Faith in Christ Today Invitation to Systematic Theology: Volume Ii Involved in God's Project

By Klaus Nürnberger

In Volume I the author analyses the Word of God and the response of the Christian community in a lucid and accesible way.

In this second volume he interprets the classical assertions of the Christian
faith in terms of Gods creative and redemptive project in the world of today.

His experiential approach is meant to restore the credibility, vibrancy and relevance of faith in Christ for our times.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Xlibris UK
• Release date: Jun 29, 2016
• ISBN: 9781514463130

Klaus Nürnberger

Klaus Nürnberger , Dr theol, DTh, DD (hc), is Professor emeritus and Senior Research Associate at the University of KwaZulu-Natal. This book breaks new ground. Instead of taking Philosophy as his main interlocutor in developing his ideas, the author affords that role to the current scientific worldview. One of the outstanding characteristics of this text is the remarkable coherence which it exhibits. The various subsections of Systematic Theology are closely and consistently developed in terms of the central theme of the book (Prof Conrad Wethmar, University of Pretoria). Klaus Nürnberger’s Invitation to Systematic Theology takes us into the Word of God, guides us through the various rooms in the theological mansion, and ushers us out into the fertile garden of practical living. God’s benevolence becomes our benevolence in daily life. An inspiring treatment of the Christian faith (Prof Ted Peters, Pacific Lutheran Theological Seminary, Berkeley, CA). Although my own paradigm of doing theology sharply differs from that of the author, nobody can deny that he wrote a book of high academic standard which challenges classic orthodoxy in many ways. The author is well-informed, ‘broadminded’, a man of wide reading, intelligent argumentation and always thought-provoking (Prof Amie van Wyk, University of Potchesfroom).

Book preview

Copyright © 2016 by Klaus Nürnberger.

All rights reserved. This is an open access book. Portions of the book may be copied for personal, educational and research purposes but any commercial use requires the written permission of the copyright owner.

Scripture quotations found in the text are taken from the following two versions of the Bible, or they represent my own translation:

New Revised Standard Version Bible, copyright 1989, Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations taken from THE HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION. Copyright 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permission.

Rev. date: 06/28/2016

Cover Design:

Klaus Nürnberger

Xlibris

800-056-3182

www.Xlibrispublishing.co.uk

633805

Cluster Publications

[e-mail]

www.clusterpublications.co.za

Contents

Overview of Volume I

Life in the Presence of God

1. We Have the Bible – Why Theology?

   Appendix A: A Few Theological Approaches

Part I – The Living Word of God

2. Encounter with God in His Word

   (God’s presence)

3. Facets of the Word of God

   (Law and grace)

4. The Origins of the Word of God

   (Scriptures and tradition)

5. The Transmission of the Word of God

(Hermeneutics)

6. The Dynamics of the Word of God

   (Mission)

Part II – At Home in God’s fellowship

7. The Embodied Word of God

   (The community of believers)

8. The Embedded Word of God

   (Church and world)

9. The Herald of the Word of God

   (The ordained ministry)

10. The Celebration of the Word of God

   (Worship and sacraments)

11. Keeping God’s Word on Track

   (Orthodoxy and heresy)

Contents of Volume II

Reflections on God

Acknowledgements

My Message in a Nutshell

Part III – The Transcendence Of God

12 Who Is This God?

(The Concept of God)

I.    God, the Transcendent Source and Destiny of Reality

II.    Why Should God Be Deemed a Person?

III.    The Basis of God Consciousness in Our Brains

13 Finding an Appropriate Approach

(Theological Accountability)

I.    The Approach of Experiential Realism

II.    Untenable Approaches

Part IV – The Creative Power Of God

14 God, the Transcendent Source of Reality

(The Concept of Creation)

I.    Biblical Notions of the Transcendent Source of Reality

II.    The Empirical Reality of God’s Creation

III.    A Comprehensive Spirituality

IV.    God’s Redemptive Action in the World

15 The Human Being as a Creature of God

(Anthropology)

I.    The Human Being as Part of the Universe

II.    The Level of Structured and Oriented Consciousness

III.    Intentionality and Agency

IV.    Systems of Meaning

V.    Why Does It Matter?

Part V – The Benevolent Intentionality Of God

16 The Disclosure of God’s Intentionality

(Jesus of Nazareth)

I.    A Historical Reconstruction of the Christ-event

II.    Jesus of Nazareth, the True Representative of the True God

III.    Aspects of the Christian Narrative

IV.    The Classical Trinitarian and Christological Doctrines

17 The Elevated Christ

(The Resurrection and Ascension of Christ)

I.    The Elevated Christ: What Does It Mean?

II.    The ‘Second Coming’ of Christ and the ‘Cosmic Christ’

III.    The Spirit of Christ in the Body of Christ

IV.    The Elevated Christ and the Ancestors

18 The Presence of Christ

(The Holy Spirit)

I.    The Spirit of God in the Biblical Tradition

II.    Major New Testament Theologies of the Spirit

III.    The Significance of the Biblical Trajectory for Us Today

19 God against God

(The Trinity)

I.    The Scandal and the Mystery

II.    Ever More Inclusive Horizons

III.    An Experiential Rendering of the Trinity

IV.    It Is God the Creator Who Is Benevolent

V.    Faith Discerns the Benevolence of the Creator in Creation

VI.    Theodicy: The ‘Achilles’ Heel’ of the Biblical Faith

Part VI – The Comprehensive Vision Of God

20 A World in Need of Redemption

(Where Are We in Human History?)

