Christianity - An Alternative Outlook

[Khora]

First, before people jump to conclusions, I do not consider myself as a "Christian", and do not view myself as fitting into any particular religious denomination for that matter. Likewise I would not consider myself "an atheist", and would refrain from noting my beliefs as such. Consequently, I consider myself to be on the peripheral, for I have always felt that any form of applied label to the self would be a type of limitation rather than a catalyst to an understanding of faith.

However, despite looking favourably towards Christianity in general, I worry that mainstream belief has adopted a form of faith which has greatly diverged from the message of the New Testament pertaining to the role of religion and man. In particular, I have taken an interest in John Caputo's works on 'Weak Theology' which views the life and purpose of Jesus in a different tone to the usual omnipotent depiction of God. I suppose this topic is directed more towards Christians than any other group...but I believe there are elements which may aid the understanding of all people - theist, atheist,agnostic, you name it. Part One is displayed below. If I get a good response then I'll write some more regarding the subject!

PART ONE - God is Weak

Many have sought to portray or assume the notion of God as some omnipotent, omniscent being. A force which is proactive and retroactive, ready to introduce new laws, and ready to respond to the erroneous ways - actions and thoughts - of humanity with all the tools of punishment at his disposal. This conception of God very much matches the depiction of God in the Old Testament. He is not one for 'free will' and frequent intervenes when his creation does not meet his desired standards. It is an image of God which bares similarity to the harshness and belligerence of other early Gods. One only has to read Ovid's The Metamorphoses to see how the Greco-Roman Gods favoured revenge over forgiveness. Indeed, most Pagan Gods propensed towards a similar direction. Pictured above is a painting by William Blake of Urizen, an embodiement of reason and law, based upon the Old Testament God (Yahweh). For Blake, however, "reason and law" were vices rather than virtues, a sentiment conveyed in his Songs of Innocence and Experience. It would not be wrong to view the God of the Old Testament as tyrannical, for that is the nature of his character. This is, ultimately, the God of Reason - and he therefore strives for perfection by whatever means necessary. Yet one will notice the overwhelming preponderence of failure in the Old Testament. He floods the world, he issues plagues, he burns cities...The 'eye for an eye' approach ultimately fails, it only breeds more problems.

Contrast Blake's powerful image of Urizen with this image of Jesus below:


This is not a God of strength, but of weakness. The image of the cross has become so generalised in our culture that we often forget the perplexities of the event, and indeed, its influence on Christian faith. The symbol of the faith is the cross - a device of torture and death - one wouldn't expect to form a religion with a chainsaw or an electric chair, would they? Hence, patently this is not omnipotence, and indeed, Jesus' brief doubts on the cross symbolises something less than omniscence as well. Yet, this man/God stays there and endures pain despite his status and apparent potential. John Caputo describes this quaint yet fascinating situation well:

On the classical account of strong theology, Jesus was just holding back his divine power in order to let his human nature suffer. He freely chose to check his power because the Father had a plan to redeem the world with his blood. That is not the weakness of God that I am here defending. God, the event harbored by the name of God, is present at the crucifixion, as the power of the powerlessness of Jesus, in and as the protest against the injustice that rises up from the cross, in and as the words of forgiveness, not a deferred power that will be visited upon one’s enemies at a later time. God is in attendance as the weak force of the call that cries out from Calvary and calls across the epochs, that cries out from every corpse created by every cruel and unjust power. The logos of the cross is a call to renounce violence, not to conceal and defer it and then, in a stunning act that takes the enemy by surprise, to lay them low with real power, which shows the enemy who really has the power. That is just what Nietzsche was criticizing under the name of ressentiment.

The cross, therefore, serves as a reminder, not of the presence of God but of the presence of man. It refers to man's potential to commit atrocities, man's potential to abuse power and man's potential to narcissistically look inwards rather than appreciating the true wholeness and unity of life.

Moreover, Christ's Resurrection is not as omnipotent as some would perceive it to be. Yes, there is clearly a miracle taking place, but it only serves as a reminder and ergo an accentuation of the acts which the Romans committed. Jesus' wounds remain in his hands and side, again displaying man's violence as opposed to that of God.

The difference between the paganistic God of the Old Testament and the compassionate God of the New Testament may seem to some, irreconcilable. How could a demiurge of such ferocity and violence change to one of meekness and forgiveness? Yet, is this not more evidence for the weakness of God? Is not God's change in approach conveying an expression of guilt of past actions? A sense of wrongdoing? A God, after all, does not have to be infallible - and perhaps that is what makes Jesus such a defining figure in history. We are almost unsure whether to classify him as a human or a deity, for the latter is not something we associate with weakness?

