Is there a God, and can we describe him/her/it? (warning Long!)

This idea of a god(s) is not something individuals have really struggled with, until “recently” in the scope of history, when science began explaining things in a way that was tangible and therefore began to erode the western concept of the unexplainable as that which is mythical, or that some “extra-terrestrial deity” is involved in the unexplainable happenings on earth. As a result, and primarily in the west, people began losing faith in the church, as an authority in their lives, and began towards solid tangible evidence. To the scientific method and reason to replace the silly notion of believing that somewhere out there, were these unseen entities who were in a type of cosmic relationship with humans on earth.

However, if we were to look past this period of scientific enlightenment, and even in some of the more primitive, isolated, cultures of today, we will find an unspoken “need” to focus upon an entity for explanation of that which is unknown. Tribes in Africa today will look to ancestors, who are in the spirit world, to explain why tragedy or good fortune happen. The Aborigines of Australia would look towards an event in history of the “dreamtime” as their creation story. When we take a look into ancient history, there is not a people group, nation or empire that does not have some affiliation with gods. They each seem to disagree in agreement that there are some supernatural power(s) that exists, that it or they existed before time, that it or they had some hand in the creation of matter and life, and that humans are in some way bound to relationship with these entities. So the question which needs answering, and shall be explored, is whether there is a god, and if there is a relational element to this god, how can we know or begin to understand who this god is.

If we took a vote based upon the majority of history, and peoples today, the overwhelming majority of peoples would affirm a god or gods that existed. That these gods had some similar fundamental qualities: each lived within a realm that is apart from our limited physical world, they had some hand in the act or method of creating our physical world, and that this entity or group of entities are somehow bound in a relational fashion to their creation. One of the oldest religions, or views about such an entity, is Judaism, found within the national of Israel. Israel is not only spoken of in their literature, but also in the literature's of many nations throughout history. In fact, besides only a few remote or rural cultures in the world today, there is no other surviving religion that can be recorded to a period which is as ancient.

This is also the only “nation” where a book such as the Tanak, or Hebrew Bible, is so largely distributed throughout the world, which stands it apart out from other religions. Also separating Judaism from other cultures is the notion of only one god, in the face of nations and religions who would affirm a plethora of gods and goddesses. This does not make it the “right” one, just because of the uniqueness of the structure, but these facts to make it worth a second look. Rather than dismissing it as simply another ancient form of superstitious institution in an attempt to explain that which is supernatural.

This book has a powerful statement in the very beginning of it, “In the beginning God....”(Gen1:1 ESV), there is no explanation, no elaborate story about or of this god, but rather a statement that demands an immediate response without discourse or persuasion. This god created everything that we see in our limited physical world, and created us, humans, in some form of image resemblance. Not only did he create us, but created us for the purpose of relationship to and with this god. Through events preceding this perfect relations, there was a rebellion which broke the created relationship. In light of this story, the reader can either affirm the presumption of the book, there is a divine entity which exists and this is apparently a story about “it”. Or one can cast aside this statement as some ancient hoodoo garbage that is outdated in light of that which is real, science! In doing so I am able to continue reading about how silly these ancients were in trying to understand their world. If there is a god, that was before there was anything else, and he created everything (as the story indicates) then I, as created, am in a subjected relationship to this god and there is a response demanded of me.

If, however, this is some ancient text which is disproved by a modern view of science and the impossibility of such an entity ever existing, one is not inclined to respond to the story at hand. But this is getting ahead of ourselves, because from this religion there sprang from within a “new” religion, centered around a “man”, who claimed to be/be apart of the “god” which is mentioned in the first sentence of the Tanak, or Hebrew Bible, which rearranged slightly is also the Old Testament, or section 1 of 2, of the new religion's book, the Bible. This “man”, commonly referred to as Jesus, but was most likely actually named Joshua, claimed to be the son, or birthed by this god, but was not separate from this god. This “man” who claimed deity and a submissive equal existence with the god whom is revealed to us in the Tanak/Old Testament, committed an act of self sacrifice that would allow for a small portion of perfect relations to become a reality for all those who would respond correctly to the work of Jesus.

So now, not only does the reader need to respond to the notion that there either is or is not this god which this story is presenting, but now I must decide between two whole religions claiming to be right based upon the same god.

(In my own mind I can understand now how someone coming to this for the first time, with fresh eyes could be only but confused. Understanding how complicated this is, and how completely counter cultural to the typical westerner, is important and we should always be looking for new ways to present the truth. Most importantly, regardless of how we present the truth, making sure we do it in a way that is not trying to hide the difficult parts, or “candy coat” it, but rather in an open and honest fashion. Also, to allow people time to digest and respond, yes there are decisions on the spot, however I believe that people also need time to seek out answers, to find the path.)

If we are considering responses to the Bible, then the appropriate response suggested it to affirm there is a god, not only a god, but The God, and affirm the truth that is contained in connection with the aforementioned summary of God, creation, fall, Jesus and limited restoration of personal relationship with God. However, there are a host of individuals who would either out right reject the truth of the Bible, and would chose to cast it aside as ancient superstition, inferior to science. While others would hold to their “ancient” beliefs of the world, creation and how the supernatural would play out in this world. So, if I believe that there is The God, and affirm that there is in the story of this God an intentional relational side to the creation of humans, I must respond by being in relation with The God. How then can this be done? Who, or maybe better asked what is this God whom I must respond to in relationship?

