You are viewing the older version of this Weblog. I have left this version available for those of you who do not have Javascript enabled in your web browser.
If you have Javascript enabled and would like to view the lastest version of this Weblog, please go here.
If you have Javascript enabled and would like to view the lastest version of this Weblog, please go here.
August 23, 2005
Informatio: Faith, Theory and Philosophy
Daily Dose of Heresy #6 (Where is God?)
This morning, I was reminded of the old Father Guido Sarducci‘s “Five-Minute University” skit on Saturday Night Live (watch it here – Windows Media). In it, he explains how it only takes five minutes to learn everything a college graduate remembers five years after graduating from university. He goes on to describe how this would work and that it would only cost twenty dollars. It’s very funny. The part that I was remembering this morning, though, is in the middle of the skit:
“I’m gonna have a Theology department. You know. Since I’m a priest, it’s only right. And, what you have to learn in Theology is the answer to the question: Where is God? And it’s answer is: God is everywhere. Why? Because He likes you.”He goes on to say that this is a combination of the Disney and Roman Catholic philosophies. It’s very funny.
What struck me was the simple statement that God is everywhere. I mean, this is what most Christians believe, right? And, even though it’s pretty simplified in the Sarducci skit, it is one of the primary facts behind our theology.
But, is God everywhere?
In the Old Testament of the bible, God seems to be a God of locales: He resides with the Hebrew people; He sends the Angel of the Lord to tell people important things; He can only be approached within the Holy of Holies. Yet, in Psalms 139:7-8 (NKJ), David describes God this way:
Where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I flee from Your presence? If I ascend into heaven, You are there; If I make my bed in hell, behold, You are there.God must be everywhere, right?
In the New Testament, after Jesus ascends to Heaven, He sends His Holy Spirit to indwell in anyone who believes in Him. And, in Colossians 1:17 (NKJ) we can read:
And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.There are plenty of other verses that state that God exsists everywhere and in all things, so it seems like the declaration that God is everywhere is pretty valid.
But, what about Matthew 18:20 (NKJ) where Jesus, Himself, says:
“For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.”Does this mean that God is not everywhere? Or that Jesus is not God?
Clearly (to us Christians anyway), Jesus is God. And, if God is everywhere, then Jesus must be everywhere too, right?
There is an old philosophical question that I’m sure all of you have heard before:
If a tree falls in the forest, and there is no one there to hear It, does It make a sound?Some might say, “Yes, of course. Just because no one is there, the sound is still made.” But, others might respond, “No, there is no sound. Sound must be heard and if no one is there to hear it, it never existed.”
Both, answers are right and both can be argued.
Now, let me pose a question to us Christians. And really think hard about it too. (By the way, this question is not mine, but something my boss brought up this morning — it’s the thing that got me started on all of this.)
If a Christian were to venture into the most secluded part of the jungle, where no person had ever set foot before, would she be bringing God there? Or would God be waiting for her to arrive?Now… (And this is especially for those missionary-minded folks who say that they believe this age-old theology.)
Where is God?
Posted at 3:06 pm
Trackbacks (1):Seeking God
Tim Samoff asks, Where is God? It’s a good question…
Sent on August 24, 2005 at 1:05 pm , via connexions
Trackback Link:
Please enable javascript to generate a trackback url
Comments (38):
I think the answer to the bosses question is both at the same time. It seems possible to me that both are accurate and neither one is mutually-exclusive to the other.
DH () - August 24, 2005 at 08:24 am
Unlike the sound thing example, the boss question doesn’t contradict each other because God is beyond our three diminsions. Anytime you place something that is infinite diminsions into something only three diminsion you get these sort of things.
dh () - August 24, 2005 at 08:29 am
As with everything in life, there is a balance — to me, this is understood. But, that’s not what I’m trying to get at. What I am positing is that there may be flaws in our theology that can be refuted by looking at scripture in a different way. I don’t mean to discount your statements — which are valid — but your “balance” answer seems to be common in most of the theological questions I bring up here.
timsamoff () (URL) - August 24, 2005 at 08:33 am
I guess I don’t see this as a flaw. For us to say both IS accurate and consistent with God’s infinite as compared to our finite.
