Tell me your image of God, and I will tell you your theology.
Marcus Borg, The God We Never Knew
How much does our concept of God matter? According to my theology celeb crush Marcus Borg, it matters a lot:
“[O]ur concept of God can make God seem credible or incredible, plausible or highly improbable. It can also make God seem distant or near, absent or present. How we conceptualize God also affects our sense of what the Christian life is about. Is the Christian life centrally about believing, or is it about a relationship? Is it about believing in God as a supernatural being separate from the universe or about a relationship to the Spirit who is right here and all around us? Is it about believing in a God ‘out there’ or about a relationship with a God who is right here?”
As the quote suggests, Borg’s book The God We Never Knew focuses on two distinct concepts of God–both of which are supported in scripture and theology, but one of which has come to dominate (to the detriment of Christianity, in Borg’s view).
The first view conceptualizes God as “a supernatural being ‘out there,’ separate from the world, who created the world a long time ago and who may from time to time intervene within it.” He calls this view “supernatural theism” and it is what a majority of both believers and non-believers think of when they think about God.
The second view, by contrast, conceptualizes God as “the encompassing spirit; we (and everything that is) are in God. For this concept, God is not a supernatural being separate from the universe; rather, God (the sacred, Spirit) is a nonmaterial layer or level or dimension of reality all around us.” This means that God is not “somewhere else” but is “right here,” and Borg labels this concept “panentheism” (which is not the same as pantheism).
Borg spends the rest of the book describing the theological basis of (and problems resulting from) “supernatural theism” and the theological basis of (and benefits of) “panentheism.” He highlights a general problem with supernatural theism (and corresponding advantage of panentheism) as well as a specific problem in the way we conceptualize God as “King.”
Out-There vs. Right-Here God
First, when it comes to God as “out there” versus “in here” more generally, Borg argues that panentheism “offers the most adequate way of thinking about the sacred; in this concept, the sacred is ‘right here’ as well as ‘the beyond’ that encompasses everything. This way of thinking about God … is not only faithful to the biblical and Christian tradition but also makes the most sense of our experience. For there is much in our experience—of nature, human love, mystery, wonder, amazement–that conveys the reality of the sacred, a surpassingly great ‘more’ that we know in exceptional moments. Many of us experience life as permeated and surrounded by a gracious mystery, a surplus of being that transcends understanding, and when we come to know that mystery as God, our faith becomes full of meaning and vitality.”
By contrast, supernatural theism “has become an obstacle for many. It can make the reality of God seem doubtful, and it can make God seem very far away.” For Borg, at least, panentheism “resolved the central religious and intellectual problem of [his early Christian experience]” and “made it possible for [him] to be Christian again.”
Monarchical vs. Relational God
Second, Borg addresses a more concrete problem with the way that we imagine the supernatural out-there God. While there are many metaphors used for God in scripture and theology, many “cluster together images of God as king, lord, and father.” When an out-there God is analogized to earthly kings, lords, and fathers, this imposes several potentially-problematic characteristics onto God:
- Because an earthly king is male, God is male. This inhibits our ability to see the divinity in women (and nonbinary folks), tends to associate maculine qualities with godliness and feminine qualities with not-godliness, and reinforces a patriarchy that has been harmful to many throughout history.
- Because an earthly king is powerful, God is also power–and actually, all-powerful or omnipotent. This raises the question of why an omnipotent God would decline to intervene to prevent human suffering, and it suggests that God has given us the right to dominate the environment in unhealthy ways.
- Because an earthly king is a lawgiver and a judge, so too is God. This sets up a God who makes demands for us and punishes us if we cannot meet those demands. Our well-being in the world and eternal destiny depends on our observance of God’s law. This leads to a view of the atonement as punitive and substitionary rather than as reconciliatory and healing.
- Because an earthly king is distant, the image of God as king suggests distance. We, in relationship to God, are peasants–not much. It also suggests and reinforces the validity of earthly hierarchies and even oppression.
Borg identifies three overarching problems with this monarchical model, with its emphasis on “legal metaphors and legal logic to image the relationship between humans and the divine” poses for the Christian life.
First, it makes sin and guilt central–because the model focuses on our need to, and falling short of, obeying God’s laws. This distorts and impoverishes other key Christian teachings.
Second, it “easily confuses God with the superego and the Christ life with life under the superego.” The superego is “the storehouse of oughts and shoulds within us, the cumulative product of messages received in our socialization about what we should do and how we ought to live.” While these messages are often cultural and have nothing to do with God, we easily convince the voice of the superego for the voice of God.
