both an individual and an abstract God.

Concrete Conceptions)

It is our natural tendency to try and explain something so that it becomes concrete to us. Religions often describes a very specific version of God, because people need a specific, concrete idea of what they are directing their faith towards.

But most religions also teach that God is beyond comprehension. He is not simply a more powerful version of ourselves, but part of an entirely different classification that exceeds the limits of our mortal minds. Thus, the concrete ideas of God may indeed identify true aspects of Him, but there is no way that they can capture the entire thing.

We know that we cannot conceptualize all of God. There are parts of Him that we might know are right, and parts that we think are partly right, and parts that we don’t know one way or the other, but which possibly could be right. And beyond all of those, there are almost certainly other parts that we don’t know anything about at all, but which bind all the other parts together.

In the book Flatland, a square in a two-dimensional world meets a sphere intersecting with the plane of his existence, appearing only as a slice of its original self: a circle. The sphere raises and lowers itself through that two-dimensional slice, becoming a larger and smaller circle. To the square the sphere appears as different, changing beings, but it is all the same sphere in the end.

Could it be that God is the same? As a higher dimensional being, could it be that God is able to be both simultaneously one and many?

Worshipping in Spirit)

Perhaps it was this uncertain and unknowable aspect of God that Jesus alluded to when he said that we “must worship [God] in spirit.” Because God is of a higher order, and is incomprehensible to our minds, at the end of the day we can only direct our fealty in His general direction. We worship the overall spirit of what we perceive Him to be, devoting ourselves to our imperfect conception of Him, waiting for the next life to fully understand Him as a whole.

In either case, I find the questions of what the nature of God is, and what His “body” is, and what it is in relation to us, and what that means for how we ought to view reality to be most intriguing. These questions yield all manner of thoughtful introspection. This will conclude my study in this area for now, though it is an area that is still active in my mind, and I wouldn’t be surprised if I revisit it at some point. Thank you for accompanying me on this journey.

Posted on by Abe Austin

God’s Body: The Beginning and the End

Part of God)

I have spent some time discussing how viewing ourselves as part of God whole allows us to better accept the trials of life that come our way. Yes, those times still hurt, but we understand that since we are a part of God, He isn’t asking us to go through anything that He isn’t willing to face Himself. He is right there experiencing the exact same pain alongside of us, thus able to provide both perfect empathy and healing care.

Of course, exactly what it would mean to be “a part of God” is still open to interpretation. We do know that individual cells are part of the organ, the individual organ is part of the body, the individual body is part of a community, the community is part of a nation, and the nation a part of the human race. Man is both made up of parts and a part of something more. He is in the middle of an order that extends out to places smaller and larger than we know. Could it be that both its root and its end, its smallest origin and its largest aggregate, are one and the same God?

A Divine Struggle)

Considering that such might be the case, that all of us might be from God and for God, then that raises some interesting ideas as to what we are all doing here, and why difficulty and pain are a necessary part of this earthly existence. Consider these verses from Paul in his letter to the Corinthians:

For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
-1 Corinthians 15:25-26

If we are all a part of God, then the greatest thing that this collective body of God could do is learn how to overcome every ill and affliction, including its own death. This gives a fascinating lens with which to view the increase of corruption and chaos around us. Could it be that this mortal trouble is not contrary to the plan, but exactly in accordance with it? Could it be that the plan is to take on all trouble by degrees, so that the body of God may struggle through every trouble and overcome it? And if that is so, then each of our individual struggles is part of the striving and overcoming of the whole!

Posted on by Abe Austin

God’s Body: Missing the Mark

In my last post I discussed how the Western philosophy of individualism can create a moral dilemma about God allowing pain in this world. I explained that an Eastern philosophy of collectivism can dispel that dilemma, because when one views himself as part of God, then God is actually experiencing the pain personally, enduring it for the greater good.

Human Shortcomings)

Does this mean that Eastern philosophy and collectivism is superior to Western individualism? Maybe in some regards, but I don’t believe in all.

Every philosophy we have has passed through human hands and is therefore corrupted. Even if the philosophy originated from a pure source, such as the word of God, it all passes through the prism of flawed mortal understanding. The pure light is bent and diffracted and we end up with philosophies that might be generally good, but which now have flaws. In time, those flaws will compound until we have a serious divergence from the truth. This is true for any Western philosophy, and any Eastern philosophy, and any other philosophy at any time or place.