I.    Modernity Revolutionised the World

II.    The Interplay between Traditionalism and Modernity

III.    The Task of Theology in the Modern World

21 God and the Quest for Human Well-Being

(Evil and Transformation)

I.    What Is the Scope of Redemption?

II.    Fundamentals of an Appropriate Concept of Redemption

III.    The Human Need Structure

IV.    The Nature of Spiritual Needs

V.    The Notion of God Implied in the Concept of Redemption

22 God and the Quest for Human Authenticity

(Sin and Reconciliation)

I.    Two Basic Models

II.    What Is Sin?

III.    The Consequences of Sin

IV.    The Meaning of ‘Original Sin’

V.    Reconciliation with God in Christ

Appendix B–Traditional Approaches to Soteriology

I.    Languages Used to express the Saving Act of Christ

II.    A Few Classical Theories

Part VII – God Beyond Space And Time

23 A New Kind of Creation?

(Eschatology)

I.    Entropy and Eschatology

II.    Future Expectations in the Bible

III.    The Importance and the Danger of Transcending Reality

IV.    Christian Hope in Terms of Experiential Realism

24 Our Future beyond Death

(Eternal Life)

I.    The Meaning of Resurrection

II.    Facing the Fact of Our Mortality

III.    The Miracle of Our Existence within Historical Time

Appendix C–Key Stages in the Evolution of Eschatology

25 Meet the Author

I.    Farmer or Missionary?

II.    Theological Formation

III.    A Remote Mission Station and the Black City

IV.    Lutheran Theological College

V.    Theological Ethics at the University of South Africa

VI.    The School of Theology in Pietermaritzburg

VII.    Retirement: The Opportunity to Do My Thing

Appendix D–List of Publications

Glossary

Acknowledgements

The manuscript has been peer reviewed by Prof Christoph Schwöbel (Tübingen), Prof Conrad Wethmar (Pretoria), Prof Amie van Wyk, Potchefstroom, Prof Ernst Conradie (Western Cape) and Prof Izak Spangenberg (Unisa). I received valuable comments from Prof John de Gruchy (Cape Town), Prof Ted Peters (Berkeley) and Rev Dieter Lilje. Other colleagues have warmly encouraged me to publish the work. A number of willing dialogue partners were unable to respond before going to the press.

Financial assistance by the Research Office of the University of KwaZulu-Natal is gratefully acknowledged. I thank Cluster Publications (Pietermaritzburg) and Xlibris Corporation (London) for accepting the manuscript for publication and providing an international platform. Parts of the manuscript have been edited by Mrs Maxi Nürnberger, Mrs Eva Nürnberger and Rev Dieter Lilje, for which I am most grateful. All remaining inadequacies are my own responsibility.

Christ is my life—imagine it without him, and nothing will remain!

To my teachers, colleagues, students and fellow believers (including, in particular, my wife, Maxi, my lifelong theological dialogue partner and spiritual companion) who contributed so much to the evolution of the theology I present in these volumes.

My Message in a Nutshell

Theology is the quest of believers for an understanding of what they believe. Faith comes first; theology follows. Religious faith is the intuition that reality is derived from a transcendent Source and headed towards a transcendent Destiny. Theology seeks to clarify this intuition. Christian faith responds to the ‘Word of God’, that is, the message of God’s creative power, God’s benevolent intentionality and God’s comprehensive vision for the world as manifest in Christ. Believers entrust themselves to this message, live in the context of a community of believers and seek to be involved in God’s creative and redemptive project.

The Word of God emerged and evolved in human history in the form of a living tradition. During biblical times it functioned as God’s redemptive response to specific human predicaments, depravities and worldviews, based on ‘God’s great acts’ in the history of God’s people, culminating in the Christ-event. The Word of God is proclaimed by each successive generation of believers on the basis of the biblical tradition. In all these cases, people decide for or against participation in God’s creative and redeeming action.

Whenever we accept this message in faith, it manifests its power by calling us into God’s presence, exposing our waywardness, accepting us into God’s fellowship, liberating, transforming and involving us in God’s vision for the world. Trusting the proclamation, we try to discern God’s benevolence in the ambiguous reality we experience.

In the face of all indications to the contrary, we believe this reality to be the ever new outcome of God’s creative power and benevolent intentionality. Faith is, therefore, always a tenacious struggle to remain open for the reassurance of God’s benevolence against the vagaries of experienced reality, thus a struggle ‘with God against God’.

We are challenged to be honest before God and humankind in what we accept or reject in faith and what we proclaim and enact as the intention of God. The struggle to discern what is in line with God’s creative power, God’s benevolent intentionality and God’s comprehensive vision never ceases.

After three millennia, the biblical faith has accumulated countless ways of interpretation and enactment of its message. Not all of these are appropriate in terms of the kind of God we believe in. Not all of them fit our current situation and worldview. We have to figure out which alternatives are tenable and appropriate. That is what theology is all about.

PART III

THE TRANSCENDENCE OF GOD

In volume 1, we asked what life in the presence of God might entail. We dealt with the Word of God as the medium used by God to make ‘himself’ present and known in our lives (Part 1). Then we dealt with our embeddedness in the Christian community (Part 2). In volume 2, we take a step back and ask who this God is.

Parts 3–7 deal with the peculiarly Christian notion of God. In Part 3, we ask what an appropriate notion of God would entail (chapter 12). On this basis, we clarify our theological approach (chapter 13). Here, I spell out the approach of ‘experiential realism’, which I think responds best to the modern experience and interpretation reality.

12 Who Is This God?

(The Concept of God)

What this chapter is all about

We know from experience that God is not physically present in the way a computer and a thunderstorm are present. Plain common sense tells us that, defined as the transcendent Source and Destiny of reality as such and as a whole, God cannot be physically present in the way the components of this world are present.

If God were present in this way, God would be a factor within immanent reality, operating in competition or cooperation with other such factors rather than the transcendent Creator of all these factors. If there were such an ostensibly ‘supernatural’ part of immanent reality, it would be an idol. An idol is a deified or absolutised part of immanent reality.

This is also why there is no way we can ‘prove’ the reality or the existence of God. We can only intuit that our own lives, and the universe of which we are a part, are not self-contained but open towards ‘something’ or ‘someone’ beyond itself that is their ultimate ‘Wherefrom’ and ‘Where-to’, and, for humans, their ultimate authority.

On the basis of such an intuition, triggered by the impact of the Word of God on our consciousness, we claim to ‘know God’. God discloses ‘his’ creative power in the world we experience, and ‘he’ discloses ‘his’ benevolent intentionality in the proclamation of the gospel based on the biblical witness.

It is not a knowledge of who or what God might be ‘as such’, quite apart from ‘his’ relation to the world, and to us as a special part of the world, but what God has chosen to become for us. Everything that goes beyond that is speculation or wishful thinking.