When reviewing confessions of faith throughout Christian history, it is interesting and perhaps somewhat humorous, each begins a paragraph on God. In this paragraph about God there are always the same basic ideas, God is big, God above our understanding, we cannot describe God fully. Then, these various confessions, take multiple paragraphs doing what has just been stated as impossible, which is describing and attempting to understand God. It all seems counter productive, we say, “There is no box big enough to hold God”, and then try to put in a box by attempting to place this God within our human minds. So why then do we seek to describe the indescribable? Why do humans seek to understand God? The answer can be found in the relational side of God.

As a believer in God, and a follower of the Christian Bible, I would submit it is obvious why it is that we seek to describe God, understand God, and try to figure out God. It is because God made us this way, created us for the purpose of relationship withus. When we enter into a relationship with an individual, whether romantic or otherwise, the best way to get to know the other part of the developing relationship is to ask questions. Or to spend time with the person, watch their habits, their manner of responses to the constant stimuli that is life upon this planet. Our relationship with God is no different than this example. If God has created us as relational beings, and therefore we exhibit in some fallen way the desires for relational connection. Then we can have a small glimpse of how relationships function in the beginning stages. Using this observation as a useful metaphor, we begin to ask questions of God in order know God.

The only problem you or I have of asking these necessary questions of God, that God doesn't doesn't really just answer in clear terms when you and I simple ask out loud. Rather God is “hidden” in creation, revealed in scripture, and seen as a likeness in man today. Granted, all of these “images” of God are some how befuddled through a filter of a fallen and sinful world and so all areas where we might seek to find our answers we humbly admit may not be perfectly accurate, but can at least point us in the right direction. The universal standard and authority on God can be found in what some believe are his inspired words, transmitted through the ages to us today. I tend to be one of these individuals. There are those who would discredit any type of authority that could be claimed by the Bible, and so absolving themselves of any attempt to know or understand a God who created and sustains the whole earth presently.

So, if the Bible is, as stated, God's story, in which God plays a major role, perhaps it is the best place to start. There are a lot of really great, big, words used today to describe the different attributes of God. Rather than simply writing down a list of words, their definition and where scripture would appear to indicate a proof text for such a trait. I would rather start in this endeavor by looking at the recorded events where man and God interact, or have relationship in a personal “real” way. As we look across the scope of scripture, we find God revealing God to humans in many different ways. In a physical form, as a voice, as fire that does not burn, as a whisper in the wind. Simply stated what we find is, as is affirmed in many confession statements, a God who refuses to be confined to something that is finitely knowable, who reveals rather in a way that is understandable by our finite minds. The bible tells us of experiences where men beheld God in a vision or a dream, but yet he clearly told Moses that no man could ever see the full Glory of God and live. So I best understand this to mean that God is in control of how much he reveals to us, and to humans past, present future.

As mentioned, without creating a laborious list and definitions and endless discussion, where we find who and what God is, has been closely connected with what we find in the Bible. However, there are those whom would claim to be followers of this God, and someone who would claim somewhat in the Jesus; but would reject the validity of the Bible as the authority on God. This response has largely been determined by a host of German scholars in the mid 1900's who began to question the validity of the Bible as a source of truth. These scholars began cutting up, dissecting and destroying the credibility of scripture as an authoritative revelation of God, who and what God is. This has created a host of problems for those would refuse to see scripture as the source of understanding God, because then we have no record of God, and can therefore not begin to understand God, without questioning every description or revelation of him.

Therefore we are left with two very clear and opposite choices. First, to affirm that the Bible is truth,by affirming it is true we must respond to the fact that there is a God, that this Bible speaks of such, we are created for relationship with this God, and that we find limited answers about God in this Bible. Or secondly, we reject the notion that this Bible, this collection of mythical writings, and therefore are not compelled to respond to anything that we would see as “untruth” over that which we might claim as truth. As far as I am concerned, and have stated previously, I would affirm the former position. However, I am not quick completely reject the idea of looking closely at the scripture asking of it to show us proof. Just as I don't believe that Christianity is some mythical religion, I don't believe that as followers of Christ we should live in mystical belief when it comes to God, and the Bible.

So when teachers of the Bible come with the scrupulous eye and the “untrusting senses” to the scripture and the text in preparation for a message or a lesson, the Bible can be treated with respect and reverence, but also begin to teach listeners in a way that is necessary. This way still affirms all of the truth and holiness, and dignity of God, the Trinity in all of who and what God is, but it also raises that which we know of God, above the level of blind mystical assumptions about God. For example, we can look at how God might have used an eclipse, a natural occurring phenomenon when he blotted out the sun in Egypt, and this does not take away from God. We can begin to understand how big God is, without using language that would paint a vague mystical impression of an infinite, and potentially impersonal deity. Everyone struggles with their faith at some point in time, something catches them up, do they really believe what the Bible says, they ask how, who, and what questions, that we as the teachers of the word need to answer, not just in a counseling session, but on Sunday mornings as well. For, I believe, that if I do not as a teacher teach people in an intelligent, post illumination way, while still affirming the truth. Those who would would teach in such a manner, but would rather reject the truth would have a stronger voice to lead the people astray.