And third, the monarchical model creates a dynamic where the Christian life is about “meeting requirements” or “measuring up.” Our eternal destiny depends on how well we perform–either by obeying God’s laws to begin with, or by believing the correct things and repenting when we don’t. We are perpetually on trial. This also suggests exclusivism, which in an increasingly pluralistic religious society simply does not make sense to many people anymore.
For many, this isn’t a pleasant view of God or Christianity. It is this model that so many who leave religion and God are leaving.
The alternative to the monarchical model of God is one that clusters images of God “that point to intimate relationship and belonging.” These images are not all anthropomorphic or gendered, so they tend to get sidelined when we adhere to a primarily monarchical model. They include God as the following metaphors:
- God as wind or breath (“ruach”), which suggests a oneness with God: our breath is God breathing us, and God is as near to us as our own breath.
- God as rock, fire, and light: something that gives us refuge, something that warms or protects us.
- God as mother, compassionate, womb-like: God is often compared to a hen gathering her chicks, or a nursing mother.
- God as intimate father (abba).
- God as wisdom (Sophia).
- God as lover, with marriage and sometimes even sexual imagery.
- God as journey companion, like the pillar of fire by day or the disciple on the road to Emmaus.
This model leads to a very different understanding of the Christian life than the monarchical model. It emphasizes the nearness of God rather than distance: “closeness, relationship, and connection.” The model also has an “affective dimension”–they do not simply “lead to a set of intellectual conclusions about God’s nearness and concern but also affect the feeling level of the psyche. Image God as lover, or as wind and breath, or as nurturing mother … How does this feel as an image of God, compared to imaging God as a distant king, lawgiver, and judge?”
Many Christian concepts look different under this model. Creation is not about something that happened in the past but something that is always happening. Our central problem as humans isn’t sin and guilty, but estrangement, “our blindness to the presence of God, our separation from the Spirit who is all around us and to which we belong.”
Sin is no longer about disloyalty to the king but about unfaithfulness to God (a lover metaphor) or a failure in compassion (a mother metaphor). Sin remains, but it is focused “not on sin as a violation of God’s laws but … as a betrayal of relationship and the absence of compassion.”
Judgment remains, but it is not primarily about eternal consequences and is instead focused on the way that we live our lives.
Salvation remains, but it is not about something that happens after we die–it is something that happens in the present in our relationship with God.
And even God as King and Lord remains, but look very different: God is splendid like a king and God is lord over life and death, but God is not a legitimator of dominance and oppression systems. Rather, God subverts systems of domination (because God and only God is the true king).
Borg summarizes the contrast beautifully:
“The images of God associated with the Spirit model are rich, and they dramatically affect how we think of the Christian life. Rather than God being a distant being with whom we might spend eternity, Spirit–the sacred–is right here. Rather than God being the lawgiver and judge whose requirements must be met and whose justice must be satisfied, God is the lover who yearns to be in relationship to us. Rather than sin and guilt being the central dynamic of the Christian life, the central dynamic becomes relationship–with God, the world, and each other. The Christian life is about turning toward and entering into relationship with the one who is already in relationship with us–with the one who gave us life, who has loved us from the beginning, and who loves us whether we know that or not, who journeys with us whether we know that or not.”
***
So, with that context, some questions for discussion:
- What is the primary image of God you grew up with? Is that what you still believe (if you believe in God)?
- If you don’t believe in God, would you consider yourself to have rejected the supernatural theism version of God? Would you likewise reject panentheism or would that be more appealing to you?
- What are some of the consequences, theological and practical, of believing in a supernatural “out there” God or monarchical God? What would be different about primarily imaging God as a “right here” God or relational God? How might either view impact one’s religious practices?
- Where do you see the out-there monarchical God imaged in LDS theology? Where do you see the right-here relationship God imaged in LDS theology? If you see both (personally I think both are there), which is primary? Or are there specific Church leaders that you think posit one over the other as primary? (Ok; I can’t even write that question without noting the rather obvious point that Nelson and Oaks are 100% monarchical God. Reading some of what Borg said about the monarchical God was basically like reading a Nelson talk. But still, answer as you please! If you have a counterpoint from Oaks or Nelson, change my mind!)
Wheat & Tares 
Oh, I like this. I finally have a word for what I believe, I mean something better than Christian pantheist. So, I am a panentheist . I believe in a God who is with us, all around us, in every rock, tree and river.
I object to the Mormon concept of God as a male with an exalted physical body. That is someone very much “out there”. Out there and unable to relate to me as a female with a human body. There are just so many things that men can’t relate to because they just don’t have the parts. All of the talk about how Christ understands because part of the atonement was going through our human suffering with us, well, it just doesn’t click, and it is the Savior, not Heavenly Father, so when I need real empathy for a very female problem, where do I turn? And then we have to make the Holy Ghost into a different kind of being, so that she/he can be with us all the time. Why not just have a God who can be with us all the time. Understand me as a female because she is in/with me as a female.