When we speak about the transcendent Source and Destiny of reality, therefore, we are dealing with an intuition, notion or concept of the transcendent based on our experience of these two manifestations of God within immanent reality.

Intuitions, notions and concepts are part of immanent reality. They can be described, analysed and critiqued. Therefore, the question is not whether there ‘exists’ a transcendent or ultimate reality such as the God we believe in; the question is, rather, what kind of ultimate assumption we allow to determine our actual life processes.

Section 1 deals with God as the transcendent Source and Destiny of reality. Section 2 shows why for Christians God must be deemed a person. Section 3 asks how God consciousness gets into our brains. Throughout, we emphasise that it is the content of God consciousness that matters rather than its formal shape. In the case of the Christian faith, this content is based on the evolution of the biblical tradition that culminated in the Christ-event and that we have discussed in chapter 4.

Section I

God, the Transcendent Source and Destiny of Reality

What do you think?

Do you believe that God is some kind of infinitely great super-intelligence that had some kind of cosmic purpose when ‘he’ designed and constructed the universe we know? If so, on which basis did you come to such a conclusion?

Or did a rudimentary universe just pop into existence in the beginning of time and evolve ever since into the world we know today?

Do you think that reality as a whole, and thus your own life, has some kind of purpose or meaning, or is it essentially meaningless?

1. The Existential Point of Departure

The awareness of the presence of God does not break into our lives through a physical encounter, an ecstatic apparition or a metaphysical proposition, but through a message that formulates God’s expectation and God’s gift of an authentic human existence. The simplest form of such a message is, ‘Will you be my messenger?’ or ‘Will you follow me?’ When we are confronted with the divine call into an authentic life, we ask ourselves who it is that calls us and for what we are being called. That is the way we encounter God in practical terms.

The call to embrace an authentic existence in fellowship with God is always mediated through human forms of communication: the biblical tradition, the proclaimed Word of God, the spirit of the Christian community, the attitude and action of other believers or the written record of lives lived sharing the new life of Christ. However, the way it penetrates to the very core of our being and, revealing the treacherous and unstable foundations on which we have built our lives, makes us conscious of something infinitely more important that we cannot ignore without forfeiting the very rationale of our lives.

The call into an authentic existence may fall on fertile ground in our consciousness because, as humans, we are aware that we are derived, dependent, vulnerable, mortal, accountable and culpable beings. This awareness is often repressed, overshadowed by more immediate concerns, not really heeded, let alone articulated, but ultimately unavoidable. It implies the questions from whom we have been derived and to whom we are accountable.

Such an encounter with God can happen in sudden and dramatic ways but also in subconscious and more implicit ways. We may be overwhelmed by a life-changing message, encounter or experience. Or we may have grown up in a committed Christian family and sucked in God consciousness with our mother’s milk. It is the content of the call that matters, not the way it reaches us.

It is from this existential base that our reflections must depart if they are to be relevant and meaningful. If not, we may be busy with empty mental constructs, about which we can perhaps enter into sophisticated or trivial debates, but to which we do not need to be committed and that do not need to have a real impact on our lives.

2. God as Such and God for Us

God is our name for the transcendent Source and Destiny of reality. Everything we experience comes from somewhere, and everything we experience is meant to go somewhere. But these are relative, provisional and partial movements within immanent reality. Christians are concerned about the ultimate Source and the ultimate Destiny of the whole of reality. Christians intuit such an ultimate Source and Destiny on the basis of the biblical message. This ‘great Other’ is ‘transcendent’, which means that it lies outside our unmediated experience.

The transcendence of God implies not only that God as such cannot be directly experienced but also that it is not appropriate to imagine God in any sort of way. All such pictures of God, if taken for real, must of necessity become idolatrous because they see God as an object, among others, rather than as the transcendent Source and Destiny of all of reality. That is also the valid reason for the prohibition to depict God in any form found in the Ten Commandments and elsewhere in the Old Testament.

God is all over—in the galaxies, the cells of our bodies and the thoughts of our minds—but ‘he’ is there as the transcendent ‘Wherefrom’ and ‘Whereto’ of reality rather than as a part of reality. As 1 John 4 says, nobody has ever seen God; it is when we live a life of loving concern that ‘God is in us’ because we share in God’s creative and redemptive intentionality.

Various biblical authors state explicitly that nobody can see, and has ever seen, God (Ex 33:18–23; 1 Kings 8:10–12, 27; Jn. 1:18; 1 Tim 6:16; 1 Jn. 4:12). Coming out of unbearable suffering and looking at the magnificence of the created world, Job comes to the conclusion that God is just too great to be understood (Job 38–42). If he says ‘my eyes have seen you’, this does not refer to God as such but to the majestic creation that God had shown him and in which God reveals ‘himself’ to discerning humans.

Pondering God’s ways with ‘his’ people Israel and venturing some daring predictions, Paul ultimately confesses that God’s judgements are unsearchable, ‘his’ ways are inscrutable and nobody knows ‘his’ mind. Because from ‘him’ and through ‘him’ and to ‘him’ are all things; ‘he’ is just too great for us to grasp (Rom. 11:33–36; cf Acts 17:28)!

Texts that speak of seeing God ‘face-to-face’ (Gen. 32:31; 33:11; Num. 14:14; Deut. 5:4; 34:10; Ps 11:7; 42:2; 1 Cor. 13:12 etc) usually use this metaphor to indicate a relationship with God that is undisturbed by sin or ignorance. In John’s gospel, Jesus says that God is Spirit and can only be worshipped in spirit and truth rather than in sanctuaries (Jn. 4:24). Paul says that we see God in ‘his’ image, Jesus Christ, into whose image we are to be transformed. He assumes that Christ is the true image of God rather than Adam (Gen. 1:26–27) and in faith we change from Adam to Christ. But the Lord (Christ) is the Spirit, which is the Spirit of divine love (2 Cor. 3:17–18; 4:4; Rom. 8:29; cf Phil. 2:6; Col. 1:15; 3:9–10).

