Lots and lots about religious orthodoxy lately. Usually makes me upset. Kind of ties into the last post. This terrible grammar will upset Leah.
Most who talk to me about any and all things Christian accuse me of forming theology in my own image. And I don't disagree. Which usually pisses people off because they expect a long argument about how it is not, how it is based on the bible, etc. And further, they expect to take all my biblical verses and overwhelm me with evidence to the contrary.
Making God in your own image. Let's get real here. Every reflection of God from us as humans is making God in our own image. No? Or rather, making God in the image of everything we are not. Marx is often misquoted as being an atheist with the quote "Religion is the opiate of the masses." I think when you read on (which most don't do) it becomes apparent that Marx was upset with the alienating effect that religion had on people. The effect that is enacted when we somehow think that by "allowing contradiction" and "allowing God's sovereign will" to be unquestioned that we are truly coming to a mature understanding of God and theology. Marx calls those who practice religion to break down the facade. Sure, allow some mystery in your faith, faith is not rationalism. However, usually, mystery tends to mask the illusion that religion enacts on followers. The illusion is that we can somehow conceptualize a portrait of God outside of our own experience and that this is the ultimate sign of the mature Christian. I call it what it is. An illusion. A facade that does not allow us to admit that God has to work through who we are and what we know. And that is ourselves.
I do not advocate a kind of cavalier subjectivism in the conception of God. Instead, the understanding within communities of faith that the way they conceptualize God is not absolute, but rather a kind of idealized reflection of their own corporate self. For example, I think that Calvinism and Arminianism and all of the other belief systems about God are fine. There are huge collectivities that espouse these views. The issue is that both assert their absolute portrait of God, that the other is somehow "immature" or "less-than-perfect" (for some reason, this usually comes from the Calvinists moreso than others). So is one right and the other wrong? Which one is making God in their own image? How about both. So what I advocate is unmasking the illusion and realizing that from group to group, maybe God allows this. Maybe this sounds pluralistic and it is. And it is making God in mine, and others who think in a similar way's. At least we admit it.
