A CHRISTIAN-DEIST MANIFESTO

My perspective as a Christian minister and pastor and my faith tenets are shifting.  This is a beginning to an explanation of where those beliefs currently lead.  Comments, questions, and discussion are welcome.

 

A CHRISTIAN-DEIST MANIFESTO

I am a computer programmer.

I WAS a computer programmer, and I directed and managed those who write programs for computers.  Although I no longer work at that vocation, I am conversant with and quite experienced as a computer programmer.

I wrote many computer programs and those computer programs could do many things.  It is necessary to understand the process of writing a computer program and the resultant program in order to understand the analogy presented in and central to this manifesto.

The programs I wrote (or that anybody could write; such programs are pervasive today) do things, which for most of human history, were thought to be the exclusive domain of human thought and effort.

Those computer programs take incredibly small bits of instruction and link those instructions together to perform useful tasks.  The more sophisticated and complicated those combinations and chains of instructions, the more sophisticated and complicated the resultant computer program and the more sophisticated and complicated the behavior of the computer.

Computer programs play chess.  Computer programs make telephone calls and offer reminders.  Computer programs assist physicians in making medical diagnoses.  Computer programs consider geology and make intelligent and informed recommendations regarding the best locations to drill for fossil fuels.  Computer programs can consider and reject options and look for optimal decisions.  Computer programs can direct incredibly complicated space flights.

Computer programs can learn.  It is a matter of programming.  Computer programs can be written to take past experience into account and to weigh that experience against current real world facts to make some determination.  The success or failure of that decision then is blended into the aggregate ‘awareness’ (knowledge base) of the computer program and the program ‘learns’.  Computers can be quite sophisticated, making decisions, informed guesses, and determinations based on a realm of knowledge, much like human decision-making.  Computers can take actions and perform tasks that are comparable to humans, emulating rudimentary human cognition.

Computers, by virtue of the sophisticated programs that direct them, are smart.  They are capable, intelligent, and capable of learning and of making self-directed changes.  They are fast and talented.  Much of what humans do today, frequently placing our very lives in the ‘hands’ of computers, relies on computer technology and ‘intelligence’.

Computers are rather remarkable and at an amazing state today.

Computers, however, are NOT sentient and do NOT consider themselves in existential, phenomenological ways.  We assume that they do not ‘regard’ themselves and we certainly do not assume that computers and computer programs ‘regard’ us – the program writers.  The creators – if you will.

THERE IS A GULF BETWEEN THAT WHICH IS CREATED AND THAT WHICH CREATES.  The gulf between me as a computer programmer and some computer action is so vast and of such a nature, that the assumption must be made that the computer never, ever could consider or reflect upon me, the programmer.  We assume that computers – plastic, wires, chips, electrodes and electrons – are unable to independently ‘consider’ the programmers: to regard or to form opinions regarding the programmers.  We assume that computers and programmers are quite different in nature and that the nature of computers CANNOT PERMIT SUCH CONSIDERATION.

Yet, within our religious lives and our traditional human religious and theological frameworks, much of humanity daily assumes that the petty, finite, temporal mind of humankind can consider (and perhaps even embrace and emulate) the mind of God.  Hence, the arrogance of the bumper sticker: God said it, and I believe it, and that settles it...

The foundation bases of this manifesto are:

a)      God is Creator, the author and first cause of all things;

b)      God, as Creator, is omnipotent, omniscient and omni-benevolent;

c)      Humankind is the creation of God, a creation born of God’s will;

d)     Humankind is temporal, limited, finite, mortal, capable of error, misunderstanding, misapprehension and wrongdoing;

e)      The gulf between God’s nature and existence and humankind’s nature and existence is sufficiently large that we are unable to consider (let alone comprehend) the nature of God;

f)       Pure deism (incorporating the traditional ‘clockwork creation’ concept) is anathematic to the concept of an omni-benevolent God;

g)      The gulf of understanding and communion between Creator and creation, in the case of programmer and computer, could never be bridged – computers do not have the power to ‘regard’ the programmer and understand the programmer’s nature or existence; programmers lack the ability to imbue existential reflection and introspection into computers;

h)      The gulf of understanding and communion between Creator and creation, in the case of God and humankind, could never be bridged if the onus were on humankind, alone;

i)        Failure to bridge the gap between Creator and creation, in the case of God and humankind, is not consistent with the concept of omni-benevolence;

