On Creating God

I have often pondered lately the phrase “God made man in his image, and man returned the favor”. This phrase has, and is, often used as the standard open theist’s critique on organized religion, particularly that of the Judeo-Christian religions (since the phrase “God made man in his image and likeness” comes from Genesis 1:27, a passage in the Judeo-Christian, Hebrew Bible). Generally, it is meant to at least imply, if not assert, that the Judeo-Christian conception of God is inaccurate, closed-minded, anthropocentrically driven, and culturally biased. The evidence to support this claim comes from narratives in the Judeo-Christian Bible portraying God as: angry, jealous, wrathful, and demanding (often violent and fatal) justice. This evidence certainly appears to support the notion that the God of the Bible is truly an anthropomorphic deity, for his personality is that of an emotional, overly reactionary God- hardly the "appropriate" character for the creator of the Heavens and the Earth.

And yet, more often than not, I find such a charge to be completely hypocritical and ironic. I find it to be so, namely because the open-theist has often rejected the practice of religion (whether it be Judeo-Christian religion in particular, the particular religion they were raised in, or religion in general) on grounds of personal disposition and opinion. For instance, the standard trajectory towards open theism involves a rejection of a particular, or perhaps a few particular, aspects of their own religious experience which leads them to reject religion altogether. This rejection is not simply ungrounded opinion, but nevertheless, remains limited and finite in that it is (at best) grounded in human reason alone. Instead of following a religion, the open-theist constructs an understanding of the creative Deity which best fits the individual's own reason and disposition- thus becoming precisely at fault for the same crime that they accuse those of a religious disposition of committing.

By contrast, those who participate in a religious experience, and take it seriously, are involved in a fundamentally different process (note the repeated use of the term “religious” as opposed “spiritual”. Indeed, one can have a “spiritual” experience that is not “religious”, and vice-versa. While many- myself included- would assert that the combination of the two is the ideal circumstance and that they are not exclusive of one another, they are nevertheless distinct ideas). The natural trajectory of religious experience almost always involves some sense of self-resignation, some sense of self-submission to what the individual believes to be a higher authority, or perhaps more accurately put: an authority other than themselves. That authority is believed to  be God, although it may concretely take on various forms. What is most notable though is that,ultimately, the concrete authority to which a religious person submits is outside of him/herself. Whether it be the pastor, the rabbi, the imam or other religious leader there is a submission to the other. 

Furthermore, there is often (especially in Judeo-Christian tradition) a further submission to the writings of peoples who lived over a millennia prior to our own experiences.This takes on a further sense of self-resignation in that one not only resigns one’s self to the authority of another person, but also to the authority of another time and culture as having a certain sense of truth and wisdom that ultimately gives it authority over our own. Concretely, this is to say that the Bible and the stories therein, contain a unique authority- often referred to as revelation- that cannot be found outside of its annals, even in contexts more contemporary to our own. Thus, the Judeo-Christian tradition, despite the wit of the aforementioned phrase, is found innocent of the accusations it lays. By contrast, Judeo-Christian religious experience ultimately demands a resignation of the self in the individual, whether that be to a particular authority figure, or to the Biblical text, and the time and culture for which it was communicated.

I have often said that, if you don’t find any part of the Catholic Church or her teaching in any way objectionable, or disagreeable, than you are probably not taking your faith seriously, or at least not seriously thinking about it. The teaching of the Church, if it is (as professed) incorruptible and inspired by the Holy Spirit, is the truth and teaching of an infinite God, as expressed for and through finite Human Beings- there will always be something inaccessible and imperfectly understood. However, to participate in the religious experience requires some sort of self-resignation to the divine. This is the ultimate proof that the God who is being worshipped is in fact not constructed by the worshipper: People do not construct a God that they disagree with.