A personal God

[Margaret Jackson-Roberts]

It's precisely the idea of a personal God, as distinct from a God conceived of as the ground of all being, that keeps me (and others) apart from the formal practice of Christianity. I guess that makes me a kind of pantheist. I left the Anglican church largely because of the Protestant pretensions of knowing The Lord on intimate terms, and then found that the RC church thinks it owns the Almighty. But I am still involved (at one remove, through participation as a singer) in various church services and interested in all valid expressions of faith.

the seeker

[Owen Jones]

I often hear this from people -- do you or do you not believe in a personal God? -- as if Christianity can be reduced to that formulation. It certainly is not Judaic. God is a name that cannot be pronounced. Not very PERSONAL!

The idea of a personal God is much misconstrued, I think. I don't recall seeing any reference to this in the Fathers although I might have skipped the obvious. The Father is not defined as personal but "Beyond" The three "persons" of the Trinity utilize a term that, I suspect, is quite different than how we use the term today. The Greek persona means "faces" or "masks" or what we might think of today as three manifestations. It would be wrong to construe persons in the Creed as referring to something or someone just like us only more powerful.

The Incarnation of Christ in the person of Jesus -- a fully divine, fully human type -- carries with it a uniqueness, but it is a uniqueness in degree, not in kind. That is to say, the fullness of divinity dwelt within Him, but divinity dwells within each and every one of us to some degree, else how could we recognize Jesus as the Christ? So there is a personal aspect to it, but that doesn't define who Christ is.

So I guess what I am arguing is that the element of that which is beyond the personal is very much a primary element in Christian theology. Modern protestant theology, having discarded the idea of union with or communion with God, then reduces everything to a "personal relationship." I would hate to see you reject traditional or Orthodox Christianity because of logical flaws in the contemporary version of it. And, of course, Orthodox theology, while having its own heavily Greek form of scholasticism if you will, is essentially "apophatic>" That is, it's significant for what we do not know and cannot know. theology does not end in formulations or propositions, but in silence.

We cannot know God in His Essence. We can only know God in and through the things He has made, starting, of course, with ourselves. So having a philosophic anthropology that makes sense is at the core of Christian teachings. (Orthodox that is)

We do, however, have to deal with the reality of persons, Margaret. If there is no such thing as a person, then it seems like we have a profound philosophical problem on our hands. If everything including me is just illusion, then that has profound logical consequences that the history of culture demonstrates to be largely negative. No real possibility of reason and science. Why be compassionate toward our neighbor if our neighbor doesn't really exist?

[sinjin smithe]

Often times I have been asked whether I know Jesus personally or if I know Jesus Christ as my Saviour by an evangelical Christian or if I have a personal relationship with him. One thing that puts me off with modern Protestantism is hearing how people 'fall in love' with Jesus, making sound like our relationship with God is like falling in love with a member of the opposite sex. One thing the personal relationship with God does, is that it takes away the reverence and sense that God is holy. I think this partly explains why people tend to dress bummy when the go to church. The see Jesus as their best friend, and nothing more than that.

[Hermit]

"It's precisely the idea of a personal God, as distinct from a God conceived of as the ground of all being, that keeps me (and others) apart from the formal practice of Christianity. I guess that makes me a kind of pantheist."

Interestingly enough, Margaret Jackson-Roberts, I have made my journey in the opposite direction, from New Age pantheism and agnosticism to Catholic Christianity. I call God "personal" not in the sense of a Big Buddy in the sky, but because I have had some very specific prayers answered in specific ways, as well as chastisements.

I also look at the universe and its astonishingly complex laws, which could not have led to the formation of elements higher than helium (much less carbon and its chemistry!) unless certain constants were precisely formulated. And about that Big Bang ... what are the chances of an highly ordered little blob or singularity just appearing, and exploding into a light-filled universe? "And God said, Let there be light ... " Look at life, the improbable formation of the first viable, reproducing cell ... and evolution, which appears to have been steered.

These things seem consistent with a Creator who likes to get involved a bit with His creation ... perhaps not as much as we would want!

On the one hand, "Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness ..."

But on the other hand, "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts." Isaiah 55:9

[demetrios karaolanis]

I also find when talking to protestants that they seem to have a lack of reverence and respect for the lord. they do not understand it when I say I do things this way to keep god holy in my eyes.

[sinjin smithe]

I also find when talking to protestants that they seem to have a lack of reverence and respect for the lord. they do not understand it when I say I do things this way to keep god holy in my eyes.