When 1 John 3:2 speaks of ‘seeing God as he is’, he explicitly refers to an eschatological revelation not yet available. The author keenly realises that this presupposes that ‘we will be like him’, which we are not as yet. However, in which sense can human beings—who are creatures and therefore subject to the constraints of time, space, energy and regularity—ever ‘be like God’ in the glory of a Creator on whom the galaxies, the quanta, the workings of cells and the intricacies of neurological processes depend? Has the enthusiasm of a believer here perhaps overextended itself? Or does he perhaps refer to participation in divine love that he speaks about so eloquently in chapter 4?

While it is impossible to imagine God, the transcendent Source and Destiny of reality, we can indeed imagine Jesus, the Christ, in whom the benevolent intentionality of God manifested itself. This is so because he was an individual, historical person, whose life has left a trail of consequences in this world, and because some essential details of his life story have been recorded. As the countless depictions of Christ show, this has been done by believers throughout the ages.

A historical human being is indeed something concrete in this world. We also believe him to be the prototype of the authentic human being into whose image we are to be transformed. This presupposes at least some idea of what it is into which we are supposed to be transformed. Building on the personal encounter of ancient Israel with Yahweh as a person, it is Christ who gave the unfathomable greatness of God a ‘human face’ so that humans can relate to ‘him’.

Transcendence, Source and Destiny are formal concepts that can be filled with alternative kinds of content. When we refer to the transcendence of something, we mean that it is ‘situated’ beyond the range of human observation, explanation and manipulation. Christians attach a definite meaning to ‘ultimate Source’, namely ‘creative power’, which is an anthropomorphic metaphor for whatever may ultimately drive the cosmic process. They also attach a meaning to ‘ultimate Destiny’, namely ‘benevolent intentionality’, which is an anthropological metaphor for what we consider to be of ultimate significance and validity.

We have no access to what is transcendent, so we cannot study God as such, and we should not indulge in speculations to make up for our ignorance. If God wanted us to know the mysteries of ‘his inner being’, ‘he’ would have revealed them to us. So theology is not, as its name seems to suggest, a ‘study of God’. Theology can only critically analyse existing notions of God and propose a notion that seems to be appropriate. That is the realm in which theology can meaningfully operate.

Where do we get such a concept of God from? We cannot catch hold of God like an insect, put God under a microscope and study God. That is pretty obvious. The best we can hope for is that God catches hold of us. Then we can try to figure out what it means to be in the hands of God. This is what countless believers have experienced, and this is what theology is all about.

How does that happen? In chapter 2, I used the example of a telephone call as an example of how a person can become present in our consciousness while physically absent. It is the Word of God that makes God real and present for us when it hits us in the centre of our lives. In section 3, I shall discuss this fact in some detail.

So God as such is not accessible to us. And yet we believers claim that we can ‘know God’ because God has disclosed ‘himself’ to us. There are two kinds of ‘revelation’ of who God wants to be for us: (a) God’s creative power that underlies the world we experience and (b) God’s benevolent intentionality that is proclaimed on the basis of the biblical tradition.

The Christian faith forges these two clues into a notion of the one and only God. Christians are persuaded that God’s benevolence is the creative dynamic that powers the world we experience. Put in different words, God’s creative activity is motivated by God’s love. Let me express these dimensions of the concept of God in two basic propositions:

As the transcendent Source of reality, ‘God’ stands for the mainspring of the cosmic process in which, following certain regularities, energy compacts into matter, which unfolds in time and space into ever more complex constructs, networks and processes.

As the transcendent Destiny of reality, ‘God’ stands for the intended goal of this process. The intended goal is not a predestined future that will have to come about, no matter what, but a vision of what ought to become, namely the comprehensive optimal well-being of all aspects of reality.

Let me repeat at this stage what I had emphasised in chapter 1: the fact that we know God in these two ways does not mean that we have a dualistic worldview. Dualism means that there are two separate principles that are opposed to each other, for instance matter and spirit in Platonic thought, or this world and the world to come in ancient Persian thought. What we have here, in contrast, is a dialectic. A dialectic depicts two aspects or dimensions of the same reality that cannot just be collapsed into one and that may seem to be antagonistic to each other.

A motor car is designed, on the one hand, according to mechanical principles; on the other hand, it is designed to fulfil a particular purpose, namely to bring people from point A to point B. Neither aspect can be ignored. However, they each have their own rationale, and so they can militate against each other. Mechanical constraints can impose limitations on the fulfilment of the purpose of the car. A car cannot fly over potholes. On the other hand, it makes no sense to construct a gadget that is technically impressive but fulfils no purpose.

If there is indeed such a transcendent Source and Destiny of reality, God must be involved in everything that exists and happens, whether we or other creatures are aware of ‘his’ presence or not. If reality as a whole depends on God for its very existence, on the one hand, and for its meaning and purpose on the other, God’s creative power and God’s benevolent intentionality must be present and effective in the whole of reality (Rom. 1:20, Nehemiah 9:6).

If God as such is transcendent and yet involved in these two ways, it also follows that God’s relation to us and our relation to God are always mediated through God’s creation. While God is in us and all around us as the Creator and as the Provider of purpose and meaning, there is no direct unmediated communication between us and God.

This fact is of immense theological importance, and we shall soon come back to it. For now it is sufficient to emphasise that we are here concerned with the human experience of God’s presence rather than ‘his’ assumed creative power and benevolent intentionality in all of reality. The question of this chapter is how the transcendent God can be present for us. So let us analyse the concept of transcendence some more.

3. Immanent Transcendence

Transcendence means that something ‘goes beyond’ the boundaries of our immediate experience. There are two kinds of limits to our immediate experience: immanent transcendence and ultimate transcendence. Let us deal with immanent transcendence first. We experience ourselves as observers and agents within the world of which we are a part. But our range of access to this reality has limits even within the world we know. That is self-evident.

In terms of space, for instance, I am sitting in front of my computer. I cannot be in Nairobi or New Delhi at the same time. In terms of time, I am restricted to what is happening at this moment as I am busy typing. What happened yesterday is no more; what may happen tomorrow is not yet. I can remember the past and anticipate the future, but I have no access to either.

