GOD and the World!
Over the years what I think about “God” has continued to shrink. I began as a teenager fundamentalist in the 1950s, continuing to broaden my understanding of theological issues through college and through my graduate school years and my 60 year teaching career. The primary influence in forming my current, and likely my last, thoughts on the subject of God have been strongly influenced by the thought of Alfred north Whitehead in his book Process and Reality, especially the final chapter entitled “God and the World.”
As I see it reality is comprised of two complementary dimensions, the creative and the dis-creative. These two dimensions tend to work against each other forming the warp and weft of both cosmic and world history. God serves as the positive pole and what we call “evil” serves as the negative pole. The history of religions in the world is the result of the tension between these two poles. In my view the Christian religion, focused in the person and teachings of Jesus, with all of its many flaws, constitutes the as yet highest form of spirituality in the world. Jesus should be distinguished from the Christian Church as such.
Whitehead distinguishes between views of God those that stress its power, those that stress its morality, and those that stress its primordial character. He then speaks of what he terms “the Gallian origin of Christianity”, namely the person and teachings of Jesus, which “dwells upon the tender elements of the world, which slowly in quietness operate by love; and it finds purpose in the present immediacy of a kingdom not of this world. Love neither rules, nor is it unmoved; also it is a little oblivious as to morals. It does not look to the future; for it finds its own reward in the immediate present.” (p.343)
Whitehead goes on to describe God as “dipolar”. “He has a primordial nature and a consequent nature. The former provides the structure and character of reality and the latter provides its connection with history and everyday human experience. The point of contact between these two is God’s infinite patience and “tender care that nothing be lost” in the push and shove of universal history. In this divine patience “tenderly saving the temporal…by the completion of its own nature” God functions as “the poet of the world, with tender patience leading it by his vision of truth, beauty, and goodness.” (p.346)
Throughout this ever on-going, eternal process “God is the great companion- the fellow sufferer who understands.” (p.351) Whitehead goes on to speak of “objective immortality.” He states that throughout the eternal vicissitudes of life are “refreshed by the ever-present, unfading importance of our immediate actions, which perish and yet live for evermore” in the eternal and loving memory of God. As was mentioned earlier, in Whitehead’s view “nothing is ever lost” in the loving and eternal memory of God.
It is this vision, both of the cosmic processes of reality and the human dynamics of history, that draws me to the insights of Whitehead. It starts with what he calls “the Galilean origin of Christianity”, the deep, healing insights and deeds of the person of Jesus calling us to an ever yet higher mode of life and ends with the confidence that in the end “nothing will be lost”. At one place Whitehead speaks of God as “the lure” of the universe toward the fulfillment of reality itself. (p. 344) This is how I now understand God and the Divine role in the universe, both cosmic and historical. I try to discern what seem to be the forces for good in the universe and work hard to embody them in the way I live.

“JESUS WAS A REFUGEE?”
Someone has been running a series of “religious commercials” on national television for some time now trying to bring Jesus into our national consciousness in a fresh way. Aside from the fact that these messages are written almost too small to be read by the human eye at normal television distance, in general I have no complaint about someone trying to send their message in a different manner. However, the specifics of some of these messages strike me as quite a bit “off key.” One that gets repeated often is “Jesus Gets Us.” I admit that this effort to use the current vernacular strikes a familiar, upbeat chord in our contemporary mode of conversation, but it seems to me inevitably to ring untrue, if not downright corny, in relation to the seriousness of its content.
For instance, in one of the messages it is claimed that “Jesus was a refugee.” The point of this claim appears to be that because he was born in Bethlehem, or perhaps because he was raised in Galilee, Jesus was somehow a social “outsider” and thus knew what it was like to be mistreated and ignored. While these claims are in themselves quite on the money, they are also quite misleading when he is spoken of as a “refugee.” Indeed, not only did Jesus never travel outside of his Palestinian homeland, but he was a full citizen of the Jewish nation even though it was at that time in the control of the Roman Empire. In the end, of course he was treated as an enemy of both the Jewish leadership and Roman State.
As the scripture says, “He was despised and rejected of men,” but this was not because he was a refugee, but rather because he took the part of those who themselves were outsiders. This posture put him in a good deal of danger at the hands of both the Jewish leadership and the Roman authorities. Indeed, he “got” those who were being ignored and punished by the Jewish and Roman authorities alike. That is, he understood and stood with the outsiders of his community even when in the end it cost him his life. “He came unto his own, but his own received him not.” Indeed, one might call him a refugee in the sense that he was an itinerate teacher, but still not a politically “displaced person.”
I find the way the author of the Gospel of John puts the matter most significant. “He came to dwell among us and we saw his glory…full of grace and truth.” (John 1:14) This was not “Jesus Christ Superstar” showing off his superior insight and power among the peasants, but rather a light who was “in the world shining in the darkness.” (John 1:5) Or as Paul put it: “Though the divine nature was his from the first, he made himself nothing. Assuming the nature of a slave…he humbled himself, accepting even death on a cross.” (Philippians 2: 7-8) Indeed. We must not forget that Jesus spent the first 30 years of his life working as a carpenter in the area around the town of Nazareth. Hardly a refugee.
Somehow his “glory” was expressed in his ability to identify with and take seriously those around him who found themselves as outsiders. The Gospels are replete with stories of Jesus bothering to take seriously as neighbors those who had been set aside by their society. He “got” them in the sense that he understood their plight and sought to address them exactly where they were. This was the Jesus we saw in “Godspell” but not in “Superstar.” He came alongside of people in need, not above them. It was all explained by his refusal to allow the disciples to wash his feet but insisted on washing theirs, insisted on calling them friends rather than servants.
So I guess I have to admit that I am more comfortable with the spirit of these contemporary religious ads than I at first indicated. I just find it important not to overplay his superiority when he himself seems clearly to have sought to underplay it. “He came unto his own, but his own received him not” (John 1:11), both in his day and also in our own. He was not so much “hip” as he was genuine, real. In the end, when he faced both Pilate and the Jewish leaders, he refused to explain or defend himself but simply received whatever they had to give and bided his time. And he is still doing so.
(A footnote. For what it is worth, it has now been revealed that the organization behind these commercials is an extreme right-wing, politically conservative group.)