Not another Bible-blog!

Liberal Jesus is a blog that I often read. Its last entry to date is beautifully thought and written. There are times when you read something regarding God and it just clicks! It's like after fumbling towards the light switch in the dark for a while, someone turns on the light for you and you thnak them with a big grin on your face. That's what I did when I read this post. Read it here or find below the condensed version I want to discuss:

"[...] It seems that the only thing to say is that God does not act. That if God is present, God simply allows the world to continue ticking away, and doesn't interfere.

"But there's a problem with this conclusion: faith traditions all over the world contradict it. The Bible paints a picture of a God who is intimately involved with the world, and who frequently acts on it. The good guys get rescued from fiery funaces and lion's dens ... the bad guys get zapped with plagues or swallowed up by the earth.

"So how do we reconcile the Biblical narrative with our own experience? [...]

"In fact, the entire Bible was written by people, and for people, who had no recourse but to explain natural phenomena using supernatural language. Consequently, the lens that we use to read "God makes the rain fall on the righteous and the unrighteous" is the same lens we should use to read about God killing Aninias and Sapphira. The lens that we use to read "the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well" is the same lens we should use to read "the wind blows where it pleases".

"Does this mean that we have to dismiss all the miracle stories in the Bible as fables written for a premodern audience? Not necessarily. Premodern people would be perfectly justified in using supernatural language to describe supernatural events, and any good empiricist will admit that it's notoriously hard to prove that something never happens.

"But it does mean that we should be reluctant to accept at face value passages that attribute action to God. Although they may be theologically helpful for a premodern reader, they may be theologically destructive for a modern reader. Some of us are simply incapable of believing in a God who heals the illnesses of middle-class Americans, but fails to prevent earthquakes that slaughter thousands of Kashmiris [...]"

It is true that the Bible says that God watches over us, and I think we should put these expressions back into their context, like Liberal Jesus invites us to.

I see God as watching over us from the distance. Like a parent on the other inside of the room keeps an eye on you, but who won't stop you from playing with the matches you hid, or just trip over something.

Despite all the contemplative poetry-scripture, we read about a God who did not, or could not, prevent the first man born on this earth to murder his own brother! What let this happen?

Maybe God wants us to rule ourselves, and be as independent and autonomous as we can, so we may develop our faith, gain knowledge and wisdom, get to understand our purpose on earth and the plan of our Creator. Yes, people start wars, rob and kill. Tsunamis and earthquakes ravage the earth. This is how it goes, because of our free agency and because the earth is not perfect - anymore?

I think we can say God is responsible for all this, if we imagine him being overlooking all that from the distance, not willing to prevent anything, for it would break the rules.

On the other hand, people may have a faith so strong that they can get through it all. When Jesus gave vision to the blind and performed all his miracles, he never said: "I healed you", or "God healed you". He asked: "Have you got enough faith?" And if they did, he would perform a quick ritual and tell them it was their own faith that healed them. It was not God intervening through Jesus, it was the person's own ability to touch the divine.

Growing up in total independence and autonomy is what we're here for I believe.