DH () - August 24, 2005 at 08:51 am
I would say that God’s omnipresence could be convincingly argued from Scripture, but like many things it must be accepted on faith. As DH mentions, God exists outside of space/time. Our description of him as “omnipresent” is probably just a label we’ve created to make something incomprehensible a little more real.
Todd () (URL) - August 24, 2005 at 12:47 pm
Good point, Todd… My argument would be that since humanity exists within space and time then our experience of God must also exist within space and time. Therefore, God, to humanity, exists within space and time. Does that make sense? Anyway, if this is true, then God’s omnipresence may not be what we think it is. Or, it may be exactly that, I don’t know. The truth is definitely that we probably can’t understand it. The possibility is that how we think we understand it is completely wrong.
timsamoff () (URL) - August 24, 2005 at 12:58 pm
I agree that we don’t understand it fully. However, I don’t think we are completely wrong. My own opinion is God exists BOTH in our time and outside of our time. With God being Omnipresent we can’t fully understand how He is both at the same time but with God this is possible. Like the Bible says “We know in part but we will know fully when we see Him as He is.”
dh () - August 24, 2005 at 1:19 pm
Maybe I need to rephrase my “both” thing. but this site gave some insight that is helping me in something we will never understand fully. I hope you enjoy this guys. Tim and Todd you guys also helped as well but this site put into words some things.
http://www.pcea.asn.au/omnipres.html
http://www.pcea.asn.au/omnipres.html
dh () - August 24, 2005 at 1:48 pm
I love this topic. For me, I am quick (perhaps too quick?) to answer that God is already there.
NT Wright points out the following from Isaiah 11:9: “The earth is filled with the glory of God as waters cover the sea.” He goes on to point out that any theology that isn’t able to account for God being present in all creation (which isn’t the same as being a part of creation, I think) is dangerously close to dualism. I am inclinced to agree.
NT Wright points out the following from Isaiah 11:9: “The earth is filled with the glory of God as waters cover the sea.” He goes on to point out that any theology that isn’t able to account for God being present in all creation (which isn’t the same as being a part of creation, I think) is dangerously close to dualism. I am inclinced to agree.
john () (URL) - August 24, 2005 at 4:26 pm
A friend of mine in the blogosphere has a deck on his site that reads, “If God created us in his image, then we have certainly repaid the compliment.” Among the many ways this statement can be read, it’s true in that our understanding of God has to fit into our own intellectual limitations. If the idea of ubiquity helps support our understanding of His awesome power, then so be it.
I also have a friend from back in the day who liked to say, “There are some things God can’t do. For example, He can’t create a stone so heavy that he can’t lift it.” By that rationale, it’s conceivable that there are places He can’t be; say, in the heart of someone who hasn’t invited Him in (to choose the most obvious example).
Perhaps accepting or considering God’s limitations, such as they are, is another step toward putting Him in a human context that we, with our own myriad limitations, can more easily wrap our heads around. (Of course, He got the ball rolling for us when He put Jesus in a human context.)
I also have a friend from back in the day who liked to say, “There are some things God can’t do. For example, He can’t create a stone so heavy that he can’t lift it.” By that rationale, it’s conceivable that there are places He can’t be; say, in the heart of someone who hasn’t invited Him in (to choose the most obvious example).
Perhaps accepting or considering God’s limitations, such as they are, is another step toward putting Him in a human context that we, with our own myriad limitations, can more easily wrap our heads around. (Of course, He got the ball rolling for us when He put Jesus in a human context.)
Shepcat () (URL) - August 24, 2005 at 4:44 pm
I find it interesting that the Old Testament sometimes speaks of people (Jonah, e.g.) going out from the presence of the Lord, as if the Hebrews considered the divine presence localized in their land.
steveJ () (URL) - August 24, 2005 at 7:39 pm
I believe that the “out from the presence” in this case means leaving the place of abiding in God’s will. I don’t believe it is talking about going to a place where God isn’t.
