From where does our Sense of the Divine come?

The Bible generally describes the Judeo-Christian God as tangible essence existing somewhere in space and time as part of our universe—essentially an entity of the world.  The modern Christian church perpetuates that concept of God in its hymns, sermons, liturgy, prayers, etc.  In the most ethical biblical concepts of God, however, God is far less like we are—that is, like another inhabitant of our physical universe, only more powerful. There are at least two concepts of God in the Bible that mostly bypass the general view: in 1Kings 19:12 God is conceived as "a still small voice"; and in John 4:24 God is described as "spirit."

 

               Spirit may still be tangible, however; depending on how it is conceived.  If spirit is conceived as an entity that takes up space, like visible steam from a tea kettle, or the nearly invisible vapor arising from a heated substance, or the taste left in the rum cake when the "spirits" have evaporated, then it is tangible. If spirit is not left-over taste, or vaporous mist—or something barely visible to the naked eye; that is, if spirit does not leave an image on the retina of the eye, what is it?

 

               I would suppose that God, as intangible spirit, is likely a denizen of a parallel spirit(ual) universe, a complex that does not occupy space and time. In this case, God is not a part of the physical universe, but "over there" in the spirit(ual) universe, along with other invisible spirits (good, evil, and unclean), demons, devils, Satan, and other spiritual forces, such as angels, the Prince of the Power of the Air (Ephesians 2:2), the Principalities and Powers in heavenly places (Eph 3:10), the world rulers of the present darkness (Eph 6:12), the spiritual hosts of wickedness in heavenly places (Eph 6:12), angels, principalities, powers (Romans 8:38), etc.

 

               I prefer the description in 1Kings 19:12.  This description rejects the dramatic physical manifestations of God, such as wind, seismic convulsions, and fire (1 Kings 19:9-13).  God is conceived, for good or ill, as no more or less than a particular sense or awareness of a divine small voice, whether in the mind or vibrating on the ear drum is unclear.  It is once stated that Elijah "heard" the voice (19:13), but people "hear" voices and even carry on conversations—in the mind, in dreams, in "visions" without the voices resonating on the ear drum.  Twice the voice is not "heard," but simply "there" (19:12), "and a voice came to him" (19:13)—that is to say, "an awareness" of a voice.  Being sensed, the Divine is always incomplete and imperfect; it does not exist over apart from us, but perhaps arises from within us.

 

               We all sense the Divine differently—whether it is a divine righteousness that must be appeased (sensed by Paul), or a divine emptiness (sensed by Ecclesiastes), or a divine legalism (sensed by "Moses"), or a divine capriciousness (sensed by Job), or the sense of the sacredness of all life (sensed by Albert Schweitzer).  In sensing and experiencing the Divine, we do not have the same sense or experience. Consider the sense of the Divine projected in the mystical Orthodox tradition or the philosophical Roman Catholic tradition, or the charismatic Assemblies of God tradition, or the emotional fundamentalist Baptist tradition.  The difference of religious experience is most marked when the various international religions of the world are considered; Buddhist, Shinto, Hindu, Taoism, and Islamic traditions provide striking testimony as to how diverse religious experiences can be.

 

               Whence have come those fleeting impulses that have led out in such startlingly different religious experiences?  Are they "sent" to us from "out there"?  That is, have they come from that parallel invisible universe of the Spirit and not from within us?  There is no critical answer to this question. All the evidence is anecdotal and testimonial.  It consists only of the experiences claimed by those who believe in and attest to the parallel universe.  There is nothing to analyze except their confessions and anecdotal experiences—not even a fleeting image on the eye's retina.

 

               Is it possible that our various senses of the Divine arise from within each of us? That is, the impulses come not from "out there" but from somewhere in the cortex of the human brain, or they are built into our DNA.  If that is the case, some of us would seem to be hard-wired either to receive Divine impulses or more probably to create a sense of the Divine.

 

               In the final analysis, the question of whence originates the sense of the Divine is unanswerable, but then the answer may not matter at all.  In the long run, human beings are better for having sensed the Divine—however imperfectly so.  The difficulty lies in vetting what people claim to experience as the Divine; I recall that Paul thought Satan could "disguise himself as an angel of light" (2 Corinthians 11:13-15).  The warning is inevitable: be wary of those who claim to have a definitive knowledge of the Divine.

