some (possibly) relevant thoughts on the History of God

Karen Armstrong used to be a nun; now she's made a transition increasingly popular in the modern world: she's "spiritual, but not religious." There's something to this, but it strikes me as possible but certainly not the inevitable or necessary dichotomy that it's often held up to be.

This book is a popular and fairly worthwhile introduction to the three monotheistic faiths, though it's useful to remember that it's written from the above perspective; that is, Armstrong is more attracted to the mystical and subjective in religion than she is in the doctrinal and concrete. She tends to sneer a bit at the latter and celebrate the former. In addition, though I, unfortunately, am not as well informed in the history of Judaism or Islam as I could be, I do have a number of quibbles with her interpretation of the origins and history of Christianity. We'll get to those.

Anyhow, this sort of overview is useful particularly for Mormons, I think, because there are some issues with the very concept of traditional monotheism that we either take so for granted that we don't recognize how extraordinary they are, or don't really grasp in the first place. Among these are:

1)Monotheism implies universalism; that is, there's one God for everybody. This is fairly radical, if you think about it, especially if you're an eighth century BC Canaanite who isn't convinced that the Persians are actually human beings.

2)The nature of God. Mormons, with our tangible and literally paternal God, often don't quite realize how much of an 'other' God is in the other monotheistic faiths. The impassibility and abstraction of God from his creation elevates the importance of Christ; as Aquinas argues, Christ is necessary for God to actually interact with human beings because he (to use a convenient but not accurate term) bridges the gap between us and the absolute divine. God is personal, to these faiths - that is, he has a personal identity and self awareness, but he is not a person, as we are. He does not experience the universe in the same ways we do. The Eastern Orthodox mystic Gregory of Nyssa said that we must realize that it is as true to say that "God is not" as it is to say "God is," because the concept of 'is' is insufficient to truly describe the nature of God.

In addition to these facts, the book itself raises some issues that John brought up, which are worth thinking about. If we are believers (as Armstrong no longer is), what does it mean to think about monotheism having a history in the way historians use the term - that is, developing and changing over time, driven by human situation and social change? Certainly Armstrong's history of God does not reflect the sacred history of "true" religion that we interpret the Bible to contain. How can we deal with this and remain true both to reason and to faith?