j)        God provides mechanism(s) for humankind’s limited understanding of portions of God’s being, God’s existence and God’s will;

k)      No ONE mechanism of understanding is adequate to impart the entirety of any aspect (however small) of God’s will to humankind (because of the vast, unimaginable nature of God);

l)        Humankind will continue to fail to understand God’s being, existence, nature and will;

m)    A loving, omni-benevolent God will permit us to see portions of God’s will, as necessary, as it relates to God’s plan for us and our understanding of God’s plan for our behavior;

n)      Permitting us to see portions of God’s will is not inconsistent with an omnipotent, omniscient, and omni-benevolent God;

o)      Given the diverse and complicated nature of communications and interactions among humans, it is unreasonable to assume that one manifest revelation of God’s being, existence, nature and will would be adequate to address humankind’s understanding of God;

p)      God chooses to manifest God’s self to humankind in various ways (referred to as aspects);

q)      The aspects of God (while manifesting differing views or understandings of God to different humans) must be consistent with one, true God, i.e.: the Creator;

r)       The derivation of differing views of God and understandings of God’s will is due to human limitations, and occurs despite the infinite, unchanging nature of God;

s)       Different views of God, derived from differing human perceptions of the aspects of God, do not contradict or negate one another; they merely define and demonstrate our limited, finite and flawed understanding of the Infinite;

t)       It is conceivable, reasonable and desirable that humans should experience differing perceptions and understandings of God;

u)      Complete understanding of God is not possible, but sharing our limited and personal understanding of the aspects of God is desirable and necessary for us to achieve the fullest possible ‘aggregate’ human understanding of God’s being, existence, nature and will;

v)      No ONE religious revelation, perception, faith, understanding, or practice can be assumed to be a priori divinely inspired based on the tenets of that faith or the conviction of its adherents, NO MATTER WHAT AUTHORITY IT CITES;

w)    No ONE religious revelation, perception, faith, understanding, practice is a priori erroneous, just because it differs from another, NO MATTER WHAT AUTHORITY IT CITES;

x)      We can assume the ‘correctness’ of our faith tenets, faith journey, religious experience, and organized religion only to the extent that they are:

·         Not inconsistent with human and social concepts of decency

·         Not inconsistent with decent behavior as evidenced by other societal and religious experiences

·         Tolerant of other religious experience which may differ from ours (not necessarily tolerant of the behavior which purports that religion as a rationale)

THEREFORE:

a)      We CANNOT negate, disregard, challenge, or assume that some religious revelation or experience is wrong, SIMPLY BECAUSE IT DIFFERS FROM OUR OWN;

b)      Many of the major religions of the world (some of which are regarded as mutually exclusive) may be coexistent explanations of and manifestations of the multiple aspects of the single God.

c)      These understandings speak to some very deeply held traditional Christian thinking, particularly that of the single pathway to salvation and to heaven, which appears counter to the nature of a Creator capable of creating such diversity.

A WISH FOR MY DENOMINATION

I wish that the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) - my denomination - was more progressive in the aggregate.  I wish it was avant garde Christian the way I perceive myself in my head, when I'm indulging a bit of pompousness.
I wish that all of Christendom were more open, accepting, communal and caring.  Heck, I wish that all humankind were more of those things.
But it's a process.
And today GLAD, the Gay, Lesbian and Affirming Disciples manifestation of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) posted the initial content of  a Resolution that will be presented in July at our General Assembly in Orlando.
That resolution - make no mistake about it - while addressing race, gender, physical disabilities, etc., is about what has come to be called Open and Affirming.  It's about civil justice and equality and it's a start, at least, at helping the denomination to be at least as decent and loving and inclusive as the secular world is getting to be.
Anyone who reads my column, communicates with me on Facebook, has seen any of my Youtube vids, or has ever shared a conversation of a dozen words with me, knows that I'm a near rabid social justice advocate.
It is with extreme pleasure that I share a couple columns from friends/colleagues that present/address this resolution, and it is with highest hopes that this resolution is adopted by my denomination this July.  It's about time...

https://thedmergent.squarespace.com/articles/2013/1/13/proclaiming-the-christian-church-disciples-of-christ-a-people-of-grace-and-welcome-to-all

http://www.julierichardsonbrown.net/2013/01/i-cant-wait-to-say-yes/

GOD’S TABLE: PLAYING MUSICAL CHAIRS AND LOSING

I’m a pastor for a Christian denomination where communion is one of only two sacraments observed.  It’s pretty important to us.