In terms of energy, I am confined to the resources stored up in my body. Some time tonight, they will decline, and I will need to sleep. What I know is confined to what I have experienced, what I have read, what I have been told, what I have gone through and thought through. All that knowledge is limited.¹

In all these aspects, there are boundaries to our immediate experience, and we know that there is something beyond these boundaries. Naturalists will agree with that because this ‘beyond’ is still part of ‘immanent reality’—that is, the reality ‘at hand’—the reality we actually experience. Therefore, we can speak of ‘immanent transcendence’ in this case.

This rather paradoxical term must be distinguished from a kind of transcendence that goes beyond immanent reality as such and as a whole and that is, by definition, not accessible to our observation, explanation or prediction. I call the kind of transcendence we refer to when we refer to God ‘ultimate transcendence’. Because we assume that God is the Source and Destiny of reality and must, as such, be present in all of reality, we could also speak of the ‘transcendent immanence’ of God.

4. Ultimate Transcendence and the Naturalist Alternative

Immanent transcendence indicates the limits of our knowledge of immanent reality in terms of space, time, energy and regularity. Ultimate transcendence indicates dependence of all of immanent reality, including time, space, energy and regularity, on something greater and more fundamental, something that is beyond our observation and explanation. Here faith is pitted against ‘naturalism’, the claim that the world accessible to our observation and investigation is all there is. There is no transcendent Source and Destiny.

There is a difference between proximate dependence and ultimate dependence. Our lives are embedded in our life worlds; life worlds are part of the universe. It is quite obvious that we owe our existence to the processes prevalent within immanent reality. Is this the ultimate foundation and direction-giving authority of reality? According to naturalism, it is. There is nothing beyond the world we know. Or does the universe with all its parts and dimensions depend on an ultimate and intangible authority, Source and Destiny? This is the intuition and conviction of the Jewish, Christian and Muslim believer.

The intuition is that there must be something much greater—something much more comprehensive than the reality we experience—is widespread in the world of religions and worldviews. It can take the form of pantheism. In this case, the empirical reality that we experience and that we try to understand as such is ultimate, absolute, thus ‘divine’. That is the position of naturalism, except that the latter would not want to use the concept of the ‘divine’.

The intuition of a ‘greater entity’ can also take the form of panentheism. It assumes that the ultimate, absolute, or ‘divine’ is something that goes far beyond but also includes the reality we experience and try to understand. One could think of the speculation in modern science that there can be many universes existing next to each other.

As spelt out elsewhere in this chapter, the undesirable consequences of these stances are threefold: (a) humans could not relate to this higher being as persons to a person, thus depriving them of a personal Other from whom they derive their existence and to whom they are accountable; (b) humans could feel entitled to the status of ultimate lords, owners and beneficiaries of reality because they represent the highest developed being in the universe; and (c) as parts of reality, they could be enslaved by reality, whether in the form of their own desires, social powers and processes, or natural mechanisms.

Because Christians assume that the creative power of God is the Source of experienced reality as a whole and that this God is motivated by unconditional benevolence, they also believe that God is present in ‘his’ creative power and ‘his’ benevolent intentionality in everything that exists and happens, which brings their view close to panentheism. But that does not make the reality we experience, or any part of it, absolute or divine. The latter only has the dignity of being created and loved by God. The biblical faith is adamant that nothing in this world, including the human being, is divine. Giving the creature a divine status is considered idolatry, which is the essence of sin.

As far as immanent reality is concerned, the Christian faith and naturalism overlap. Both relate to the reality we experience. Both are able to use scientific methods to explore what exists and happens within this reality. If their findings differ, these differences can only be sorted out by science, not by faith or naturalism. God is not part of experienced reality, let alone a ‘supernatural’ part of immanent reality, but its transcendent Source and Destiny.

The question is, rather, whether immanent reality as a whole is closed in upon itself rather than being embedded in or sustained by something beyond itself. Has the energy of which it is composed simply popped into existence out of nowhere? Are the regularities according to which it functions the product of its own dynamics? Does the world process generate itself, maintain itself and destroy itself? That is the assumption of naturalism: the view that nature is all there is.

The question is also whether the reality of which we are a part has a meaning, a purpose, a direction, a goal, or whether it is essentially pointless. Sensitive naturalists may find meaning in the very existence of nature as it has unfolded and are willing to invest their lives into its preservation. Fair enough. But then, this depends on their own emotional attachment to the beauty and preciousness of nature; it does not follow automatically from the naturalist stance.

Naturalism is an assumption that many people informed by modern science seem to share. But is it self-evident? Is it credible? Is it desirable? Is it sufficient to give stability, coherence and direction to human life? Whatever its merits may be, the naturalist assumption that nature is all there is does not represent a scientific finding but a metaphysical postulate.

Believers are guided by the opposite assumption. It is based on the intuition that reality is open rather than closed. This intuition has existential rather than metaphysical roots. Humans experience themselves as being derived, dependent, vulnerable, mortal, accountable and culpable beings. That being the case, we simply have to ask: accountable to what or to whom?

5. Is Ultimate Transcendence a Credible Proposition?

So both the Christian faith and naturalism are based on assumptions. Are these assumptions persuasive? It goes without saying that we cannot verify the intuition of a transcendent Source and Destiny empirically; otherwise, it would not be transcendent. It would be a part of the immanent world, even if construed as something ‘supernatural’. But apart from philosophical or theological considerations, there are questions in modern science that cannot be answered and that make it at least plausible, if not likely, that reality is not closed in upon itself but dependent on Something or Someone beyond itself.

What was there ‘before’ the big bang? What will be ‘after’ the big crunch (or the infinite dispersion of all energy)? What is ‘beyond’ the spatial boundaries of the universe? ‘Where’ did the energy that constitutes and drives the world process come from? How did the regularities according to which it functions originate? Why does time run in only one direction? Why does space only have three dimensions? Are the laws of nature necessary or contingent? Why is there anything at all and not rather nothing?

Maybe these are wrong questions to ask because our parameters of reality—time, space, energy, regularity and contingency—only came into existence with the onset of the big bang and will eventually disappear into nothingness. If that were the case, there would be no ‘before’, no ‘after’, no ‘outside’, no reason, no meaning. Alternatively, there may be an eternal rhythm of evolutionary construction and entropic collapse.