Weakness, however, has more than an effect on God, it also has effect on the way which we view life. A breakdown of authority represents a new sense of cultural independence - a collective freedom to undertake our own desires and interests? Jesus died to save us from our sins. This action was not a dictat, it was almost a plee...One has to feel pity for him, pity for God.

Little Lamb, who made thee?
Dost thou know who made thee?
Gave thee life, and bid thee feed,
By the stream and o'er the mead;
Gave thee clothing of delight,
Softest clothing, woolly, bright;
Gave thee such a tender voice,
Making all the vales rejoice?
Little Lamb, who made thee?
Dost thou know who made thee?

Little Lamb, I'll tell thee,
Little Lamb, I'll tell thee.
He is called by thy name,
For He calls Himself a Lamb.
He is meek, and He is mild;
He became a little child.
I a child, and thou a lamb,
We are called by His name.
Little Lamb, God bless thee!
Little Lamb, God bless thee!

[basics]

" The symbol of the faith is the cross - a device of torture and death....."

Khora,

I look to what was on the cross more than the cross itself because it is not the implement of my faith nor can faith come by it. If one cannot see the broken body and feel guilt even though saved I would think the cross is indeed the only object of their faith which in reality is not faith but feelings.

I was saved by the faith of Jesus Christ which, as it is revealed to the about-to-be-saved, is upon them, and, the-will-be-saved, it is unto them when their appointed time comes. That faith is then passed on from faith to faith, that is Jesus Christ to the recipient so that they too benefit from all that is Christ's.

The cross was indeed a vicious device but there was worse. Nonetheless what it envisages to me is the longitude of the suffering it inflicted. This runs parallel with the suffering of sinners in that being condemned they can never break the cycle unless a Saviour is found. They are bound in sin even unto death unless someone pays their dues for that sin.

I think this is lost in many religions especially those that follow a cross and who may never know the Saviour nor Him them. Why, because they follow a symbol that in itself has no value whereas the broken body has much value and is the source of forgiveness for a life of sin. A cross never saved anyone. The broken body certainly did and that is the difference between having faith or having none.

[.K.]

If God is weak, how is he different from humans and the natural world? What's supernatural about God? The way I see it, everyone has a sort of power or force to manipulate the world around them, trying to make it work in their favor. They are generally weak relative to the contrary forces around them (the forces of both nature and of other people). If God is weak, what makes God "God"?

Also, if God doesn't have omnipotent control over the universe, why is religion monotheistic? Isn't a monotheistic God, really, just a representation of a sort of common vein that runs through (though doesn't fully compromise) everything in existence? Once again, wouldn't saying God is "weak" take away the whole entity of God?

[MehemtAli_Pasha]

I have taken an interest in John Caputo's works on 'Weak Theology' which views the life and purpose of Jesus in a different tone to the usual omnipotent depiction of God. I suppose this topic is directed more towards Christians than any other group...but I believe there are elements which may aid the understanding of all people - theist, atheist,agnostic, you name it. Part One is displayed below. If I get a good response then I'll write some more regarding the subject!

it all goes back to the divinity of Jesus. it seems like John Caputo
s is askin why the change of God's behavior. first he cursed people who spoke against his name, and in NT he realized that he would sacrifice his only "son" for their sins. not to mention that he forsoke his beloved man on earth suffer on the cross.

[Zenith Darksea]

This is quite an interesting line of thinking, actually. Being an Orthodox Christian I naturally subscribe to the omnipotent view of God, but you raise some good points. What I would say is that I'm not really sure what you mean by 'weakness'.

Imagine that you were deeply in love with someone. Perhaps you are. You loved them so much, in fact, that you put their safety before your own and ended up having to die in order to save their life (this is not an analogy with Christ on the cross; think of it more in terms of Admetus and Alcestis from Greek myth). Is this love a weakness then, since it ends in your demise? Or is it in fact a strength, since it has such a good result for someone else and sets a positive example of noble self-sacrifice?

The key thing to remember about the Christian God is that God is love, and God loves mankind immensely. In fact, God loves mankind so much that God allows the individual to choose their own path in life and to choose whether or not to love God in return. God could, in theory, simply force everyone to 'be good'. God could just make us all 'be saved', and then there would have been no need for the resurrection or anything like that. But God's goodwill is so great that He chose to set His omnipotence aside and chose to undergo crucifixion and resurrection in order to allow mankind to choose its own fate. If you look, you will see a huge amount of choice in the story of Jesus' life. Even at the very start of the Gospel story, the angel does not command Mary to be the Mother of God; in fact, the angel invites her to be the Mother of God, but it is left to Mary to actually agree to it.

Is it weakness to deliberately put one's own strength aside for the greater good? I think it all depends on our opinion. My own view is that it is not weakness.