We all miss the mark and create confusion. When we do so consistently across our entire culture, then the people of our nations will have inherent problems with God, based upon those flaws. And since that philosophy becomes ingrained at an extremely young age, most won’t even question the premises behind their complaints. They won’t consider, “maybe God isn’t wrong, maybe my fundamental framing of life itself is off.”

A Glass Darkly)

Paul acknowledges this inherent shortcoming in humanity with his famous words, “For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known” (1 Corinthians 13:12). He admits to murky vision, though he does at least carry the hope of future clarity.

I believe at the root of most, if not all, moral quandaries is a fundamental misunderstanding of God, Himself. Because our conception of His person, His attributes, and His relationship to us is misaligned, we become misaligned to ourselves, our neighbors, and the world at large.

Being able to recognize this predisposition for error is the first step in seeing past our flaws. So humbled, we can grope forward, taking the light where we can find it. We can understand that any person we listen to for long enough will surely tell us something wrong, but also, they might tell us a new truth we never before had seen. And then, one day, as Paul attests, we shall see face to face and know in full.

Posted on by Abe Austin

God’s Body: Who is Ultimate?

In my last post I suggested that the struggle to reconcile a loving God with the existence of suffering might only be an artifact of our Western Individualism, and that the problem appears to be a non-issue to people of other cultures. Today I shall attempt to explain how this might be the case.

The Ultimate Individual)

Individualism creates the sense that the individual is supreme. The greatest ideal is the empowerment and the well-being of the individual, and there is no tolerance for the harm or deprivation of the individual. Society may flourish, but not at the expense of the individual.

Thus, even a God who hurts the individual is considered unacceptable. If God hurts me, my individualism cries out that this is an injustice, because the highest ideal: my individual well-being, has been thwarted. Anything that thwarts the highest ideal must be evil.

Part of Something Greater)

There are passages of scripture that suggest this view might be flawed, though. Paul speaks at length about the “Body of Christ,” suggesting that we are all but parts within an even greater whole. This suggests some sense of collectivism, instead of pure individualism.

Eastern philosophy has a strong sense of collectivism, informed no doubt by its ancient religions, such as Hinduism. In that theology, ultimate reality is a single, universal consciousness, and the end state that we strive for is to surrender our sense of individual self, being subsumed back into the universal consciousness that we always were.

From either of these “part of something greater” perspectives, the suffering of this world, while still tragic, no longer appears as a violation of morality. Since we are all part of the universal consciousness or God, any suffering we experience is just that supreme essence inflicting that pain upon itself, and who could say that it doesn’t have the right to do that?

An Analogy)

Imagine if I were to fall off a ladder, and in order to prevent greater harm to myself, I threw out my hand to break my fall, resulting in all of my fingers being broken, but the rest of me remaining unharmed.

My fingers, if they had too pronounced a sense of individualism, might say to me, “Why did you hurt me?! My life was going along fine and then you thrust me out in harm’s way and let me take a blow. Why?! What right do you have to hurt me arbitrarily like that?”

To which I might remind the hand, “I didn’t do it to you, I did it to me! You are me. I haven’t asked you to go through anything that I’m not also going through right this very minute! And you could not see it from your local perspective, but I did it to save the greater body, which ultimately is better off for everyone, including you! And now that that’s done, let me tend to your healing, because all of us will be better when you are.”

Posted on by Abe Austin

God’s Body: The Problem of Pain

Yesterday I spoke briefly about Western philosophy and its emphasis on individualism, and Eastern philosophy and its emphasis on collectivism. I spoke of benefits and drawbacks to each, and today I will present another unique effect of Western Individualism. First, though, let us address a problem that everyone will face whatever philosophy they live by.

Blind Spots)

When a large culture adopts a particular philosophy, it quickly becomes ingrained in their lives and shapes the way that they think. Certain perceptions and reactions will be culled from their range of possible responses. Thus, their view is controlled by their philosophy, but they are blind to the fact that they are being influenced at all. They just think their view is self-evident and are incredulous that anyone could feel otherwise.

As I say, this is common for any culture. All people have assumed premises, regardless of their background. This idea is captured very well in the famous joke of a fish that does not realize it is in water, because the water is so ubiquitous that the fish has ceased to perceive it.