But does this have to mean that the reality we know is closed in upon itself, that there is nothing beyond time, space, energy and regularity as naturalism assumes? This does not seem to follow. Believers consider the assumption that reality is derived, dependent and (in the case of humans) accountable to a higher authority rather than self-generated, self-sustaining and autonomous to be more in line with human experience and the prerequisites of human survival and well-being.

We cannot access God as such. But if it is true that God is the transcendent Source and Destiny of the reality we do know, then God’s intentionality and agency manifest themselves not apart from but through inner-worldly means—the energy that makes up our world, the regularities according to which it functions, the subatomic, physical, chemical and biological processes that make up our bodies, the synaptic structures and processes in our brains, the shape and orientation of our consciousness, the structures and processes of our society and of our natural environment and, above all, human means of communication.

While for naturalism the phenomena that the sciences observe, explain and predict are all there is, for faith they are manifestations of the creative activity of God. God consciousness bundles and integrates our genetic propensities, our disparate memories, our sense impressions and the continuing information flows to which we are exposed into a dynamically evolving system of meaning that is ever aiming at inner consistency. Faith in one all-encompassing divine embrace signifies the most comprehensive apprehension of an unfathomably complex network of relationships attainable.

6. What Difference Does It Make?

If we attribute everything that exists and happens to God, the transcendent Source and Destiny of reality, what difference does such an assumption make? Is God not the proverbial ‘invisible gardener’ who ostensibly makes plants grow but whom one can safely ignore because we can explain the growth of plants perfectly well without the crutches of the ‘hypothesis of God’? Indeed, we can explain immanent reality, at least in principle! However, as emphasised before, faith in God is not about observation, explanation and prediction but about meaning, acceptability, authority and vision.

Whether experienced reality is all there is or whether it depends on a transcendent Source and Destiny is a metaphysical question. Metaphysics deals with theoretical considerations, for instance, why there is something rather than nothing. Such questions have no answers, at least not answers we could give at present with any degree of confidence. The approach of experiential realism suggests that it is not the task of theology to construct a neat and coherent metaphysical system, which may exist only in our heads but analyse what actually happens in the world we experience. What then do we experience?

1. To begin with, we may stand speechless before the beauty of a sunset or a flower. When we try to penetrate the unbelievable complexity and efficiency of a single cell, an organism, a functioning brain, we are may be overcome with awe. It may lead us to poetic exuberance about nature, to the ‘love of nature’, to research into nature and responsibility for nature. But it may also lead us to a sense of mystery: what is it that underlies this ineffable wonder? We may try to fathom this mystery in artistic representations, mystical contemplation, or be struck by the proclamation of God’s creative power and benevolent intentionality.

2. Once we begin to reflect on our lives, we cannot help but realise that we are derived beings. We did not create ourselves. From what or whom are we derived? There are proximate causes that led to our existence, notably the sexual encounter between our parents, between their parents and up the ladder of all previous generations. In fact, the vast evolving network of entities and relationships from the big bang onwards through the formation of stars, galaxies, our Milky Way, the earth, life on earth, and our non-human ancestors had to function exactly as they did for you and me to exist.

This vast and complex causative network falls within immanent reality. We can discover and deal with single aspects, events and developments; but as a whole, it is impenetrable for our observation, explanation and prediction. More importantly, we cannot communicate with it on a personal basis. To deal with it, we transcend this whole towards something like an overarching embrace—the embrace of Someone to whom we can express our appreciation and in whom we can place our trust.

3. All living creatures are dependent beings. They depend on things like water, rain, relatively stable temperatures, digestible food derived from other living creatures, the fertility of the soil, their own healthy bodies and minds, a reasonably functioning society, the love and care of mothers and fathers, education and training, meaningful activity, dignity and social justice—you name it!

4. These details may not bother us in our daily lives because we take them for granted. But any major crisis can make us aware that we are not the autonomous subjects we seem to be when everything goes according to plan. It is at such times that humans may transcend the proximate causes and consequences and depend on an unfathomable ‘Beyond’ without which nothing could exist and happen.

5. In crises, humans experience the unpredictability of reality. The certainties that we normally rely upon are not all that dependable. The formulation of the laws of nature may explain why certain events such as a drought or an epidemic or a vehicle accident occur. But that can happen only after the event when it is too late. Humans do not just fear danger, pain and death, as all animals do; they have a profound sense of the precariousness of human existence, human life worlds, even reality as such.

So human life is characterised not only by fear but by anxiety. Humans have always been drawn to oracles and astrology. What is it that may be lurking for me at the next corner? When will an unknown fate pounce upon us? In which way will we be affected? How will we be able to survive? How will we manage to cope with the consequences? Is there any way we can get into contact with the powers underlying fateful occurrences?

Fear is caused by a danger that is known: a snake in the grass, a criminal in the bedroom, a cancer growth in the breast. Anxiety is caused by dangers that are not known. What if I lose my job, my retirement savings or my health? What if my corrupt practices and shameful acts are exposed? What if my time runs out before I have fulfilled what I consider the purpose of my life? What if climate change, overpopulation, food insecurity or nuclear war catch up with us? What if planet earth is less stable than we always assumed?

6. All these issues would be of no concern for us if we were not vulnerable beings. While alive, we need protection. We need space, time, energy, status, fruitful work, acceptance, belonging, all of which can elude us. This concern covers our entire life world. The world of which we are a part and on which we depend must be held in place by dependable regularities that make it possible for life to survive and flourish.

Ancient religions display a vivid concern for the ‘cosmic order’, which needed to be upheld by appropriate rituals so that its seemingly unstable structures are not overrun by chaotic forces, that the sun comes up every morning and the rains fall every rainy season, that aggression and destructive conflict are kept in check by public laws and moral norms.

7. Together with all living creatures, we are mortal beings. Every life has a beginning and an end, and we are approaching that end with every minute of our lives. The end of life does not only question our biological existence but casts a cloud of meaninglessness over our whole existence. If our lives—in fact, everything that makes up our life worlds—will disintegrate sooner or later, what is the point? Why strain yourself? Why bother? ‘Eat and be merry because tomorrow you are dead!’ (1 Cor. 15:32). ‘After me the deluge!’ King Louis XIV of France is reported to have said in view of his extraordinarily lavish lifestyle.

