An Atheist’s Guide to Loving God
by the Reverend Kathleen C. Rolenz
Delivered on Sunday, December 7, 2008
at the
**not to be
used without permission of author
Introduction To Theme: God
For the past
three years now, your ministers, worship associates and connection circles have
been exploring monthly themes. Some of
them were chosen by us—some by the worship associates—but our purpose is to
provide for you something to think about in an intentional way each month. In those three years, we have never taken on
“God” as one of the topics. There are a
number of reasons why—first of all, it’s so big! It’s such a huge concept that it’s almost
easier not to deal with it—and, in truth, in some Unitarian Universalists
churches, both ministers and members simply avoid talking about, or using the
word—God.
For the first time visitor or guest to
Having been freed from the belief that you
“have to believe in God” to be a member of a church—or a Unitarian Universalist, has enabled many people who describe
themselves as atheists or agnostics to be a member of a church and finally feel
comfortable there. So, as I begin this
series, I want to acknowledge the reality of this congregation—there are many
for whom the concept of God has either no meaning or interest. If you consider yourself an atheist, agnostic
or indifferent to God—and if you’re comfortable doing so—would you please stand
or raise your hand? How about those of
you for whom the word and the concept of God is
important? Would you please stand or
raise your hand? Let me acknowledge too,
that there is a majority of people who didn’t stand or raise their hands
because when we try to classify God there is and always will be, grey
areas. Perhaps those grey areas are
because we don’t want to try to limit ourselves or define ourselves too closely
with regards to God. Maybe those grey
areas have to do with not being sure about where one’s beliefs about God. Or, perhaps you were just tired and didn’t
want to stand! Although this sermon is
called “A Non-Believers Guide to Loving God” or “An Atheists Guide to God,” it’s
really more about those grey areas—the areas between our belief and disbelief;
our knowing and our not knowing—and that is the focus
for my sermon this morning.
Reading Du, Nachbar Gott, wenn ich dich
manchesmal
(You, God,
who live next door) Rainer Maria Rilke
You, God, who live next door—
If at times, through the long
night, I trouble you
with my urgent knowcking—
this is why I hear you breathe so seldom.
I know you’re all alone in that
room.
If you should be thirsty, there’s
no one to get you a glass of water.
I wait, listening, always. Just give me a sign!
I’m right here.
As it happens, the wall between us
is very thin.
Why couldn’t a cry from one of us
break it down?
It would crumble easily,
it would barely make a sound.
I remember
the moment that I stopped believing in the God of my childhood. Some of you have heard this story before—but
some of you for whom perhaps this is your first Sunday, may not, so I beg your
indulgence. I remember it vividly. I was
sitting in the front pew of
My story is not all that dissimilar to
many of yours that I hear. For those of
you who come from other religious traditions, I’ve heard stories of incredible
oppression, of punishment for not believing or thinking correctly, of moments
when some light bulb goes off in your head and you say “I don’t believe what
I’m being asked to recite.” I hear
stories of being ostracized from the church of your family because you find yourself
not believing. I have sat with people
who have wept in my office to discover that they have found a religious home
that does not think of them as a sinner for asking questions, for doubting, or
for not believing in God. And, I hear
exclamations of joy from people who tell me that they are rediscovering God on
their own terms and refashioning a God of their understanding—a God who looks
and sounds nothing like the one of their childhood or their past—the God of
their Unitarian Universalist faith.
Although for many years Unitarian
Universalism has attempted to avoid, dodge, ignore or deride God, we are coming
to understand that it is imperative for Unitarian Universalists
to grapple with God. We will never come
out with a creedal saying “this is what all Unitarian Universalists
believe about God,” because that is antithetical to our way of being
religious. However, finally, we are
discovering we can talk about God and what that word and that concept means—or
does not mean to us. We’re learning how
to frame the questions so that they have the possibility for depth
conversation. Probably the first level
of conversation between believers and non-believers is something like “Is God
Real?”