I have been very grieved by fellow religionists who want to use up and exploit our earth because they think God gave it to them to use as they see fit, as they want to exploit the earth for every penny they can wring out of it, with no thought that we collectively are making our only home uninhabitable. No, God is in our earth, and when we are polluting a river, we are polluting God. God is in each of us, so when we mistreat our fellow man, we mistreat God. In as much as ye have done it unto the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. But we are also brethren to animals. How can that scripture not apply to animals and rivers and air. They are lesser than we humans, they are the least of these. Christ didn’t say that only applies to other humans. Joseph Smith believed our earth has a soul and was baptized and will be resurrected, and be exalted. So, it is a living being with a soul.
I disagree with one premise in this otherwise excellent and profound post. Oaks and Nelson are not 100% monarchial God. Remember that Nelson noted that there in no atonement disconnected from Jesus. There are many other statements… But my beloved just shouted that I am needed at a family occasion… I will post more later.
Every 4 years we should God as a vengeful character since we study the OT every 4 years (is that still the case?). Then the other three years we can think about God as loving and compassionate.
“What is the primary image of God you grew up with? ”
When I heard “God” I always assumed “Heavenly Father,” a father who was easy to anger, emotionally distant, so best to keep a low profile (rather like my mortal father). What I took from all the lessons and talks at church was that there were lots of rules, and all of life was an unending test that will determine my eternal future. So I learned to become a good test taker and rule follower. And not get too invested in the “world,” which means I haven’t lived a lot of my life.
“Is that what you still believe?”
No, although there are lingering effects. After years of study, prayer, discussion, I came to realize LDS theology regarding God offers me a murky understanding. Even with set doctrine, I think we have each made our own image of God anyway. That’s how we try to make something incomprehensible comprehensible and relatable.
“What would be different about primarily imaging God as a “right here” God or relational God? ”
That’s what I’m doing now. And it is WAY better than the distant, grumpy God. I no longer spend my energy trying to ace the test. I have developed healthier relationships with others, am more truly compassionate (including with myself), and now am building an intimacy with the Divine.
Elisa – this is a delightful and much-welcomed essay and thought-provoker. Thank you for your effort in compiling and summarizing the teachings and conclusions of Marcus Borg in his 1997 opus.
@Elisa I am becoming a big fan of Marcus Borg. Read The Last Week during Lent and now it looks like I need to read The God We Never Knew.
One comment that I have is I wonder if Borg addresses the notion that if we look for the divine in all humans, then maybe an embodied God doesn’t seem out there but instead feels more real, more caring, etc than a nebulous all-encompassing force. To take some of what I got out of The Last Week, if the kingdom of God is already here, then that means it is present and possible in everyone we meet. Perhaps that resets the plurality of Gods that Joseph Smith conceives of to become everyone we meet.
Theists make their gods in their own images. It is notable that theists can’t agree on anything, nor can they show that any of their gods exist at all. I was a Christian and long ago left it behind since none of its many, many versions match with reality.
It has become common for Christians to invent a vague god to worship, getting away from the violent and ignorant god they have in their holy book. It’s a way to cling to magical nonsense but not have the responsibility for the genocidal, child-killing god that tells slaves never to seek their freedom. This is why I find religion to be harmful nonsense, baseless opinion presented as fact and victim blaming when the promises of the religion fail.
One’s concept of God matters significantly in individual and group behavior. Do different competing gods control the weather and business success and get jealous of each other or other humans for not giving them certain kinds of sacrifices (including human sacrifices)? Do gods exist as invisible spirits who observe and interact with individuals, and for whom we must perform certain rituals to satisfy?
I grew up believing in multiple powerful beings. Well, I was conditioned by Mormon culture in Provo in the 1980s and 1990s to believe these things. 1) Elohim, who was omnipotent and omniscient; 2) Jesus the Savior who suffered for my sins and about whose pain I was to feel guilty for doing bad things, but whose grace I was to seek through prayer incessantly; 3 the Holy Ghost, who you could feel, and needed to feel all the time, but was hard to feel and you couldn’t feel if you were distracted or had sinned (were angry, or thinking of girls improperly, or especially if you masturbated) and 4) Satan, the guy who had legions of invisible minions around me and around all humans ever trying to tempt them to sin. I grew up believing that evil spirits were all around me and that I had to implore God to keep me from falling into their temptations. God was all-watching and could intervene in the most minor of activities and events. Temptations abounded, but so did tender mercies, and you had to pay close attention to recognize those tender mercies. You
At some point in my life, I stopped believing in Satan and evil spirits. From there, my beliefs about God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost changed. For a while, the Mormon God continued to exist, but was more distant and more forgiving. Sin was not something you could commit on a daily basis in the most trivial of matters, but negative personality traits that you acquired over time and that took time to correct. Then that belief faded away, and I became interested in God as nature. I no longer believe in spirits, or the supernatural, but subscribe only to Spinoza’s God. God is synonymous with nature. We should do our best to act in ways that preserve and enhance nature and for the common good of the society around us.