Recently with the debate over homosexuality in the church, including membership, ordination, same-sex marriage, etc., communion has frequently defined the analogy for the debate.  It often appears in the form of ‘how do we be inclusive and welcoming of all people to the table?’

As our society has made strides in social and legal equality for those LGBTQ persons who have been historically disenfranchised, the church has lagged behind and struggled with not only a debate of basic, fundamental rights for the LGBTQ community, but also has had to deal with religious, scriptural and ecclesial questions.  It’s not just ‘is it right?’, but ‘is it right in the eyes of God and in our faith tradition?’

In our denomination, I have heard a question related to LGBTQ equality in the Christian Church expressed using the table analogy.  That question distills to something like this: ‘If we embrace the liberal perspective and make room at the table for LGBTQ persons, are we pushing away from the table the more conservative folks, who in many instances have tolerated the change at the table as we made room for those who had been disenfranchised?’

An interesting question, but one that has some assumptions and presumptions that must be addressed to honestly answer the question of including in the faith process versus excluding (and pushing some away from) the faith process.

It has to do with an economics concept: that of Nash equilibria (John Nash, the real-life subject of the movie, “A BRILLIANT MIND,” and Nobel-winning economist) and zero-sum versus non-zero sum games (or economies or life, for that matter).  Zero-sum and non-zero sum, even if you’ve never heard of them, are very important to our fundamental understanding of the nature of God and omnipotence.  A zero sum game like Monopoly assumes that if one person wins another must loose.  There are a finite set of resources and players compete for them.  A zero sum game must end in a win-lose manner.  A non-zero sum game like The Prisoner's Dilemma assumes that there are not limited resources and that players can play the game, collaborate and orchestrate a win-win ending.

I'd like to suggest - again not addressing the issues that have been debated regarding liberal/conservative and why we've had to 'make room at the table' - our society and culture tends to be 'zero sum' and to perceive life as having a fixed, finite set of resources for which we must compete and therefore if someone 'gets' another person must 'lose.'  Our national economies and our personal economies are generally built on zero-sum assumptions.  Negotiations, competitions for jobs, personal economic transactions, etc. all speak to a notion that we have to do better than the next person, because if we are to win, it will be at their expense and vice-versa.

Now - we run into a real puzzle when we ascribe zero-sum thinking to faith journey.  Basically, if we adhere to a conventional and scriptural understanding of God as infinite and omnipotent, it is not possible to 'push someone away from the table.'  God's table can accommodate everyone.  That means that making room for someone at the table or pushing someone away from the table must encompass two aspects that have to be examined: first, what is the nature of God's table, through Jesus Christ, exemplified by Jesus' example and teaching?  Are there limitations?  Most important, is the table in any way exclusive?  Is there anyone who cannot be accommodated at the table?  Does God set a table where mutual exclusivity can exist?  Is it possible that if one person/group/identity is permitted at the table, another person/group/identity must be denied?  Can mutual exclusivity be applied to any two persons/groups/identities within God’s creation?

Can we – in any way – assess the breadth, depth and elasticity of God’s ability to accommodate all the diverse components of creation?  Even if we were able to discern whom God, through Jesus Christ would accept/reject, is that our purview?  Basically, how do we decide if God’s love is zero-sum, or even can approximate zero-sum, with some being permitted ‘at the table’ meaning that others cannot be present?

A completely separate issue is the second aspect; if we decide, ‘yes, God’s table will accommodate some and not others,’ who fits which category?  That’s where most of the equality/inequity debate in the church today has centered, but the reality is: are we trying to retrofit belonging to a belonging template that doesn’t exist?  Have we rushed so haphazardly to decide who is worthy and who is not worthy that we have ignored the fact that such debate seems to limit God and to set our human, finite, limited understanding as the model for God’s table?

Is zero-sum and mutual exclusivity a function of our societal and cultural existence that has slopped over into our definition of God’s nature and how God conducts ‘business’ with humankind?  And if that’s true, is it legitimate and defensible?  Our understanding of the nature of God needs to be addressed and understood before we begin contemplation of someone being pushed away from God as a result of human perceptions and actions.

Maybe, just maybe, God’s table is larger than our ability to imagine and more accommodating than we can possibly conceive.  Here’s hoping…