DH () - August 25, 2005 at 08:25 am
Thanks for stopping by, Steve!
Ok, so I’d probably agree with DH here, but then how would Matthew 18:20 be explained? (I’ve always liked to think that God/Jesus/The Spirit) was present with me even if I was alone, but maybe that’s not the case?)
Shep ~ If I am understanding you correctly in that we should rest assured in our lack of understanding of God… Yeah, deep down I probably agree. It’s quite a curse to have been crteated with such inquisitive, philosophical minds, then isn’t it?
Ok, so I’d probably agree with DH here, but then how would Matthew 18:20 be explained? (I’ve always liked to think that God/Jesus/The Spirit) was present with me even if I was alone, but maybe that’s not the case?)
Shep ~ If I am understanding you correctly in that we should rest assured in our lack of understanding of God… Yeah, deep down I probably agree. It’s quite a curse to have been crteated with such inquisitive, philosophical minds, then isn’t it?
timsamoff () (URL) - August 25, 2005 at 09:43 am
Just because God is with us when two or more are gathered together in his name, doesn’t mean he’s not with us when there are fewer than two. There are plenty of instances in Scripture when individuals have encountered God.
Todd () (URL) - August 25, 2005 at 09:48 am
And one more thing, Tim. It’s not such a bad thing to not know everything about God or anything else for that matter. Isn’t that what makes feminine mystique so alluring—the idea that there’s more there to discover?
Todd () (URL) - August 25, 2005 at 09:52 am
Yes, I agree about being able to encounter God alone (I’m sure I have myself). But, does that mean God comes to us? Does that mean we enter into His presence? Does that mean that a “doorway” is opened into His infiniteness?
Just more questions that can’t be answered.
And about not being able to understand God fully… Yeah, I want to make clear that I appreciate this and think it’s crucial to our faith. I just know that the Bible can tell us things that give us a glimpse of God — and give us instances to decipher meaning in our lives. (And this just happened to be one of them.)
More importantly, though, a question arises… If our theology says that God is everywhere (and, yes, I know that He is everywhere on some dimensional level that we will never understand), and that’s what we choose to believe about God… Does God want us to live our lives thinking He is everywhere (always available in every circumstance) or would He rather us live our lives believing that we must enter into His presence in a more…liturgical manner? (E.g., the priest entering into the Holy of Holies.)
Just more questions that can’t be answered.
And about not being able to understand God fully… Yeah, I want to make clear that I appreciate this and think it’s crucial to our faith. I just know that the Bible can tell us things that give us a glimpse of God — and give us instances to decipher meaning in our lives. (And this just happened to be one of them.)
More importantly, though, a question arises… If our theology says that God is everywhere (and, yes, I know that He is everywhere on some dimensional level that we will never understand), and that’s what we choose to believe about God… Does God want us to live our lives thinking He is everywhere (always available in every circumstance) or would He rather us live our lives believing that we must enter into His presence in a more…liturgical manner? (E.g., the priest entering into the Holy of Holies.)
timsamoff () (URL) - August 25, 2005 at 10:04 am
Good point, Todd. I kind of think that Christ was referring this in the same context as Paul says “forsake not the assembly of ourselves together”. The focus that I think Christ is making is for us as Believers to come together and that He will be particularly there. Tim for me I take great comfort in what God has revealed to us however limited it may be: “but we know in part but we will know fully when we see Him as He is.” Tim, I hope this encourages you. :) Along Shepcats thoughts, it seems that God’s Holiness also doesn’t take anything away from His Omnipotence.
DH () - August 25, 2005 at 10:22 am
Well, I never felt unencouraged by this subject.
But, this sort of makes me feel uneasy:
> The focus that I think Christ
> is making is for us as
> Believers to come together
> and that He will be
> particularly there.
What do you mean by “particularly there”? That He’s not “particularly there” if we’re not assembled?
Sorry, I just need some clarification.
