The Biggest ‘Big Question’

It would seem to be stating the obvious to suggest that the existence of God is a big question for human life. The absence of any evidentiary proof, either way, means that the question can only be answered from a beliefs perspective: some people believe, some don’t. For many, the question would perhaps be more nuanced: degrees of likelihood, either way.

Given the invisibility of God—which the Bible rightly acknowledges—each person must form their own views on the question. It would be an understatement of epic proportions to say that the reasons that people cite for and against is wide-ranging (too many to list here), but they range from positives—an inward sense, personal experiences in which they see the hand of God, or the wonder and complexity of the cosmos—versus negatives based on the absence of any scientific evidence and the presence of evil and suffering in the world (if there is a God, what explains his apparently detached disinterest?). NB For the rest of the article I will stay with the pronoun “he” not because the Christian God is in any sense biologically male (despite certain branches of the Church behaving—and shaping their beliefs—as if that was the case) but simply to avoid inappropriate depersonalisation (as “it” or “they” or whatever).

And then there is the disdain that many feel towards the institutional church (in its various brands) due to inter alia abusive practices, cover-ups, and wide-ranging hypocrisy: if that’s what men of God are like (it’s invariably men), then who would want anything to do with a God who’s happy to be represented by those people? If that’s the fruit of supposedly “orthodox Christian beliefs,” then who would want to share those beliefs? In my experience, ex-evangelicals and ex-Catholics are significant in this group. What’s sad is the extent to which institutions are so often in denial about it (“There’s a bad apple or two in every barrel”, or “So-and-so did a lot of good, too; a lot of blessing came from his ministry …”).            

That human factor—in other words, that the God whom people ‘see’ is invariably shaped by the people representing God that they see—can be either a positive or negative factor. But either way, if that is what a follower of this God looks like, are they someone we want to emulate? If that is what a disciple shaped by this particular understanding of God is like, do I want to be one?

Which leads me to suggest that although the existence of God is certainly the most basic big question, it’s not actually the biggest big question: which is what that God is like.

FWIW, I never felt my job as a pastor was to persuade people of the existence of God; rather, it was to present what God is like for those who did basically believe.

I can’t cover all understandings of God, religious or otherwise, so I will focus on understanding the Christian God, informed by the Bible. That sounds simple enough in itself, but it’s fraught with complexities in practice. For example, ‘informed by the Bible’ depends on which verses and passages we choose as our lens from which to draw our conclusions. So, too, the classic evangelical doctrine of ‘the authority of Scripture’. Which sounds good as a headline value. But in practice, it means the interpretations of particular verses and passages that we personally grant authority to. And, equally, the interpreters—the speakers and writers—whose opinions and teachings we grant authority to.

When preachers say, “The Bible clearly teaches” (or such like), they are, in effect, inviting us—sometimes, telling us—to grant authority to their choice of verses—and their opinions and teachings—on a subject.

I’m not saying these are bad things; not least because they’re largely unavoidable. I’m just pointing out that’s what’s happening! Indeed, I’m aware that I do it myself when I’m the speaker.          

I suggest that ‘what God is like’ is the biggest big question because everything else flows from our understanding of that. God’s plans and purposes for his creation. What God wants from us. What things he cares the most about, the least about, and is essentially indifferent about (yes, there are things in each category). Whether God is essentially to be thought of in power terms, in propositional truth terms (a compendium of beliefs and behavioural requirements), or in interpersonal terms. All of these flow from what we think God is like and hence, what God wants. It boils down to the question, what is God’s nature and character?

If God is a compendium of divine rules and requirements—loving our compliance, hating our failings—with consequences both in this life and the next for breaching those rules and requirements, then no wonder some sectors of the Church are obsessively focused on people conforming to their understandings of those rules and requirements. If the Bible is ‘God in writing’, then no wonder the message of the Bible is applied in ways that conform to that book-of-beliefs-and-instructions approach.

The easiest way of thinking about the characteristics and values that shape God as we understand him to be—and how those are ‘weighted’ in the overall mental picture we have—is by representing them in the form of a word cloud (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tag_cloud). This doesn’t ‘rank’ them as such, but it pictures their relative significance. To ‘characteristics and values’, I would add words that reflect what we perceive to be God’s ‘requirements’ of us.

Here are some of the words that might feature: love, kindness, compassion, empathy, anger, wrath, holiness, obedience, faithfulness, justice, judgment, longsuffering, patience, gentleness, righteousness, peace, joy, self-control, and goodness. Eagle-eyed readers may spot the Fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22) included here. This is entirely unsurprising, given that the fruit of the Spirit’s presence in our lives derives from being characteristics of God in the first instance. The Spirit desires to bring those same characteristics—that same ‘fruit’—because it’s what God himself is like. It’s all part of his project for restoring the imago Dei in humanity.   

To make this more concrete: If our weighting is towards words such as love, kindness, grace, compassion, empathy, patience, and gentleness, then our picture will be dominated by these characteristics. Over and above a weighting towards, say, words like anger, wrath, obedience, holiness, and judgment.

I say, a ‘weighting towards’ to avoid the suggestion that I am rejecting the second group of words in favour of a touchy-feely “God’s OK with everything and anything—like everyone’s favourite Grandpa.” It’s not a case of either-or, it’s about the balance; or put differently, it’s about which list is seen through the lens of the other. If God’s fundamental, primary characteristic is love (as 1 John 4:8 and 16 tell us)—and components of that love in action are kindness, grace, compassion, empathy, patience, and gentleness—then God’s justice and judgment will be both seen and enacted through the lens of that love. Rather than through the lens of anger and wrath.

I mentioned the Fruit of the Spirit. It’s notable that although (understood properly, which they’re often not) ‘anger’ and ‘wrath’ are also characteristics of God, they are not characteristics (‘fruit’) that the Spirit brings to our lives. Why? Because God does not want Christians delivering those on his behalf. Judgment is his domain, not ours.    

In Matthew 22:40, Jesus tells us that all of the Law and the Prophets (essentially, all the Scriptures) “hang on” two commandments (NIV): to love God and to love people, as one inseparable package. The NIRV has, “Everything that’s written in the Law and the Prophets is based on these two commandments.” In Mark 12:31, Jesus says, “There is no commandment greater than these.” Jesus is giving us a point of reference for determining anything we think God may be asking of us or wanting from us in this world. In other words, if something wouldn’t result in people loving God more or being loved more, then it likely isn’t something God is asking us to do on his behalf and in his name—if it can’t pass those twin tests.

The most obvious example is critiquing other people’s ‘sinfulness’ (to our minds): exercising judgment on God’s behalf, rather than leaving that to him. But why not, if it’s because we’re motivated to keep his Church ‘holy’? Because our human frailties and predilections mean we’re actually not very good at it. The only exception, where we are called to act, is where others are at risk of being harmed.

All God’s commandments are for the benefit of people. They’re not for his benefit, so that he gets his own way in people’s lives to a meticulous level of detail. What Jesus said of the Sabbath in Mark 2:27—that it was given for people’s benefit, not for the Sabbath’s benefit—is de facto true of all God’s commandments. Nor were his commandments designed to ensure that no one would ever be able to keep them, to persuade us of our need for a saviour to solve the problem for us.  

Why not try that word cloud idea (there are plenty of word cloud generator websites available online) and see how yours comes out? Or maybe do it together, in a home group setting.