"God has no hands but our hands" -- I'll get to read those words every day for the next week or so when I drive past St. Matthew Evangelical Lutheran Church in Waco. The sentiment, however, is hardly confined to this one church. In fact, I would contend that many if not most "Evangelical" churches across the country would agree with the above statement. And I don't think that such arrogant and short-sighted theology can be separated from the typical evangelical mindset. This belief that somehow God needs us, that God can't do what he wants to without us, is appealing, but wholly wrong and mislead.
Its not difficult to understand where such a sentiment might originate. Paul, on many occasions, talks about the members of the Church being members of Christ's body. Furthermore, Jesus says that His disciples are like workers that God sends out into the fields to do His work. There are numerous examples of members of the church being exonerated to do work for God -- even the over-used and often misrepresented "great commission." The New Testament especially, although not solely, is full of commands that each of God's followers needs to do God's work. So it is understandable that they believe that we are to be like "God's hands" in the world. Martin Luther says that each Christian is to be like a "little Christ" to everyone he comes in contact with. It is a necessary and obvious conclusion that we, as Christians, are called to do in this world what God is doing.
However, the jump from that to the idea that God can do nothing without us is both illogical and unfounded. Personally, I believe that it is better to have hands than not, especially if there is some work that needs to be done with them -- that it is better to be able to do your work than to need someone else to do it for you. Therefore when Jesus says "I tell you the truth, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him," it implies that God can do His own work, because He is greater than us. And therefore, in terms of this analogy, He has "hands" of His own.
Even apart from such inductive reasoning, any study of the Bible will show that God has more than enough means to do His own work. This is the same being who spoke into nothing and thereby created everything. This is a God who caused plagues and natural disasters to fall on any who stood against Him, when He saw fit. He also caused the walls of Jericho to fall, the Flood, and a number of other miracles -- not to mention the immaculate conception.
Some might argue that these were all pre-Jesus's death/Pentecost miracles and since then God has decided not to work in the world but to use us instead. This seems like a wholly stupid and unfounded conclusion to come to on its own, but there are more examples of God working apart from people in the later books of the New Testament. For example, there is the conversion of Paul, the very thing that we claim God needs us most for -- evangelism/conversion -- He does all on His own when He wants to. Furthermore, there is the death of Ananias and his wife -- which I bet is rather embarrassing to the same groups of Christians who believe that God has no hands, because they also tend to believe that God is big and cuddly and doesn't do things like strike people dead anymore. Obviously God still acts on His own behalf, even after Pentecost.
So, now that it has been established that their position is wholly without grounds in the Christian faith, I am interested in the causes and effects of such impotent theology in the modern church. It seems obvious that such theology gives a great degree of power to the individual. God cannot accomplish His desired goals without you. God needs you. I can see how this is appealing -- power is always appealing. However, an especially troubling conclusion is that God doesn't possess the power to affect the changes He desires in the world. That implies that God cannot help you in any way other than spiritual benefits. Furthermore, it means that much of what happens around us is out of His control. God no longer weaves us together in our mother's womb, He no longer causes the sun to rise and set and doesn't keep the cosmos in balance. We live in a system that was set up long ago and now runs out of control. That means that hurricane Katrina was an accident -- God watched in horror as it moved and destroyed lives, powerless to stop it without His hands. The world is out of control, and God can't help us. This theology is right in line with the Diests', believing that miracles are not true and God does not interact with the world in any tangible way. Indeed, in this way of thinking God is no longer omnipotent, but rather impotent. I think that this theology has shaped the way modern Christians think, and it has contributed greatly to their arrogance and their "white man's burden" approach to the world. It also explains their need to separate 'sacred' from 'secular' because the only way to keep yourself safe from the world is to stay away from it. Jesus promise that, "surely [He is] with you always, to the very end of the age" doesn't really offer a lot of comfort.
All that said, are there any more ideas on the causes and effects of such theology? I think that it is so commonly accepted today that we fail to question or examine it often, and I think we will all benefit form understanding where these Christians are coming from and where they are going if nothing changes.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
WILL God do anything with out us?