This is what I was trying to say before. To many, Jesus is a looked upon as a friend, someone that you fall in love with.

[Owen Jones]

Jesus should be your friend, someone you fall in love with. But much, much more than that as well. The problem with Protestantism is that it simply reduces Christianity to one thing. It's everything. But probably the most important problem: Protestantism reduces salvation to mercy. But it is God's Beauty (His essence) that saves.

[sinjin smithe]

Protestantism reduces salvation to mercy. But it is God's Beauty (His essence) that saves.

I think that by reducing salvation to mercy makes God out to be an angry God, vindictive and vengeful, not a God who is the lover of mankind.

[Hermit]

Well, not much sense in even mentioning Protestantism in a forum devoted to monasticism! Except for the Taize folks, I guess ... gorgeous singing.

[Margaret Jackson-Roberts]

Oh, Hermit, there are some Anglican religious orders (Franciscan, Benedictine, other), though perhaps the CofE doesn't really count as Protestant these days? (Or not its liberal/catholic wing, at any rate.) In the diocese of London prayers are regularly offered for the pope, and the Roman Missal is in daily use in many churches. One does begin to wonder what the Reformation was all about if England so badly wants its tummy tickled by Rome.

the seeker

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Margaret, Owen, Hermit and others,


It's precisely the idea of a personal God, as distinct from a God conceived of as the ground of all being, that keeps me (and others) apart from the formal practice of Christianity.

This is an interesting statement. Must the notions of a 'personal God' and a 'God conceived of as the ground of all being' necessarily be in conflict? It strikes me as an especially modern custom to deny ontological contingency based on God's transcendence, simply because one wishes also to call Him 'personal'. In any case this is not the way of the Fathers, whose insistence upon the personhood of God has never forged a divide between such a 'personal God' and the God whose energies are the very essence of all created being.

If one takes the life of various transfigured saints as an example, the notion of God as the ground of all being is clearly shown forth: in his transfiguration, the energies of God Himself radiate through the person of the saint -- even through the created world around him or her. And yet this manifestation of the divine character of all creation (including human being) is seen not as the revelation of an impersonal, metaphysical principle that lies beneath all that is seen; it is the revelation of the Trinity, of perfect personhood, that sits at the centre of all things.

Owen has hinted at the fact that the notion of 'personhood' has become much misconstrued in modern forms of 'theology'. The Orthodox understanding of personhood grows out of the notion that the nature of God is that of a distinct entity or being, rather than an abstract notion or philosophy. God is a 'person' in the sense that He is definable as a 'He' and not simply as a 'principle'. Though such personhood transcends all analogies that our minds logically draw between it and our own experience of human persons (for example, a human person cannot transcend, according to his or her nature, the very nature of another person; while the personhood of the Trinity can and does transcend and maintain the existence of all created natures); one element of truth that is essential to glean from the notion of divine personhood is the existence of God as genuine being in a relational sense (that of hypostatised essence), and not as the mere idea or principle of being.

INXC, Matthew

[Hermit]

Excellent points, Matthew (as far as I could understand!).

Let me add a verse that shows impersonal aspects of God, and one that indicates "personal" relationship: Matt 5:43"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor[8] and hate your enemy.' 44But I tell you: Love your enemies[9] and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous."

Luke 11:11"Which of you fathers, if your son asks for[6] a fish, will give him a snake instead? 12Or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? 13If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!"

Margaret, I didn't know that about Anglican orders, although from what little I know of COE they are theologically closer to Orthodox/Catholic than Protestants. But I know little of formal theology either.

[Hermit]

Oh, I hate killing threads, and now I've killed two in a row. Actually two forums. I wonder if I'm becoming a bit too chatty for a hermit?

[John Wilson]

I wouldn't get to worried Hermit. This forum is a lot quieter than many I've been involved with which is a good thing IMHO. Some threads will sit dormant for a few weeks until somebody has something new to add.

As for killing threads, I seem to have killed a few in my time on other forums. I've often considered posting the message "Last Post!" because it has happened so often.

John.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Oh, I hate killing threads, and now I've killed two in a row.

I shouldn't worry too much about this, Hermit. I like to think that members here keep a 'holy silence' when they having nothing at the moment to say, rather than speaking simply for the point of it (or lack thereof).

INXC, Matthew

[Moses Anthony]

Matthew, Margaret, Owen, Hermit, Sinjin, ...