So let’s look at that question. Is
God real? Well, yes—more or less. William James, who wrote the classic book
“The Varieties of Religious Experience,” says that the question needs to be
reframed. It’s not really about whether
or not God is “real,” but whether or not there is, as he calls it “more.” James then goes on to describe two kinds of
world views—one that believes in “more” and one that believes in “less or
no-more.” What does this mean? In the religious world view, “more” means
that in addition to believing in the visible world of our ordinary experience,
and as disclosed by science, there is a “more” or, as Marcus Borg describes, a
“nonmaterial layer or level of reality,” an extra
dimension of reality. In a
non-religious world view, there is no “more…” there is only “this—the
space-time world of matter and energy and whatever other natural forces lie
behind or beyond it. We are bound by and
restricted to the life we live in space and in time, and there is nothing
else—not in this life or in any other.
In the last three centuries or so,
these two world-views have collided in Western culture at least and both the
religious and non-religious seek to impose their beliefs—that there exists
something “more” to our lives than the tangible reality we see and there exists
nothing more. As I said earlier, in most
churches, this point would not even be up for discussion. Of course there’s “more”—and that reality is
called God. However, in this church,
nothing is taken for granted, not even God herself. So let’s look at what I mean when I say God
is real—more, or less and look at two ways of understanding the “more.”
In his book The Heart of Christianity, Marcus Borg divides this “more” camp
into two concepts of understanding and experiencing God. One way he calls supernatural theism, and
this is the God that many of us grew up with.
This is imagining God as a personlike
being. God is up there—or, is “out
there” beyond the universe. God
continues to intervene in human affairs.
God responds to prayer. For some
supernatural theists, the proof of this God can be found in scripture,
particularly in such events as Jesus’ virgin birth, the miracles, his
resurrection and other extraordinary powers.
God is conceived of with human characteristics—some of which are drawn
from the Hebrew Scriptures; God is all powerful; God is judge, a ruler. God gets angry and destroys those whom He
(and God is always a He) wishes. God
plays dice with human life and is capracious. God is also loving, a shelter and a rock in a
weary God. God weeps for humanity’s evil
and destructive tendencies. God is a
Father in the best sense of Fatherhood—a protector, a provider—a fierce
defender of the innocent. I want to
affirm that if your belief system tends towards supernatural theism, there is a
place for you in this church. While it’s
probably not the majority opinion, these walls are wide enough to include
you—and a little later, I’ll come back to what that inclusion looks like.
Another way of thinking God is through
the lens of panentheism, which imagines God and the
God-world relationship differently. Panentheism, broken down into its essential elements,
simply means pan—everything; en—in and theos—God; or God is in all.
The central claim of panentheism is that God is “the More” who is both right
here—in our every day lives—in our daily minds—and is also “more than right
here.” When the apostle Paul writes
about the God in whom we live and move and have our being, he is actually
describing himself as a panentheist, because it is
not a Zeus like God that he writes about—it is the God that is closer to us
than our own skin; the God that is in the animating breath. The panentheist God
is harder to imagine than the supernatural theist understanding of God. For the panentheist,
God does not have personality traits, it is not about
divine intervention, but divine intention and divine interaction. By that, I mean that when one believes that
God is in everything, one also believes that Gods intention is for the good—for
a sense of wholeness and restoration of justice. That’s a much more subtle and theologically
difficult place to be.
So you’d think that for those who have a God concept as central to their
belief system, panentheism might be way to avoid the
supernatural theism that I described earlier.
God is in everything. That’s easy
to see, most days. God is in the
sunrise—the sunset. God is in the
infant’s face, and the face of a beloved, coming home
after a long trip; God is in the poetry of Rilke, God is as close as the
neighbour next door; so close you can hear God’s breathing; but there’s
problems with that concept of God too.
Is God then in the speeding bullet who kills a child, playing on her
front porch? Is God then in the bear
that attacks and kills the jogger? Is
God in the tsunami, or the bomb, or the planes or in the decisions made that
cost thousands of lives?