Discomfort at God’s Wrath)

Let us keep that idea of cultural blind spots in mind as we consider what is arguably the most controversial aspect of God in Western culture: Him commanding the destruction of certain civilizations. Throughout the Bible there are some instances where God either wipes out a people by His own hand, or He orders the Israelites to carry out the extermination of another kingdom. I recently devoted an entire study to examining this matter, and how I wrestled to resolve my discomfort with these passages.

But the criticism of God goes even deeper. Just the fact that He allows tragic things to happen, even if not by His own hand, is greatly distressing to many. We often hear the example of childhood cancer as the sort of thing that a loving God simply wouldn’t allow. This complaint is so prevalent that renowned Christian author C. S. Lewis dedicated an entire book to it entitled The Problem of Pain.

And this logic seems to be entirely self-evident to us in the Western world, a matter that every religious person would have to deal with, no matter their conception of the divine. I was surprised, then, to learn that this matter is actually not a great concern to people of other cultures. There seems to be evidence that this moral dilemma is a product of our Western philosophical blind spot as opposed to an obvious universal truth.

A Different View)

But how could anyone actually believe that it is acceptable for God to be good and also allow suffering? Why would our Western Individualism cause us to feel this discomfort, and how could another philosophical view dispel it? I’ll answer these questions in my next post.

Posted on by Abe Austin

God’s Body: Individualism and Collectivism

To begin this series on God’s Body, I want two consider different world philosophies, and how they might affect our understanding of God’s Body and our relation to it. Today will only be the introduction to these philosophies.

Western Philosophy and Individualism)

The first philosophy is the predominant one in our Western culture, which places particular emphasis on the individual. We tend to think of ourselves autonomously and hold individual rights as more sacred than societal needs. And there are undoubtedly some great benefits to this view. Primarily, it leads to the rejection of oppression and injustice. Since the worth of the individual soul is supreme, there is no justification for putting another person in a state of indignity. I do not think it is a coincidence that modern democracy and the abolition of slavery were ushered in by the West.

But this philosophy also has its drawbacks, particularly when we take it too far. It increases the chances of developing a sense of selfishness and narcissism. It can be used to justify sacrificing the greater good for hedonistic pleasure.

Eastern Philosophy and Collectivism)

Now let us consider Eastern philosophy, which often places a greater emphasis on collectivism. Here one considers oneself as a part of a greater whole. Indeed, a part of multiple greater wholes, including a family, a community, and a society. One is expected to serve the whole, and to make personal sacrifices for the greater good. Benefits of this are a greater sense of cooperation and it can foster a strong sense of belonging.

Drawbacks to this philosophy are opposite the benefits of individualism. If one feels subservient to the whole, one is less likely to question injustice, allowing bad leaders a long leash to oppress as they see fit. Thus, for both philosophies we see that each comes with its own benefits and drawbacks. Undesirable side-effects are to be expected in all philosophies, for all are seen through the lens of imperfect mortality.

Views on God)

But how do these two different philosophies affect our views of God? I have already acknowledged some of their benefits and drawbacks in regard to the individual, but tomorrow I will detail one that is a great stumbling block to accepting God in the West.

Because of our individualism, we struggle to truly see ourselves as a part of God’s Body, and that leads to an improper frustration when God allows us to experience pain. Come back tomorrow where I will explain this point further.

Posted on by Abe Austin

God’s Body: Introduction

I am currently reading through Paul’s letters to the churches in the ancient world with my family. We covered 1 Corinthians 12, where he speaks at length about the Body of Christ, and how we are all a part of it. This subject lingered in my mind, spinning off all manner of different tangents and realizations. I wanted to try and gather all of these separate notions and put them into some order, which is what I will endeavor to do with this series.

There will still be some stream-of-consciousness nature to the following posts, but I hope to progress from one point to another with a logical point of connection in between. I also hope to mostly progress in a linear way without curving back too much on previous topics.

If there is a central theme to this series, it will be the Body of God, and our relation to that body. “Body” is an interesting word, because it simultaneously means something that is specific and individual, such as “the body of a man,” but also something that is abstract, aggregate, and many, such as “the body politic.” I believe that the Body of God can be seen in both these lights, which my posts will explore.