Good post!!

I think the heart of the problem in the debate between Sam Harris/Richard Dawkins and those of us who are theists is their insistence on defining God for us. And so Borg is right, "I don't believe that God either." I think too that their reading of the Old Testament/Hebrew Scriptures is both too simplistic and really a form of proof-texting. There is more than one view of God present in these texts. The God who tells Joshua or Samuel to wipe out the enemy is very different from the God who reaches out to Ninevah. It's not a different God, but a different understanding of God.

The Christian doctrine of the incarnation, which can be taken very literally and less literally does suppose that God has a body--that is in the person of Jesus God the Creator is present with us and among us.

But whenever we speak of an embodied God, we must beware of anthropomorphic images, which often are projections or creations of God in our own image.

I guess I'm caught somewhere between the metaphorical God and that anthropomorphic deity of popular religion. Where I'm at today might be different than tomorrow, so I guess I'll slide around with you on this!

I agree this is a great post. I read both you and Pastor Bob regularly. I must say I tend to come down on your side - the Marcus Borg side - more often. But that really is splitting hairs considering the breath of the divide in our culture.

Having read a lot of Sam Harris, I think he would not have much to complain about your approach to God - God as concept, if I may label it such.

When Harris complains about religious moderates, I think he means those who believe in the God of the OT, but who use a very thick layer of apologetics to preserve the few things they insist on taking literally - like a God-authored Bible and a literal resurrection.

Once you start seeing the Bible and other religious books as being written by people who are striving to connect to the God (as concept), then it gets easy to let go of literal miracles, literal intervention by OT God, etc.

I think if everyone did this, Sam Harris would no longer have anything to complain about. But Sullivan (and dare I say Pastor Bob on occasion?) are still hanging on to a very limited set of literalisms. And it's that clining by moderates that Harris says enables ("emboldens") the fundamentalists.

I love this blog. It is a unique perspective in the midst of this religion-vs-secularism divide. Keep up the good work.

Thanks for the comments!

Pither, I think you may be right that Harris would feel comfortable with this approach to God. I actually think more moderate Christians would also, but they fear that if they take one more step toward releasing their OT image of God then the whole ball of wax will fade away and they will end up in the Sam Harris camp of theology.

There is some validity to that common fear and Sam may be right that moderate and liberal Christians bear some of the blame for not giving a good description of a what this type of non-interventionist God "looks" like. Most people want to see a clear picture of where they are headed before they take the first step. Unfortunately, it really doesn't work that way. For people that grew up in traditional religion, the first step of deconstruction often takes as much courage as the unbeliever's first step of faith.

Heated agreement as usual. I find it interesting that I have surfed all over and finally found a blog that captures in a nutshell my own experiences. Strangely - or maybe not so strangely - I am a software developer, too.

I agree with your assertion that moderates fear that "one more step" toward the edge. For me, it's mostly my upbringing and the fact that I am married to a Christian moderate and am surrounded by a community of moderates and traditionalists, so I kinda need a way to sort thru it all and find a common ground. Your musings and the writings of folks like Borg help me to carve out a sensible way to remain in the community I am in as well as be inwardly authentic.

Have you ever listened to any of the "sermons" from this church? It's in my neck of the woods here in Western Michigan. http://www.christ-community.net
I think it would hit the spot for you as it does for me. I'm grateful for their podcasts.

Hello. I'm here sort of at the invitation of Pastor Bob. We both subscribe to the online publication "CopperhouseCurrent," which purports to be a way for progressive/emerging Christians to connect.

Anyway, I'll just jump in and invite y'all to visit my own website.

Danutz writes: "There is some validity to that common fear and Sam may be right that moderate and liberal Christians bear some of the blame for not giving a good description of a what this type of non-interventionist God "looks" like."

I am a far-left liberal Christian. So is John Dominic Crossan (in my estimation). In his book, co-authored with Jonathan Reed "In Search of Paul," Crossan lays out what is to me a very intriguing definition of a non-interventionist God: "But what on earth -- or in heaven -- is a kenotic God? Maybe this? A God whose gracious presence as free gift (Paul's charis) is the beating heart of the universe and does not need to threaten, to intervene, to punish, or to control. A God whose presence is justice and life, but whose absence is injustice and death?" p. 291.

I wrote some stuff about "kenosis" on my blog a while back ... Crossan's interpretation is NOT the traditional dogma. I can post more about that here, but let's not get bogged down in it. Crossan's thought about the nature of God is what is important. It is a mystical concept.

Maybe Sam Harris' problem is he's not a mystic? or denies that he is ...? I haven't read him. Guess I should.

I'm glad to see we've got a little conversation going here. A little community of fellow travelers.

I will confess that I hang on to a set of literalisms. Partly that may be from my own background -- I graduated from Fuller Seminary so I have an evangelical pedigree. I also find that concepts such as resurrection remain compelling to me. At the same time, I'm open to new ideas and understandings.

The problem with folks like Sam Harris is that they limit their conversation partners to only the most rigid of folk. It's like watching the news shows that bring on Al Mohler and say, here's the Christian rep. Well, that doesn't represent me.

As for the OT God, and letting go of that God. I'm concernened with that idea for another reason -- the possibility of anti-Judaism. This isn't new. Marcion got the Christian community started on the canonization process because he wanted to separate out the God of the OT and the God of Jesus. The first one is bad, the second is good. Such ideas do contribute to anti-Judaism and delink Jesus from his own context and culture. So, I'll hang on to the OT God, even if I don't hold on to all the definitions of that God.

Thanks for the link Pither! I'll try to tune into those sermon/podcasts. I don't hear to many sermons in person these days. I'm glad you've connected to something here.

sea raven, I just heard Dominic Crossan speak in person for the first time 2 weeks ago. He was really good. I love his portrayal of Jesus as anti-Empire. I think he is the secret weapon behind Marcus Borg's insight. Borg gives him much credit although Borg writes with more clarity for the average thinking man.

Bob, I too have evangelical roots. My dad was a Southern Baptist Pastor. Your reference here about the divinity of Jesus as a reference to God's pyisical presense in the universe didn't just slip by me. I didn't want to go into that yet but I had thought about a post on that subject one day. That could be tricky so I've stayed away from it. I'd be interested on your thoughts about his divinity as compared to the Borg and Crossan pre/post easter Jesus concept. I don't completely write off your more moderate views (I bet you get called liberal instead of moderate in you own site! Those labels are definately relative to the present company.)

Every once in a while I do blog searches just to see if I can find new and interesting blogs by progressive Christians, and I ran across this posting. This is a big issue for me--I came to the conclusion a long time ago that I could not believe in an interventionist God. The theology that led me there was not, however, Crossan or Borg (although I am big fans of both authors), but process theology. I am not necessarily wedded to process theology, but to me it is a very interesting (and admittedly esoteric) concept of how a non-interventionist God can interact with the world, and what such a God would be like.

Oh you must have read John Cobb? I have heard him speak once before but haven't read much by him. I'd like to hear your thoughts. I'll peek around your blog a bit.

Yes, the book that first got me interested in process theology was a book that Cobb wrote with David Ray Griffin, called "Process Theology: An Introductory Exposition". I've read some other things by both authors since that time. Marjorie Suchocki is another interesting author to come out of that school of thought. The "process and faith" website has some good stuff on process theology--including articles by Cobb, and some interpretations of the revised common lectionary from a process theology perspective.