Gods and men with three sides

In his opening chapter of Adams Vs. God: The Rematch, Phillip Adams quotes Charles de Montesquieu as saying,

If a triangle made a god, it would give him three sides.

This is true, as evidenced by the many god's that humans, religious and otherwise, have created after their own likeness.

However, if the three-sided God pre-existed the creatures (John 1:1-3), and made creatures in his own image (Genesis 1:26), wouldn't they still have three sides?

How many blogging pastors are there?

Darren Rowse, the Problogger, has written an interesting post about how to keep blogging when it feels like nobody is reading your blog. Darren speaks of his time as a pastor learning to preach by speaking to a room full of empty pews.

As a fellow pastor I know that feeling well, and as an aspiring problogger I'm feeling it even more often. However, for me the eye openner came when I started to read the comments to Daren's post. There just seemed to be so many pastors and other church leaders there.

Of course, I know a lot of pastors are now using a blog as part of their ministry, as I do. They post sermons and church news for the benefit of their congregation and others. However, these were not just pastors posting on church themes. No, these were pastors and ex-pastors who now post for many other reasons.

I often attend the ordination services for new pastors in my denomination, and am always interested to discover just how many become pastors out of a professional science background, as I did. Well, here's another interesting question - how many professional bloggers enter the "profession" after a career as a minister or pastor?

Any more want to come out of the closet (or is it vestry)?

Are you in a Christendom political party?

Sad as it may seem, I believe that most Christians are told by their leaders which part of the theological spectrum they are part of, and generally they don't understand what it means, nor do they often care very much. Theology has been made to appear to them like an obscure, esoteric branch of philosophy that is beyond their reach and not very relevant to their lives anyway. As long as they dutifully subscribe to the party line then all will be well with their world. If they should question it too persistently then the accusations of backsliding will flow quickly and frighten them back into the loyal fold.

This is not unlike voting for a particular political party for the important reasons that your parents always did so, or 'everyone' in your town does, or your favourite TV commentator's disparaging comments about the other parties are the funniest or wittiest.

It also reminds me of the Middle Ages when, as long as the priest said the magic words of the Mass at one end of the parish church, the whole town could, at the same time, engage in the village market at the other end, and all was well, and God's wrath was appeased for another day. No-one actually had to take part in the rituals.

The sadnesses in this scenario are immediately obvious to me:

• That leaders who 'understand' theology would so easily use it as a means of control and self-agrandisement.
• That the average Christian should think so little of the need to actively engage in the discovery of who is this God they 'worship'.

Why is it that when the most important thing in all of our lives is the development of intimacy with Jesus, do we think it is OK to delegate this to someone else? And whose kingdom are we leaders really building? Are we for Paul, or Apollos, or Calvin, or Arminius, or Luther, or ..., or are we for Jesus?

Yes, theological movements do spring up for often good reasons. However, why are we generally so black and white about them? And why, once born, are such movements so hard to kill again? Was Jesus a Calvinist? Was he a dispensationalist? Was he Reformed? Charismatic? Was he even a Christian? (Now there's an oxymoron for you!)

As a Baptist pastor I am almost expected to be of a Reformed doctrinal persuasion. However, the more I learn about what it means to be an intimate follower of Jesus, and one of those favoutites that I'm told my Father God doesn't have, the more some of the tenets of Calvinism make me extremely uneasy. In particular, their implications for the nature and character of God make me shudder. No, I'm afraid that much I once might have admired about Calvin is long gone the way of many other long cherished doctrines and heroes - into the heresy bucket. If someone said about me some of the things some sincere and well-meaning Reformed theologians say about the nature of their God, I would be very upset - and rightly so!

Of course, bucking the status quo is not without cost. For example, I had been considering becoming an editor for Theopedia. However, when I read the statement of faith I would be expected to sign I could not in all conscience do so. Most of it is fine, but not all. This is rather disappointing, because it is a great project, but I guess I'll live. At least I won't be burnt at the stake or put down a hole and pelted with stones!

Lest you also think I am anti-intellectual, or anti-theology, nothing could be more untrue. I love learning, and have invested a large part of myself into theology. I love to teach, and have engaged fully in a career as an academic and researcher, but I am constained at all times to make sure I am teaching life, not death. There are many things in all of the 'isms' and 'ologies' that cause me disquiet, and even horror at times, so much so that I would rather be known as a follower of Jesus than be mis-recognised as one of what has become known today by the title of 'Christian'.

I'm sure I will write more about this, here and elsewhere.

Is Richard Dawkins a Level Five Atheist?

Perhaps Richard Dawkins is at least a level five atheist (see previous post - Level Five Agnostic). This quote from a Fr Frank Brenan SJ's book review of Richard Dawkin's The God Delusion would seem to indicate this:

Dawkins claims that moderation in faith fosters fanaticism: “even mild and
moderate religion helps to provide the climate of faith in which extremism
naturally flourishes”. Dawkins’ “take home message is that we should blame
religion itself, not religious extremism – as though that were some kind of
perversion of real, decent religion”. The same argument would not be put for
scientific inquiry. Imagine a call to ban all scientific inquiry because those
who engage in responsible scientific inquiry may be providing the opportunity
for fanatics to harness science for their own purposes. Dawkins and his ilk
think religious belief of any kind is meaningless, infantile and demeaning, so
nothing is lost by agitating in the most illiberal way for the suppression
of all religion and not just religious extremism which causes harm to others.

Makes sense to me. What do you think? Comments please.