Which God do you follow?

The Bayler University Religious survey makes fascinating reading, although it is US survey I think it still makes great reading for us in the UK. From the press release:

"One area that emerged from the survey that has excited the researchers is what they call the "Four Gods." Depending on how engaged people think God is in the world and how angry God is with the world.   

If you think about people perceiving God as high in anger, low in anger, high in engagement, low in engagement, it results in four different types of gods.

What researchers found was that the type of god people believe in can predict their political and moral attitudes more so than just looking at their religious tradition.

Researchers found that none of the "four gods" dominated among believers. The data showed:

• 31.4 percent believe in an Authoritarian God, who is very judgmental and engaged
• 25 percent believe in a Benevolent God, who is not judgmental but engaged
• 23 percent believe in a Distant God, who is completely removed
• 16 percent believe in a Critical God, who is judgmental but not engaged."

The report further unpacks these 4 beliefs as:

"Type A: Authoritarian God: Individuals who believe in the Authoritarian God tend to think that God is highly involved in their daily lives and world affairs. They tend to believe that God helps them in their decision-making and is also responsible for global events such as economic upturns or tsunamis. They also tend to feel that God is quite angry and is capable of meting out punishment to those who are unfaithful or ungodly.

Type B: Benevolent God: Like believers in the Authoritarian God, believers in a Benevolent God tend to think that God is very active in our daily lives. But these individuals are less likely to believe that God is angry and acts in wrathful ways.   Instead, the Benevolent God is mainly a force of positive influence in the world and is less willing to condemn or punish individuals.

Type C: Critical God: Believers in a Critical God feel that God really does not interact with the world. Nevertheless, God still observes the world and views the current state of the world unfavorably. These individuals feel that God’s displeasure will be felt in another life and that divine justice may not be of this world.

Type D: Distant God: Believers in a Distant God think that God is not active in the world and not especially angry either. These individuals tend towards thinking about God as a cosmic force which set the laws of nature in motion. As such, God does not “do” things in the world and does not hold clear opinions about our activities or world events.

Atheists: Atheists are certain that God does not exist. Nevertheless, atheists may still hold very strong perspectives concerning the morality of human behavior and ideals of social order but have no place for the supernatural in their larger worldview.

Are these findings surprising?  To some one out side the christian faith, it is a cause of wonder ment that Christians can believe what seems like opposite views of the same God.  What do you think, which God do you go for (why not vote in the poll)? Can these different perspectives be reconciled?

Maybe  why we get a quad view of God is because people emphasise different aspects of the divine  due to their theoloyy/background/experience - and what we focus on determines what me miss - it is easy to read say the bible and just focus on an angry God or read the bible and focus on a loving God, or a God who is always nagging and on the verge of giving up - and ignore the other parts of God.

It is much harder to try and weave the strands together to try and have some composite glimpses of God, to be caught in the tensions of the middle rather than the ease of the extremes, to try and tell the full story of God that is revealed in the bible rather than selected tales…

Comments

[Makeesha]

Fascinating. Of course, if I have to choose, I can choose one (benevolent if you're curious) but there are certainly many facets to God and components of his nature at play at different times for different reasons. God said "I AM". I understand what the research is saying but it denies a fundamental component to Christianity - that our God is everything, to everyone at all times, the beginning and the end, 3 in 1 triune God. In other words, I agree that people will focus on certain aspects of God based on the lense through which they view their own relationship TO God and his relationship with them

[Paul]

Thanks Mak - it is difficult, I am often guilty of creating God in the image of me and conviently forgetting it is the other way round.

I'm not sure I follow when you said "God is everything to everyone at all times" I think you're saying that given he is infinitely big that at every point he will be like the story of the blind men trying to describe the elephant (see here if you're not familiar with the tale http://www.noogenesis.com/pineapple/blind_men_elephant.html ) - or have i grasped your point wrongly as well? In which case I apologise in advance.

[Makeesha]

That link just went to barnes and noble's home page.

God is exactly what we need when we need it. Or to put it another way, he meets us where we're at. So if he meets me where I'm at and I need a swift kick in the pants (figuratively speaking), and he meets you where you're at and you need expansive mercy then he is all things at all times to all men. God is I AM (as he said to Moses)Taking that in a broader sense, he has plans and therefore methods in different seasons and situations in the eternal picture. So to narrow him down as one "type of god" doesn't seem to do Him justice in my opinion.

[Paul]

The link should be fixed, can't have B&N hijacking all good links - in fact i might just post it out front to be on the safe side!

I agree, God might have one face to me at any one moment in time but that does not mean that is who he is...

Although i agree, i wonder about making it this is my God, this is your God and how we fracture the stainglass into shards of colour/shape/thickness to describe our own individual experience/encounter. I can see why we do but i wonder if we can view God other than through the lense of me the individual?

I like the idea that the bible can only really describe God my metaphors/images that point to who he is but cannot contain who he is...

What is interesting to me from the report that if we do limit/focus our understanding of God the impact that has on our faith/belief/practices i.e. we seem to mirror that character of God in our own interactions with the rest of the world. Helps me at least realise why I am sure people at times wonder if we are in the same faith and vice versa...

btw how did you know that expansive mercy is just what I need? :)

[Makeesha]

I agree with what you're saying.

The difficult thing is that to the postmodern self, there is no "other", so even when God enters the picture, who God is is only related to the shamed self. I think this is exactly the phenomenon we're seeing in the report.

[Paul]

I hear you Mak, but I am not sure to what extent people who took the survey would be pomo or modern in their outlook? I don't even know if that would effect the outcome of the survey or not to be honest, so you could well be right... On the other hand the Q does drive at the heart of God's involvement in the world so those people who went for high involvement/high judgement must have some capacity for seeing/teaching/belieiving both concepts to the detriment of other aspects of God...

I'd still like to a fuller palette somehow rather than this 2 tone approach - not your fault of course Mak, you didn't ask the Qs in the first place :)

[Makeesha]

I'm not sure where you're confused. Let's give it a go again.

you said: i wonder about making it this is my God, this is your God and how we fracture the stainglass into shards of colour/shape/thickness to describe our own individual experience/encounter. I can see why we do but i wonder if we can view God other than through the lense of me the individual?"

My comment about the self without the other is in response to this statement. I am really just picking apart this issue and making off the cuff comments, not trying to open up anything new that you haven't said.

[andy gr]

We're discussing this over on http://thedeepend.squarespace.com/ and I thought I'd ask the residents over here to come and give us a hand. In particular, is there anyone who used to believe in a distant God, who's moved to believing in a more invloved one? If so, how did you make the move?