I have the opposite problem with evangelicals. I think they spend far too much time praying for God to do something, for God to reveal something, for God to give them something, for God to heal someone, for God to protect the troops, whatever, and very little time out trying to do anything about it themselves. I think encouraging them to remember that we are meant to be Jesus to the world is very important. I think God certainly CAN do things without us, and probably does, but in my own experience, God works through people much much much more frequently than anything else. I've never personally seen "his hands" apart from the hands of his people.
One time I saw some feet...I dunno if that helps?
Because I am anal-retentive about theology, I just wanted to correct your link concerning The Immaculate Conception (see, in particular, # 491).
I'm with redhurt--I think people need to be reminded of what they can do. That's not to say, however, that we're encouraging them to act independently of God; as members of the body of Christ, there can be no such thing. If I perform works for the kingdom, and then later pray for someone whom God heals, we should NOT say that in the first case I did work for God and in the second God did work without me; they are both simply two examples of the continuing work of the Spirit on earth.
And, while we should not divide the time from the creation of the universe to Pentecost (14 billion BC to the first century) from Pentecost onwards and say that the first time period was the time of miracles and now it's all up to us, I do think our theology needs to take into account the fact that Christ arose and that God, while not "relying on us" (because, as I said, there can be no such thing), has chosen not to act in the same way that he did when he first called the Jews.
I am willing to concede that, dispite their individualist theology, evangelicals suck at actually doing anything. However, I think there is a vast and important distinction between God needing us and us needing to do God's work. I am insignificant -- there is nothing I can do that God can't do without me. However, when I am presented with something to do for God I ought to do it. I am not significant for any reason except that God has chosen to give me significance, and one way He does that is by giving me chances to do work for Him. However, that doesn't mean in any way that He needs me to do it.
As far as seeing "His hands apart from the hands of His people" I think that has a lot to do with perspective. If you can believe that the hand of God is not in the creation of a child, the spinning of the earth, the growth of a tree, etc. then there are not quite so many examples. I can see how you could say that these are not God's hands directly, because He is using some other force -- specifically the force of nature. I'll concede that point and settle to say that there are far more powerful forces than myself at His disposal. Further, the fact that He does not use His figurative hands in the way that we can use ours to do work for Him is more of a testament to His giving us meaning than His inability to do the work Himself.
In conclusion, I believe that the aforementioned signed would more correctly read "God gave you hands so you could use them to serve Him -- stop waiting for Him to do everything on His own and do what you were created to do" or something like that. Maybe it seems like splitting hairs, but I think it is a very large distinction.
J. Morgan, I fail to see what the Church's various theologies about the state of Mary's sinfulness has to do with this subject or even the theology of the immaculate conception when viewed as something that God did without using man's hands. If you can explain how that link somehow corrects or adds to my point about the immaculate conception I would love to hear what you have to say.
Sorry, maybe I wasn’t clear (and the Catholic Catechism isn’t always either). The Immaculate Conception is the doctrine of the Eastern and Roman Catholic Churches that Mary was conceived apart from sin “by a singular grace and privilege of Almighty God.” In other words, the subject of the Immaculate Conception (that is, who was conceived in such a state) is not Jesus, but Mary. The Luke passage to which you linked narrativizes the inauguration of the Incarnation, not the Immaculate Conception.
Like I said, it isn’t a big deal, I am just anal about theological precision.
I like your ammended suggestion for what the sign should say - I'm in favor of that.
I want to address something else though. Several times, you referred to this "things God does without us", like this:
"there is nothing I can do that God can't do without me."
I think this is a difficult thing to go around saying. It certainly makes sense, and certainly our in our concept of who God is we concede that he CAN do anything that's doable, with or without us. Yet I think you're packing in the implication that God DOES or MIGHT DO without us, which is something I'm just not sure about. There are certainly events in recorded history of God acting without human aid, such as the immaculate conception, and more recent accounts of miracles in which God acts directly. While I have faith that this can happen, in my own life I've never seen it, and I think the majority of people are in that boat with me. It's then important to clarify that Christianity isn't only about trusting God to do things without us. It isn't about praying for the sick from a million miles away. While this is certainly part of it, there needs to be a heavy, heavy, heavy emphasis on doing things, and that it is through human interaction that God most often and most readily makes himself available in most of our lives.
Post a Comment