That’s where panentheism
breaks down as a belief system. So
neither one—the supernaturalistic theism or panentheism are perfect ways of understanding God. I’ve struggled with both of these
concepts—the supernatural theistic God and the panentheistic
God—and frankly, the whole idea of God itself. There is part of me that needs
to believe in a God—something greater than myself—something greater than
humankind alone—that is a consistent and dominant force for good in the world. It’s not that I don’t believe in the human
capacity for good, but there is so much more evidence for our equal capacity
for evil that I need an overarching philosophy that stands unequivocally for
those values, principles, beliefs and hopes that are good. I don’t believe in a God that is all
powerful, all knowing, that intervenes in human affairs, that
is like an uber-force; yet there is some
comfort in believing in a universal force for good—even if it co-exists with a
universal force of destruction. While
trolling the internet for a picture for this morning’s cover, I came across a
group of atheists carrying a sign that said “prayer is just talking to
yourself.” I reluctantly had to admit
that part of me believed that to be true.
I wondered--what if all our thoughts and prayers; complaints and
concerns to God—is simply wishful thinking—affirming Freud’s assertion that religion is comparable to
a childhood neurosis, and belief in God merely a projection of the childish
wish for the protection of an all-powerful father. What if that were true? Someone asked me once what I believed, and I
wrote “I believe in God the Father.. the Mother…the Sister..the
Brother, my companion, Friend challenger, Silent Presence, absent
fullness. I have long wondered if this
God whom I love so much is a figment of my imagination…it used to scare me to
think so. Now, I don’t care. Perhaps it is…and what a figment!” What a figment indeed. I
In fact, the reason that God evokes such strong emotions in believers
and non-believers alike is because it’s a word that attempts to address the
very nature of Being itself. Theologian Paul Tillich states that the word
“God doesn’t refer to a particular existing being, but rather attempts, and
usually fails, to address the Ground the isnes or
that-ness of our existence. Abraham Maslow suggests that “even the word
“god” is being defined by many theologians today in such a way as to exclude
the concept of a person with a form, a voice, a beard, etc…God gets to be defined
as “the integrating principle of the universe, or “the whole of everything” or
“the meaningfulness of the cosmos…” While intellectually that makes sense, it
seems cold—distant—unapproachable. So
maybe it’s not God that’s the problem.
Maybe it’s the word “belief.”
Just before Halloween of 2005, Wayne and I were visiting our
congregation in
I have to pause now, for a moment, and
I’d like you to do the same. We’re going
to take the offering in a couple of minutes, but hopefully you’ve already
written your check, or got out your bills.
If you’re a guest this morning, then please, be our guest and let the
offering plate pass you by. Take this time
to sit with your own thoughts about God—what that relationship has meant to
you—or why you may have rejected it—enjoy the music—and rest comfortably and
well in the embrace of this time together.
Reading Unholy Sonnets Mark
Jarman
Dear God, Our Heavenly Father,
Gracious Lord,
Mother Love and Maker, Light
Divine,
Atomic Fingertip, Cosmic Design,
First Letter of the Alphabet, Last
Word,
Mutual Satisfaction, Cash Reward,
Auditor Who Approves Our Bottom
Line,
Examiner Who Says That We Are
Fine,
Oasis That
all Sands are Running Toward.
