Theological Skeleton (Part 2)

So, very broadly, I’m defining benevolence as acting in an other’s interest. And for someone to be genuinely other, he or she must have some measure of a self-determining will, that is, a certain amount of power is wielded outside of the omnipotent being’s control. (I’m not sure, but I think this is where I officially leave Western orthodoxy behind.)

So far I’ve referred to an omnipotent being but not God. This is because the label ‘God’ for many is taken to mean a being with all sorts of characteristics and qualities many of which I am unwilling to attribute to God and nearly all of which I am not convinced are essential or foundational to God. So far all I am claiming about God is omnipotence and benevolence. An omnipotent but non-benevolent ‘God’ is quite conceivable, but such a ‘God’ is choosing not to use any of this unlimited power in a meaningful way.

According to my conception of meaning the only meaningful thing for the omnipotent being to do is create some other willful being(s). Since this other will is not determined by the omnipotent, there is the possibility that this other will not choose to do what the omnipotent being chooses. So not only does the omnipotent being create ‘uncontrolled’ power, it also creates the potential for conflict. Benevolence implies the potential for both harmony and conflict. If and when conflict does occur, the omnipotent being has a choice: continue to allow other power or discontinue that power. In other words, not only is initial benevolence a choice, as the omnipotent being relates to the other, benevolence very possibly must be (repeatedly) renewed or stopped.

 

Theological Skeleton (Part 1)

Let’s start with omnipotence and benevolence. These are two characteristics of God that describe different categories. Omnipotence is the answer to the question what is God. Benevolence is the answer to the question who is God. I’m going to try to start with just these two assumptions and see if I can make a case for some striking similarities between the ethic taught by Jesus and what we should expect from this starting place.

But first I want to explore the idea that benevolence actually follows from omnipotence. An omnipotent being existing by itself has nothing interesting to do except share power. Any possible creation without the sharing of power is merely an extension of the omnipotent being. It is simply the omnipotent being essentially remaining in isolation. Omnipotence becomes trivial if the omnipotent being does not allow at least provisional power outside of its control. But if provisional power is taken away arbitrarily, omnipotence remains trivial and uninteresting. Only the allowance of at least potentially opposing power creates a meaningful ‘other,’ and only the creation of a meaningful other is anything more than an extension of the omnipotent being. So the omnipotent being is left with two basic choices: no creation (or a controlled creation) with no meaningful others or a creation of an other or others given the ability to act in opposition to the omnipotent being. This is acting in the interest of another rather than oneself. This is benevolence.

 

Black and White

Let me be clear from the outset that this is only a hypothesis.

What if, behind the scenes of politics, art, religion, psychology, and sociology, there is some fundamental struggle between two opposing forces? I wind up seeing things this way even when I’m not trying to. A favorite movie of mine, Donnie Darko, has a motivational speaker who preaches on the dichotomy of love and fear. He was one of the bad guys. I didn’t like him and don’t much like the real life people he represents, but I think I like his idea (minus the hypocrisy and arrogance).

It seems that in every area of life where people find meaning and get excited there are those who are trying to prove themselves and there are those who are already comfortable, the nervous and the confident. How that plays out in the world of politics or religion or art or relationships may vary, but it seems that most people are operating with one of two background stories. Either the one that begins in confusion and fear, builds with nervous activity, and ends in worry or the one that begins with strength, builds with love, and ends in confidence.

This comes as a surprise to me because I was brought up to believe that everyone started out with the bad story and then some switched over. I still believe that a person can change stories, but I’m pleasantly puzzled by those who somehow start off healthy.

 

Authority

Not only has this been on my mind lately, it’s a good place to start. Christian churches and denominations distinguish themselves in all sorts of ways. These distinctions are often trivial or superficial. Within the broad range of those religious organizations which call themselves ‘Christian,’ I choose to categorize most fundamentally by source of authority.

Taking any characteristic of a religious group into consideration and asking why such a characteristic exists, one will eventually come to some sort of root assumption or assumptions. In reality these root assumptions are not chosen because they make sense. They are only ever chosen because they bring the owner of the assumption some sort of satisfaction. The satisfaction may be with the assumption itself, but it is more likely that the assumption allows for physical comfort, peace of mind, or a sense of significance.

In my experience there are only four general kinds of root assumptions utilized by nominally Christian organizations and individuals. They are assumptions about where truth is to be found: either within the teaching of a holy group/tradition, a holy document, subjective experience, or a holy person. These foundational starting places of belief are sometimes explicitly announced but are sometimes unknown even to those who embrace them.

I was planning to rant on about the pros and cons of each, but that will have to be left alone for now. What strikes me at the moment is the similarity between the four possibilities. They are all examples of what Rene Girard calls mimesis. He claims that all people have their identities rooted in the imitation of someone or something or some group.

I believe that, too a large degree, we can choose whom or what we will imitate. I choose (undubitably hypocritically) to imitate a person. The ‘Christian’ who roots belief and finds ultimate authority elsewhere is keeping his hypocrisy very close to the surface.