What kind of god would be plausible in this postmodern age? Taken by itself, that question represents the great divide between those who believe in the God of the Bible and those who see the need to reinvent a deity more acceptable to the modern mind.
After all, the answer to that question would reveal a great deal about the postmodern mind, and nothing about God himself. Unless, that is, you believe that God is merely a philosophical concept, and not the self-existent, self-defining God of the Bible.
That distinction is apparent in A Plausible God by Mitchell Silver, a professor of philosophy at the University of Massachusetts in Boston. The book’s subtitle is “Secular Reflections on Liberal Jewish Theology,” and Silver’s work is an attempt to construct a concept of God that modern secular people will find plausible. The book is directed to a Jewish readership, but the issues Silver raises and the arguments he proposes are precisely those found among many liberal Protestant theologians. Most, however, are less candid and clear-minded as Professor Silver.
Define God: give two examples.
Oh, that we had our own Al Mohler as “Canon Theologian” (although I GREATLY prize our own Kendall!)
Seriously, this speaks to the confusion in the Episcopal Church. As a member of the HoB/D, I have been cautioned that, although Jesus is devine, he is not God–or was it the other way around? There is so much trying to explain this “plausible god” in an effort to justify the position that TEC is indeed a Christian, Biblically oriented (note: not “based”) church that the TEC God is sometimes even LESS than plausible. I am convinced that the Episcopalian in the pew is unable to characterize God and thus is open to the plausible god definitions. Good Bible orientation and study is, I believe, the best way to bring people to as complete a knowledge of God as is possible, especially as we have the full–and perfect–revelation of God in Jesus Christ.
Excellent review by Mohler. A necessary and logical extension of Silver’s argument, which many post-modern protestant theologians also hold, is that Satan is a concept, not a spiritual agent. I blieve C.S. Lewis would have said that there is nothing that would accomplish Lucifer’s purposes better than to have us believe he does not exist, for you cannot fight what does not exist.
To paraphrase Mohler’s review of Silver’s book:
“The new Satan is a philosophical concept that its proponents use to ground a potential for evil in the world. When believers in the new God speak of Satan in personal terms, they do so metaphorically. Speaking of a real Satan in this sense is a “trope” or “just a manner of speaking.”
The new Satan becomes “whatever there is in nature that makes evil things possible.” “Satan has no will, intentions, or desires.” In no sense is the new Satan a created being. This Satan is a principle, a concept; not a spiritual person.
Thanks for the timely link. We just had a dose of that New Age Religion in our “house” and I needed the antidote.
Ah yes. A credible god. Let’s all re-read I Corinthians 1:17-31. Paul addressed the same issue. I am astounded that time and time again the post-modern, progressive, post-Christian crowd does its best to rework Christianity to be “plausible” to the “modern mind”. As if we have a capacity for greater apprehension of divinity than anyone who ever came before us. Looks like the same sinful, rebellious, broken humanity to me.
Can we ask if Silver considers golden calf?
What? All these wonderful theological innovations are pervaded with materialist presuppositions? I am shocked. [i]Shocked![/i] 😉