8. More than anything else, we need a sense of meaning, a sense of identity, a sense of acceptance and belonging, a sense of personal control over our life world, a sense of authority to perform the functions in society that keep us busy. Negatively, humans struck by fateful events cannot avoid the question why they happened in the first place and why they happened to them and not to others. Why have they been singled out? If they are sensitive enough, they may also ask why such fateful events happened to other people and not to them. ‘Why are we so blessed?’

People with more profound sensitivities may ask even deeper questions: What is it that constitutes the foundations of the universe or rather its ongoing dynamic? In which direction does the world process move? Is this direction beneficial? Is it reliable? Will it end in a state of well-being or in a giant catastrophe? What is our role in all of this? Is our daily life moving in the right direction? What are the criteria of ‘the right direction’?

9. Crises in life make us realise that we are accountable. We must build on the past; we must provide for the future. We are able to intuit what ought to become from their experience of what ought not to have become. We are faced with options; we must take decisions. We know that our decisions may have beneficial and detrimental consequences; we are aware that we must suffer and account for those consequences. All this means that we have to go beyond the present into the future, beyond our own little place in space into wider horizons, beyond our own little status and role to the forces that determine human history and the cosmic process.

We must try to stabilise our life worlds whether by ritual as in antiquity or by technology today. We must struggle to find the best social, political and economic order and maintain it. We must internalise ethical values and norms. Our decisions must be informed by defensible visions and goals. We must refrain from short-sighted, foolish and detrimental designs, attitudes and actions. If we don’t, we and other people, future generations and all life on earth have to face the consequences, which may be severe. Once we become sensitised to these wider horizons, we are hugely overtaxed by the weight of responsibility and yearn for some redress.

10. Contemplating our actual performance in this regard, we may be plagued by a sense of failure. We had plans, visions and goals and failed. Others put their trust in us, and we could not fulfil their expectations. We were frustrated by insurmountable obstacles. In many cases, we have actually harmed ourselves and others. We realise that we are not only accountable but culpable. We cannot make the past undone. In many cases, we could choose not between good and evil but only between a lesser and a greater evil, but that does not lessen our responsibility for what we have been and what we have done.

We all spend a lot of time and effort to justify ourselves before our conscience and before others. We live in denial. We may construct impressive ideological edifices to legitimate our pursuit of self-interest at the expense of others. However, we cannot escape our culpability any longer. We need expiation, restitution, reconciliation, acceptance and belonging. Our wounded self-esteem and our social embeddedness may not be amenable to healing. Is there a higher authority beyond the inexorability of the laws of nature, our own values and norms, and the ideological and institutional constructs of the society in which we live?

These are experiences common to human beings in general. They may lead us to the intuition that there must be something more fundamental and more embracing than the reality accessible to our immediate experience. However, what this great Other might be is not clear. It is transcendent, thus not accessible to our observation, explanation or imagination. But if we are sensitive enough, we may be drawn into the quest for a valid concept the ultimate Source and Destiny of the reality that we experience and in which we are embedded.

‘God’ is simply our name for this great Other that seems to make our healthy lives possible and real. Call it ‘Nature’ if you will! Or fate. Or evolution. Or natural law. As long as it is clear that we here refer to the ultimate ‘Wherefrom’ and ‘Whereto’ of our very existence as part of the existence of our world rather than the more proximate and more comprehensible network of factors in which we are embedded. The ultimate Source and Destiny of reality cannot be part of reality, not even a ‘supernatural’ part. Once that is clear, we have to ask what kind of God we are dealing with.

7. The Content of the Concept of Transcendence

While faith cannot help but assume that there is something that transcends our immediate experience, this is only a formal framework that can be filled with all kinds of conviction. It is the content of such a notion that makes all the difference. On what kind of ultimate reality do you depend? To what kind of ultimate reality are you responsible? Is it really ultimate, or is it an absolutised part of the immanent world? Or maybe just a fleeting fad or desire? What are the consequences of allowing your life to become determined by this particular ultimate?

Against this background, the issue whether the reality of which we are a part is closed in upon itself or whether it is open towards an ultimate Source and Destiny is suddenly no longer a theoretical question. Any answer that we come up with places our lives on a particular spiritual foundation. It provides us with a particular motivation. It determines the dynamics of our very existence. It gives our lives a definite direction. It has consequences reaching far beyond our own lives and our life worlds. It calls for solutions, however tentative and inadequate these solutions may be. It has immediate existential repercussions.

What makes human life authentic? What leads to fulfilment? What is ultimately worthwhile? May we focus on the fulfilment of our selfish desires, or must we be concerned about the needs of the community? Are the interests of our communities in line with the interests of society? Does the society behave in a way that humanity as a whole, including future generations, is served or harmed? Do humans have a right to exploit and destroy other creatures?

Has our notion of the transcendent inclusive or limited horizons? Does it lead into the world or out of the world? Is it geared to our collective and individual self-interest or to the vision of comprehensive optimal well-being? Does it legitimate the pursuit of power, wealth and status, or commit us to selfless service? Does it demand slavish obedience to a pre-formulated set of laws and observances, or does it liberate us to take on responsibility for our life worlds? Does it promise sparkling health, success and happiness, or does it cover the inescapable realities of human depravity, social injustice, suffering and death?

So there is a metaphysical and an existential concept of transcendence. Existential transcendence means that you transcend yourself and your life world towards a higher Source, Authority and Destiny. In the Christian case, this has both a liberating and empowering effect. You are no longer tyrannised by social pressures and personal cravings. You are no longer geared solely to your own interests. You are no longer constrained by your own insights and resources. You are no longer glued to heroes, fashions and fads. You are no longer enslaved by social ideologies. You entrust yourself to the God who manifested ‘his’ redemptive intentionality in Christ and claim your spiritual position above all these forces.

Opening yourself up to this great Other, you allow yourself to be liberated, empowered and used for God’s greater purposes. You share in God’s all-inclusive vision. You trust that God may find ways and means to move closer to this vision, even when it seems to be impossible, to the benefit of reality as a whole, which includes your own potential benefit. That is a living, existential, rather than a theoretical, speculative kind of transcendence. Let us now consider some particular aspects of these two dimensions.