I can say almost anything about
you,
O Big Idea, and with each epithet,
Create new reasons to believe or
doubt you,
Black Hole, White Hole,
Presidential Jet,
But what’s the anything I must
leave out? You
Solve nothing but the problems
that I set. Worship Associate
Special
Music Still Alanis Morissette
I am
the harm which you inflict
I am your brilliance and frustration
I'm the nuclear bombs if they're to hit
I'm your immaturity and your indignance
I am
your tragedy and your fortune
I am your crisis and delight
I am your profits and your prophets
I am your art, I am your bytes
I see you averting your glances
I see you ignoring your children
And I love you still
I am your joy and your regret
I am your fury and your elation
I am your yearning and your sweat
I am your faithless and your religion
I see you altering history
I see you and your selective amnesia
And I love you still
I am your death and your decisions
I am your passion and your plights
I am your sickness and convalescence
I am your weapons and your light
I see you lie to your country
I see you blaming each other
And I love you still
The need
to find a name for that which is beyond naming—the totality of our life with
all its insights, missteps, broken dreams, peak experiences, lost moments,
discovered truths and hard-won sense of self—is written into the DNA of our
being. When Moses goes to the mountain
to see the burning bush and hears the voice of God, he insists on getting God’s
name—and all that God can come up with is the unwieldy “I Am that I Am.” When Alanis Morrisette plays God in the 1999 film “Dogma” and sings the
song that Carlos performed for you earlier, she uses God’s “I am statements”
but turns the words back on us. Instead
of God being “out there” God is very much “with us” who says “I am…all the
contradictions that make up the human experience…I am your joy and your fury…I
am your weapons and your light…” What Morissette has
done with this song is the same thing that panentheism
has done for theology—that God is no longer up there or “out there” but right
here. The idea of the incarnation—which
is what churches all over the world begin celebrating this Sunday—means that
this type of God is not something separate from us; but intimately connected to
and with us. God is in all things—and
all things in God—and there is no separation between the two.
But what if—what if—this idea of God
and incarnation has absolutely no meaning for you? A couple years back I was talking with a
colleague of mine who told me of her struggle.
Raised a Unitarian Universalist, she spent
most of her early career as a minister trying hard to believe in God. She read books; she tried prayer, meditation,
going on retreats, wanting to feel what she heard others felt about God. She didn’t want an intellectual understanding
of God—she wanted a relationship. And finally, she said, one day, she just let
go the burden of God, and accepted the fact that it wasn’t there, and she
didn’t need it, and her life was no better or worse for having come to that
conclusion. She doesn’t flinch when
someone speaks of God, she can sing Christmas carols with abandon, she is
pleased for her friends for whom God is an important part of their life, but
for her, it’s just not all that important—but there are other things that
are. She is passionate about justice,
particularly women’s rights around the globe.
She is a fierce advocate for marriage equality. She has a meditation practice that nurtures
and sustains her, and from time to time, we talk about those things most
important in our lives. She talks about
mystery and wonder; about how much like a Buddha her dog can be; I sometimes
talk about my prayer life—my halting sentences towards God, my curiosity and
admiration for Jesus. When I talk in
this way sometimes she looks a bit bored; when she talks too much about the
spiritual qualities of her dog, I want her theology to include more—and
yet—yet—what makes sense to both of us is the relationship—and that’s what it’s
really about—this non-believer’s guide to loving God. In his book “The Unheard Cry for Meaning,” Victor Frankle
writes that “the concept of God need not necessarily be theistic. When I was fifteen years old or so I came up
with a definition of God to which, in my old age, I come back more and more…a
kind of operational definition—God is the partner of your most intimate
soliloquies.” We don’t know God, but we
do know something about relationships. I
resonate with Albert Einstein when he writes “I cannot conceive of a God who
rewards and punishes, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in
ourselves. An individual who should
survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension…enough for me the
mystery of the eternity of life, and the inkling of the marvellous structure of
realtiy, together with the single-hearted endeavour
to comprehend a portion, be it never so tiny, of the
reason that manifests itself in nature.”
For Einstein, the relationship to what many describe as God is this
unfolding awareness of the “mystery of the eternity of life—the marvellous
structures of reality…”for him—this was the “more” that Williams James talked
about—and it was “enough.” I’ve never
seen God’s face in some supernatural way, but I have seen the God of my
understanding in your faces, in the work of this church, often done by hands
for whom the concept of God doesn’t have much
meaning. I’ve never heard God’s voice
through a burning bush, but I’ve heard your voices, speaking against injustice
and saying supportive words to the broken-hearted. I’ve never felt God’s hand, but I’ve held
yours; after 9-11; after dear members passing, in celebration and tragedy and
triumph, and for me, that was more than enough.
God Bless You. I love you. Shalom.