 

Charles W. Hedrick

Professor Emeritus

Missouri State University

Can the Church Grant Absolution for Sins?

To be absolved means to be "set free from the consequences of guilt."  And yes, some churches do claim to be able to absolve people of their sins. In the Episcopal Church, for example, a penitent may confess their sins to God in the presence of a priest or bishop and receive from them the assurance of pardon and the grace of absolution. Upon their confession the priest then pronounces this absolution:

 

Our Lord Jesus Christ, who has left power to his Church to

absolve all sinners who truly repent and believe in him, of

his great mercy forgive you all your offenses; and by his

authority committed to me, I absolve you from all your sins:

In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy

Spirit. Amen. [Episcopal Book of Common Prayer, page 447].

 

            The rationale behind this Episcopal Church tradition (also found in the Roman Catholic, Anglican, Orthodox, and Lutheran traditions) is that Jesus forgave sins (Matt 9:1-8; Mark 2:1-12; Luke 5:17-26; 7:36-50), and passed on to Peter the authority to "bind and loose" (Matt 16:18-19); and in the Gospel of John Jesus passes on to all his disciples the ability to forgive sins (John 20:19-23). The custom of the church granting absolution for sins does not appear to be known in the rest of the New Testament.  Ignatius does not seem to be aware of the practice of ecclesial absolution for sin in the early second century (but compare his Letter to the Philadelphians 8.1).  The Shepherd of Hermas (100-150), however, disagreed with those who believed that if anyone sinned after baptism there was no opportunity for repentance (compare Hebrews 6:1-6, where forgiveness is not possible after apostasy).  The Shepherd asserted that there was opportunity for the church to repent (Shepherd, visions 2.2-3; mandates 4.1-4, 12.3-6; similitudes 8.11,1-5)   In the third century those about to undergo martyrdom or who underwent torture or imprisonment were deemed to be able to absolve those who had committed the sins of adultery and fornication. A shocked Tertullian (died after 220) reported (Modesty, 1 and 22) that a certain Bishop Kallistos (who himself had experienced torture and imprisonment) issued an edict saying that "I remit to such as have discharged repentance the sins of both adultery and fornication."  Such is the evidence for absolution in the earliest period. After the late second century the custom became institutionalized in the later church for sins in general.

            It seems to me that the church practice of absolving people of their sins is a usurpation of God's prerogative on the assumption that the authority Jesus is believed to have had and extended to his disciples falls by default to the institutional Christian church.  That is to say: someone had to pronounce absolution for sins, and who better to do it than the church?

            Those who take upon themselves the pronouncement of absolution for the sins others commit may believe they have the authority to do so by virtue of church custom and their ordination, but in my view they are deceiving themselves about the limits of their ability.  The Scribes asked the correct question: "who can forgive sins but God alone?" (Mark 2:7).

            In the context of religious faith only God has the authority to pronounce absolution for sins.  Even though God doesn't speak audibly anymore, those who have sinned must still by themselves seek absolution from God.  In the context of human life absolution for sins (i.e., injuries, ills, harms, etc. done to others) must also be sought from those they have injured—in the case of the recent murders in Mother Emanuel Church in Atlanta forgiveness was extended to the murderer by the injured families without any repentance on his part.  Forgiveness was theirs to give, or not.

            If the statements in the previous paragraph are correct, it would appear that the priestly pronouncement of absolution is like the counsel of Eliphaz, the Temnite, to Job—just so many "windy words" (Job 16:2)—vaporous words, full of well meaning intent perhaps, but signifying little.  Absolution for sins must be sought in two venues: 1. a person must stand, nakedly remorseful, before the injured party in person and humbly petition for absolution; and 2. during a personal dark night of the soul penitents must make their own peace with God. The Church may assist the penitent seeking absolution, but it seems an arrogance of the first order to assume it can grant absolution, or even assure the penitent that absolution has been granted.  A third party has no standing in this situation.  God cannot be "bound or loosed" by church tradition (compare Exodus 33:19; Romans 9:15).  Believing oneself capable of committing the God of the universe to anything on one's personal say-so seems very much like thinking one can bridle a giant fire-eating dragon: it is the stuff of romantic fiction and mythology.

            What are your thoughts?

 

Charles W. Hedrick

Professor Emeritus

Missouri State University