But, this sort of makes me feel uneasy:
> The focus that I think Christ
> is making is for us as
> Believers to come together
> and that He will be
> particularly there.
What do you mean by “particularly there”? That He’s not “particularly there” if we’re not assembled?
Sorry, I just need some clarification.
timsamoff () (URL) - August 25, 2005 at 10:33 am
I still then go back to us coming to God and God coming to us both. That is not say it it “balanced’ but maybe actually He wants us live like both of these combined? Hense, the passages that refer to both situations? I personally don’t see any contradiction in that.
dh () - August 25, 2005 at 10:35 am
I was brainstorming into the possiblity of it meaning level of His presence. That it is particularly stronger when we are “assembled” as opposed to on our own. Not that He isn’t there when we aren’t assembled but that His presence is stronger when we assemble in His name. I’m brainstroming here and Tim your previous post gave me some great help. :)
dh () - August 25, 2005 at 10:42 am
Clearly (to us Christians anyway), Jesus is God. And, if God is everywhere, then Jesus must be everywhere too, right?
I believe Ephesians 4:10 makes it clear that Jesus is omnipresent.
I believe Ephesians 4:10 makes it clear that Jesus is omnipresent.
Paulo () (URL) - September 06, 2005 at 9:35 pm
That is a good verse, Paulo… How do you think it fits with Matthew 18:20?
And, while I’m back on this subject for a second… Doug, are you really saying that God limits His presence where believers are not gathered? If so, does that mean that God’s power is ineffectual where Christians do not exist? (Don’t worry, I’m just brainstorming here too.)
And, while I’m back on this subject for a second… Doug, are you really saying that God limits His presence where believers are not gathered? If so, does that mean that God’s power is ineffectual where Christians do not exist? (Don’t worry, I’m just brainstorming here too.)
timsamoff () (URL) - September 07, 2005 at 09:12 am
more like brainfarting, you guys.
Just kidding.
I’m not claiming definitive, absolute interpretation here but i’m wondering if perhaps its referring more to say a type of strength in numbers (S.I.N.?!)if you will. I’d like to read that whole passage again before any final decisions. but my two cents.
Just kidding.
I’m not claiming definitive, absolute interpretation here but i’m wondering if perhaps its referring more to say a type of strength in numbers (S.I.N.?!)if you will. I’d like to read that whole passage again before any final decisions. but my two cents.
dennisthemenace () - September 07, 2005 at 10:17 am
S.I.N. That’s funny. 
Speaking of interpretation, I’m wondering if we don’t “use” Matthew 18:20 correctly anyway… What I mean is that, in context, it is stated at the end of the “Brother who sins against you” passage, concerning having two or three witnesses.
Maybe that verse doesn’t have anything to do with omnipresence anyway!
Ephesians 4:10 may take a little more thought.
Speaking of interpretation, I’m wondering if we don’t “use” Matthew 18:20 correctly anyway… What I mean is that, in context, it is stated at the end of the “Brother who sins against you” passage, concerning having two or three witnesses.
Maybe that verse doesn’t have anything to do with omnipresence anyway!
Ephesians 4:10 may take a little more thought.
timsamoff () (URL) - September 07, 2005 at 10:27 am
very true… its quite possible but since i don’t have my Bible here, i won’d make any committed thoughts.
dennisthemenace () - September 07, 2005 at 12:34 pm
Dennis: http://www.biblegateway.com
timsamoff () (URL) - September 07, 2005 at 12:47 pm
I wouldn’t use the the term ineffectual. If you reread this “Not that He isn’t there when we aren’t assembled but that His presence is stronger when we assemble in His name.” This statement had no connection to “ineffectual”. If you get my drift. ;) Remember as part of infinity any part of infinity is infinity. Dennis, I like the S.I.N. thing. I guess that, in a very, very slightly different way, was meaning that. Thanks Dennis. The Ephes. passage in its context before and after was referring to the Body of Christ and the “all” mentioned after the passage is referring to “all Believers” for proper context. On a like note, I love the passage where it says, referring to those in the Faith, “We know in part but we will know fully when we see Him as He is.” I guess, due to legth, here is my dime’s worth. :) You guys are great. :)
dh () - September 07, 2005 at 1:12 pm
also, now that i’ve thought about it… quite possibly a warning. Regarding false testimony against your neighbor or not being active in witnessing injustice. He is reminding them (and us) that just as we keep those accountable, He is also keeping accountable those not doing their duty to civl law. You think?