8. God, the Transcendent Source of Reality

If God is deemed the transcendent Source and Destiny of reality, it is not appropriate to say that God created the world as a functioning mechanism and then gave it a certain measure of independence to operate on its own. That would be a ‘deist’ proposal, a proposal that implies that there are two separate and relatively independent beings: God and the world.

The appropriate view is, rather, that energy, regularity, time and space all exist and function because they are powered by God’s ongoing creative activity; otherwise, they would not exist or happen. This is called continuous creation (creatio continua) in theology. It is critically important to recognise that, according to the biblical tradition, God’s continuous creative activity covers all of reality, whether it is to our advantage or disadvantage, whether to us it seems meaningful or meaningless. We shall soon come back to that.

In this regard, I cannot help but refer to a famous statement of Luther (written in the context of the controversies on the presence of Christ in the sacraments): ‘God’s right hand must be present and active everywhere—even in the tiniest leaf of a tree… . It is God who creates all things, who brings them about and upholds them by his almighty power and his right hand… . But if he is to create and uphold, he must be present… in every creature, in its innermost and outermost being, all around, through and through, above and below, behind and in front so that there can be nothing more present, nothing more intimately connected with every creature than God in his power’ (1529).²

What leads us to the intuition that there is such a God? As mentioned above, humans experience themselves as being derived, dependent, vulnerable, mortal and accountable beings. It is a matter of common experience, accessible to each human being. This experience can be amplified by careful observation, deep reflection and scientific research. The immanent causes of our human condition can be explored, but these explanations do not cover the ‘nature’ of the ultimate Wherefrom of reality as a whole. Is the world a self-contained, self-generated, self-sustaining, self-destructive system? For faith, this is not a viable proposition because it cannot provide us with ultimate meaning.

9. God, the Transcendent Destiny of Reality

The concept of the transcendent Destiny of reality indicates the meaning or purpose of reality. Faith assumes that God has a vision for the reality ‘he’ created, which gives this reality a purpose or meaning. The destiny of reality is a typically human concern not shared by other creatures. Humans have evolved onto such a level of complexity and profundity that they can no longer do without an overall sense of meaning.

The concept of a transcendent Destiny of reality does not imply that there is a pre-determined goal of reality, fixed forever through an eternal divine decree, and bound to materialise in the end. Cosmic reality is in dynamic and unpredictable flux. The concept of the ‘Destiny of reality’ refers to a vision of what reality ought to become, like the needle of a compass that indicates a direction rather than a pre-conceived ideal state.

According to the biblical scriptures, this compass is God’s vision of comprehensive optimal well-being. It responds redemptively to any deficiency in well-being in any dimension of life. It is like a shifting horizon that moves on as we approach it, opening up ever-new vistas, opportunities and challenges. So the reality of which we are a part has a purpose, a direction, a meaning. If there is a purpose, it will function as criterion of what is acceptable.

Secondly, humans are in need of a sense of acceptability, of belonging, of recognition, of a reassurance that they have a right to exist. What are the criteria of an authentic human life? What are the criteria of my very own authenticity? What happens when I fail to reach it? What are the values and the norms that we have to fulfil to become acceptable to the group to which we belong? Are these values and norms themselves acceptable from an ultimate point of view? How can we become reconciled and reintegrated when we have become guilty?

Thirdly, we need the authority to run our lives the way we do. This is not self-evident. Am I entitled to the possessions, the privileges, the education, the social status, the role I play, the influence that I enjoy? We instinctively feel that we are accountable and, being accountable, that we have to tread carefully and not spoil it all.

One could argue that meaning, acceptability and authority are defined and imposed by the community, the society, or the overall culture to which we belong or the religious conviction that we have internalised. That is indeed the case. However, these proximate authorities are only perceived to be binding if they are local expressions of a much greater all-embracing validity.

The fact that culture and society are not ultimate becomes clear the moment we sense that the community or society to which we belong has lost its way, goes in the wrong direction, imposes invalid criteria and expects the fulfilment of unreasonable demands. Then we have to oppose it rather than to submit to it. To maintain our integrity, we may have to move in a direction that may turn out to be dangerous for our own survival and prosperity.

That danger may become particularly acute when we live in a culture other than our own. Do we know what is right? Can we condone gender discrimination as practiced in certain cultures? Can we allow profit seeking gain priority above social justice and ecological responsibility? Are we not going to lose our jobs? Do we have the independence and courage to move against the stream? That can happen only if our lives are anchored in a higher authority.

Freedom from immanent reality presupposes a higher authority than immanent reality itself. Only if we are able to contemplate a spiritual kind of freedom from immanent reality can we develop true responsibility for this reality. It is a freedom and a responsibility that participates in the freedom and responsibility of God, the transcendent Destiny of reality as a whole.

Now, at the latest, it becomes apparent why it is not insignificant what we perceive the great all-embracing Other to be. If we think it might be an automatically functioning mechanism, it will be difficult to generate a sense of freedom and responsibility in relation to reality. If we identify it with nature, it will not transcend the natural world. Then the determined struggle for survival and prosperity may crowd out any other purpose in life.

If we perceive it to be an inscrutable fate, we may be overcome by a sense of arbitrariness and meaninglessness in reality. If we seem to discern it in the ultimate assumptions of another religion, we may have to ask whether it really reflects God’s unconditional benevolence or ‘his’ vision of comprehensive optimal well-being.

In each of these cases, we have to assume that we are the highest authority around and yet the helpless victims of forces over which we have no control. Such forces can become as trivial as our own desires and aspirations, our bodily or psychological pain, our longing for acceptance by unworthy peers. In short, we seem to forfeit our dignity as human beings, that is, as creatures that are meant to be in some kind of relationship with the ultimate Source and Destiny of reality.

Does the depiction of God as the transcendent Source and Destiny of reality clash with what you always thought the concept ‘God’ referred to? If so, can you articulate your objections? How would you summarise my argument and your response for a high school student?

How would you respond to the following critical remarks?

(a) ‘All the issues you raised can be answered adequately and comprehensively on the basis of what the sciences have revealed and without reference to a transcendent God.’

(b) ‘You