Two thoughts : I believe it was Ambrose who helped formulate the idea of Church & State, with each an enity in its own sphere, but giving general help and support to the other. The Holy Scriptures tell us that godliness exalts a nation, which happened as a "trickle down" effect. Human history records the sad effect of weak willed individuals involved in politics, Metropolitians, Patriarchs, Bishops; but then, the effectiveness of the sword depends upon the instrument and the one using it.

Second thought: My namesake is Moses. Moses enjoyed an unparralled relationship/commmunion with Almighty God, to such an extent that GOD made known His ways unto Moses. Pardon my verbage; but folks, it don't get much more personal than that. However I'd be willing to say that Moses never lost his sense of awe and revential fear of Almighty God.

We each have our own deserts, where the things we know about the Almighty are revealed to us, and in a way which makes the experience unique/personal. The troparia to the Resurrection says "...Thou didst reveal Thy glory to Thy discples, in proportion as they could bear it. I may know the wrath of God; but, "...justice and mercy have kissed each other" so that one such as myself can also know the unequaled grace of God.

the Church/monasticism cannot take the place of government, but we know that government is the better whenever godly people are in office. In the same vein, the Church is the better whenever heirarchs are ones with administrative skill. If I have repeated something someone else has said, please forgive me.

t.u.s
Moses

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear James and others,

Thinking of 'personal' with reference to discussions on a 'personal God', I believe the thing most in need of being emphasised, vis-à-vis relating this idea to many others in the world around us, is the precise way in which the Church has traditionally used this adjective. Earlier posts in this thread, by several individuals (myself included), have focused on an element of the 'metaphysical' in such terminology; but it is hard to get away from the commonplace imagery of everyday language, especially when this is precisely the imagery used most often in Protestantism and elsewhere throughout the Christian world.

The following will be a generalisation, subject to all the usual dangers and shortcomings thereof, but still --I hope-- of some use in localising a point:

When Protestants speak of a 'personal God', this is done almost always in the context of a 'personal relationship with God'. To call God 'personal' is thus to encourage that one get to know Him, come to love Him, grow closer to Him; and similarly to proclaim that God will react towards humanity in this same, personal sense. God, responding to the personal advance of the human individual, will not give a stone instead of a fish, and will not stand afar off with his back turned to the prodigal. God treats each individual in a personal, individual way, and thus each individual may develop a personal interaction or relationship with this same God.

Orthodoxy does not, of course, deny any of this. But when Orthodoxy uses the term 'personal' with respect to God (especially in the witness of the patristic tradition), it does so for a different purpose. The primary emphasis is to declare that God is a person (or, as noted in an earlier post, a Trinity of Persons). See my post above for an explanation of the 'metaphysical idea' behind the difference between person and concept/principle; this is precisely the distinction that reference to a 'personal God' conjures up in Orthodox thought. Through extrapolation, this teaches us about human relationships to God and vice-versa, but the focus of such a statement is primarily upon God's being as hypostatic being.

Modern ears tend to hear the term 'personal' and parallel it to ideas such as 'kind, loving, compassionate, involved, forgiving'. These are all valid attributes to ascribe to God, but they have really very little to do with what our term means in an Orthodox context. Orthodox ears hear 'personal' in learn from it the distinctness of God's being as the pinnacle of true personhood -- that God is a distinct and coherent being of Himself.

As an aside, the modern idea of a 'personal relationship with God' has never been stressed in Orthodox spirituality because the Church has always taught that it is union with God that is the goal of human life, and union far surpasses relationship. To place an emphasis upon union rather than relationship also has the effect of reinforcing the fact that it is not merely an intellectual or emotional knowledge of God that is required, but a full and complete transformation of the being of the human person: body, soul, mind and action.

INXC, Matthew

[Monachos.net]

NOTE: The discussion on God as 'personal' has been moved to this new A Personal God thread in the Doctrine topic area, from its tangental starting-place in the Mt Athos in the 21st Century thread in the Monasticism area.

[Rebecca]

Someone recently emailed me this beautiful extract from the Philokalia.

http://www.bright.net/~palamas/sgpmwb/mercy.htm

[dianne marie debs]

Let us think of God as our Father.The idea of a personal God, in my opinion, can only be achieved when we allow ourselves to be as children and God our Father. Think of your on birth father and the many roles he has played in your life. Jesus is the "known" image of this Father; therefore, He is someone who we can grab on to, understand, and count on. He surely gave us thousands of examples to follow. So, can we not look to the human state of our Lord as a big brother, sent to teach, advise, help and to look up to? Both states of course are accented by each other and by the Holy Spirit. Through the power of God's Spirit we are protected. Look to the teachings of the holy fathers,and learn.