dennisthemenace () - September 07, 2005 at 3:43 pm
It all goes back to describing something beyond our three diminsions into a three diminsional thing. Omnipotence, omnipresence, etc are infnite and this aspect of the infinite God cannot be described three diminsionally except on an anthropromorphical basis.
dh () - September 07, 2005 at 4:03 pm
So, Dennis… If we are to take that passage as a warning — or, at least, something that applies to the communication/rebuking process between believers, then we are probably erring when we pray, “As you say, when two or more of us are gathered, blah blah blah…” Maybe this declaration that Jesus makes refers more to the process of accountability than his hearing our prayers.
As far as multi-dimensionality goes… Sure, that’s probably part of it. But, there must be a reason that God is described as being location-based so many times — many more than His being described as omnipresent (a word that’s not in the bible, by the way).
And, why couldn’t God’s anthropomorphic attributes be described multidimensionally? If God is infinite, then so is everything about Him (if we are to take the word “infinite” literally, which I assume you’d opt to do concerning God) — especially considering the fact that God became human.
As far as multi-dimensionality goes… Sure, that’s probably part of it. But, there must be a reason that God is described as being location-based so many times — many more than His being described as omnipresent (a word that’s not in the bible, by the way).
And, why couldn’t God’s anthropomorphic attributes be described multidimensionally? If God is infinite, then so is everything about Him (if we are to take the word “infinite” literally, which I assume you’d opt to do concerning God) — especially considering the fact that God became human.
timsamoff () (URL) - September 07, 2005 at 4:23 pm
hmm… well, i’m just thinking out loud like the rest of you, but i dont see why two are exclusive from one another. I dont mean to get Universalist on you, “it means whatever you think it means, man…” I mean, He certainly doesn’t hear my prayer any MORE when i’m say praying with you than when i’m alone… And DH is absolutely right in my opinion about the necessity for anthropomorphic descriptions so that we can have some understanding though not all. Some attributes like say Love or justice are not as difficult to comprehend as say Omnipotence… And “trinity” isn’t in the Bible either but its our way of understanding God to some degree but obviously not all. I don’t have an answer (yet) for your last question. Anyhow, i’m gonna think about this more.
dennisthemenace () - September 07, 2005 at 4:55 pm
Those particular “words” are not in the Bible but the specific definitions thereof of those words are. On that last one, I guess we all believe in God’s omnipotence and the word while not in the Bible the definition thereof is.
DH () - September 08, 2005 at 08:16 am
I agree with Dennis. We miss the point if we focus on a particular word not in the Bible when the definition of that word is and is clearly stated.
dh () - September 08, 2005 at 08:19 am
I don’t think I was focusing on the “word not in the bible” issue at all — just pointing it out. In fact, that issue takes up one sentence (in parentheses) at the end of a bunch of other issues that I think are much more important.
Likewise, maybe I misunderstood Doug when he said, “...God cannot be described three diminsionally except on an anthropomorphical basis.” I took that to mean that we shouldn’t try to describe God’s anthropomorphic attributes multi-dimensially, but I see now that I was wrong. What I was trying to say is that even God’s anthropomorphic attributes can be looked at as multi-dimensional.
ANYway… Yeah, I’d agree with you, Dennis, that this subject could definitely be looked at as all-inclusive (meaning that both sides might be correct in some way or another). And I don’t think that is being universalist at all (we’re not talking about salvation here afterall — God forbid!).
Still, if we continue to pray that God be present (more) when believers are gathered, could that be considered as praying wrong? If God is everywhere, all the time, then shouldn’t we just be praying that His “power be shown” or that we “feel His spirit” — or something? (I’m just brainstorming here.) Could praying for something that is not theologically “correct” be considered blasphemous? (Probably not, but I hope you see my point.)