I would add that the Mormon God sits at the center of a cloud of paradoxes and contradictions that I spent decades trying to reconcile. Yes he’s exacting and vengeful but he’s also supposed to be merciful and love personified. Yes he wipes out cities full of people but he also tallies the fall of every sparrow. He is whatever any given preacher needs him to be to attempt to make sense of the thorny and deeply complicated religious heritage we’ve been been grappling with for millennia. Yes I believed in the monarchical God you’ve described. I also truly believed he loved me and had a plan for my personal happiness.
My journey out of the church included a painful re-examination of my beliefs about God. In Mormonism we base our belief in God on the same feelings that we identify as a witness of the truth of the Book of Mormon or JS’ prophethood. So if those feelings turn out to be fallible that really pulls the rug out from under God too. My parents don’t get it. I have huge trust issues with spiritual feelings of any kind. I’m working on that.
These days, I like the idea of God as Life (as in biological life). There’s no reliable evidence for “an outsized, bearded man in the sky” as Carl Sagan put it, but there is evidence of a connection between all life that gives us each a well of guidance and strength that is greater than what our conscious minds are aware of. Exhibit A: DNA. We each bear a deep ancestral memory that we share with not only every human on earth but with every blade of grass as well. All life on earth is one big family, a superorganism—we might as well call it God. I carry a tiny copy of that god inside me. I’m trying to reconnect with its voice without all the authoritarian ventriloquism that Mormonism crammed in there. It’s hard to trust it because even though I know it’s powerful enough to get humans to the moon, I also know it’s easily bamboozled. Whatever God is, God is just as blind about the nature of the universe as we are. Whatever God is, it gives us strength to carry on in spite of not knowing the way any better than we do.
Meister Eckhart.
If you don’t believe in God, would you consider yourself to have rejected the supernatural theism version of God? Would you likewise reject panentheism or would that be more appealing to you?
While panentheism appeals to me a bit more, both versions of god seem to me to be based on unreliable feelings that people have, rather than any kind of objective measure. I can no longer believe in something solely for the reason that I want to believe it.
If I were to make an argument for a belief in a panentheistic God, I would say that the evidence for it is In the fact that people seem to sense it. They sense the existence of god in their shared communal experiences, in music, etc. The mere fact that so many people believe in God might be considered evidence that God exists. And I think we should take care when we ask people to disregard their senses.
But the senses can be fooled and tricked. So when people’s senses lead to a wide variety of conclusions, as they do with respect to God, then we might question whether those feelings or senses can be relied upon.
So perhaps the panentheistic God appeals to me, because of the warm feelings I have felt about it in church, performing or listening to music, or when enjoying nature. But someone else could have the same experiences or feelings I had and conclude it is evidence of their God. So, no, I don’t really see a compelling reason to believe in the panentheistic god over any other god, aside from the fact I like it better.
Thanks for some great comments! I’ll post about this today but I was in the wilderness all week so wasn’t able to respond.
@anna, amen.
@old man, curious about your comment on the atonement and RMN / DHO’s understanding of God. IMO their view of the atonement fits with the monarchical view (because it’s substitutionary punishment for people will break rules).
@josh h, I’m not sure that the BoM or D&C give us a super compassionate God either. They are mixed there. And the way we interpret the NT is still as a monarchical God of requirements IMO. We need to do much more work to reframe (if there is even appetite to reframe).
@LHCA yes! What resources (if any) do you use in building a new image of God?
@club, I still want to hang onto religion as potentially not all harmful nonsense :-), but I agree with you about the risks. Especially when you mix religion with money and power.
@john w, you describe the way I was taught about God (and Satan) well. I think it is problematic to externalize both evil (in Saran) and good (in the Holy Ghost). I think they’re both inside of everybody. Your nature God sounds like pantheism.
@kirkstall, yes re contradictions! And I love your description of God as Life. I think that Ekhart Tolle describes God as the universe experiencing itself.
@Rockwell fair, but what about the scientific stuff (like what Kirkstall mentions re DNA, or quantum physics, showing how very connected everything is?). You don’t have to call it “God” but I think connection is real.