Likewise, maybe I misunderstood Doug when he said, “...God cannot be described three diminsionally except on an anthropomorphical basis.” I took that to mean that we shouldn’t try to describe God’s anthropomorphic attributes multi-dimensially, but I see now that I was wrong. What I was trying to say is that even God’s anthropomorphic attributes can be looked at as multi-dimensional.
ANYway… Yeah, I’d agree with you, Dennis, that this subject could definitely be looked at as all-inclusive (meaning that both sides might be correct in some way or another). And I don’t think that is being universalist at all (we’re not talking about salvation here afterall — God forbid!).
Still, if we continue to pray that God be present (more) when believers are gathered, could that be considered as praying wrong? If God is everywhere, all the time, then shouldn’t we just be praying that His “power be shown” or that we “feel His spirit” — or something? (I’m just brainstorming here.) Could praying for something that is not theologically “correct” be considered blasphemous? (Probably not, but I hope you see my point.)
timsamoff () (URL) - September 08, 2005 at 08:40 am
I guess I don’t think it is theologically incorrect because God does reveals Himself individually. Does that take away His omnipotnece? No When I pray to “feel His Spirit” or for “His power to be shown” I have an understood “greater measure” with an “omnipotent” understanding combined subconsciously. If that makes sense. :) It is all a matter of HOW God is within His omnipotence (Believer/non-believer, etc.).
I guess we kind of came together in that the anthropromorphic attiributes explain individual attributes within the multidiminsionality of God. (be advised this term is the closest I could find but the Greeks used anthropromorphisms as well, it appears you guys understood me so thanks is in order) :)
I guess we kind of came together in that the anthropromorphic attiributes explain individual attributes within the multidiminsionality of God. (be advised this term is the closest I could find but the Greeks used anthropromorphisms as well, it appears you guys understood me so thanks is in order) :)
dh () - September 08, 2005 at 09:46 am
I found this quote today that I thought I’d share:
“I think that we have hardly thought through the immense implications of the mystery of the incarnation. Where is God? God is where we are weak, vulnerable, small, and dependent. God is where the poor are, the hungry, the handicapped, the mentally ill, the elderly, the powerless. How can we come to know God when our focus is elsewhere, on success, influence, and power? I increasingly believe that our faithfulness will depend on our willingness to go where there is brokenness, loneliness, and human need. If the church has a future it is a future with the poor in whatever form.”
~ Henri Nouwen
Nice!
Via Darryl Dash ( http://www.dashhouse.com/darryl/ ) who got it from Steve Wiseman ( http://youlivewhatyouvelearned.blogspot... ).
“I think that we have hardly thought through the immense implications of the mystery of the incarnation. Where is God? God is where we are weak, vulnerable, small, and dependent. God is where the poor are, the hungry, the handicapped, the mentally ill, the elderly, the powerless. How can we come to know God when our focus is elsewhere, on success, influence, and power? I increasingly believe that our faithfulness will depend on our willingness to go where there is brokenness, loneliness, and human need. If the church has a future it is a future with the poor in whatever form.”
~ Henri Nouwen
Nice!
Via Darryl Dash ( http://www.dashhouse.com/darryl/ ) who got it from Steve Wiseman ( http://youlivewhatyouvelearned.blogspot... ).
timsamoff () (URL) - October 20, 2005 at 1:15 pm
God is Jesus Christ who is in charge of this earth for God the Father who in busy elsewhere. Jesus is Omnipresence. It means there is no place He can not be there. It does not mean He can be at one place and another place at the same time. He can be reached from everywhere. He can send His influence to a person or more that enable the person to feel inspiration. It is a job for Holy Ghost to see that spiritual power be done.
Henry Johnson () - April 20, 2006 at 7:13 pm
send me your comment.
Commenting has been permanently disabled. Please use the Contact button above.Henry Johnson () - April 20, 2006 at 7:21 pm
