Four Alternatives to Fundamentalism (Reimagining God Book Club)

Reimagining God, by Lloyd Geering

This blog post is part of the Reimagining God book club hosted by The book club runs Nov 1st to 15th.

It’s no secret that traditional ideas of God are foundering in response to modern political and social realities. Religion itself is under heavy suspicion, and even perhaps has become the “scapegoat” of the modern world, as Karen Armstrong argues in Fields of Blood. It’s easy to blame religion wholesale for violence, especially when people who commit violence offer up religious reasons for doing so. In the words of Mark Juergensmeyer, the leading expert on religious violence, “Virtually every instance of terrorism in recent years has evoked a God who is perceived to be engaged in cosmic warfare.”

Yet even if we limit ourselves just to Western culture, all around us there exist understandings of God and religion that do not imagine a cosmic war. Nigel Leaves in The God Problem offers a different but perhaps complementary take on religion and violence to Armstrong. “People have moved on in their thinking and the Church is mired with thought-forms of a forgotten age,” he says (3). When a myth is transplanted from its original context into a new one, the original myth may “no longer hold currency.” He identifies four alternatives to fundamentalism: panentheism, non-realism, grassroots spirituality, and religious naturalism.

  • Panentheists see God as an all-encompassing spirit, not separate from the world but surpassing the world we know.
  • Non-realists see God as a human concept that remains a potentially useful metaphor when stripped of supernaturalism.
  • Grassroots spirituality refers to the massive variety of new spiritual movements that have in common a disinterest in formal church or institutionalization.
  • Religious naturalists use the word God to point to a view of the earth as sacred; that is, God represents whatever aspects of nature that are viewed by a person as sacred.

New Zealand theologian Lloyd Geering is a major contributor to the non-realist movement and, to some extent, the religious naturalist movement as well. His latest book Reimagining God: The Faith Journey of a Modern Heretic mingles Geering’s own dramatic personal story with a sweeping history of human concepts of God. Through vignettes of key thinkers, including Schleiermacher, Feuerbach, Jung, Teilhard de Chardin, and Robinson, Geering offers readers an opportunity to explore the regions where an individual’s intellectual and/or spiritual journey touches on human concepts of God.

Belief in God, as Geering understands it, “like all beliefs, is human in origin and expression, and not only do human beliefs and opinions continually change as cultures develop, but this particular belief has never been universal to all humankind” (26). Even though Geering understands belief in God to be entirely human, he does not simply abandon the concept. The concept serves an important purpose for human beings—as a marker for what deserves our reverence.

It’s tempting to jump away from the messiness of religion entirely by reaching for some form of non-religion, often described under the umbrella term secularism. This is not quite as simple an escape as it seems, however. “For [Geering] secularism is not, as usually portrayed, the opposite of religion,” writes Leaves, “Rather, it is his contention that secularism has evolved out of Christianity in the same way that Christianity evolved out of Judaism” (43).

Along the same vein, Armstrong cautions against fooling ourselves into believing we can just swap secular structures for the structures religion has offered over the centuries to help us cope with violence. This is especially visible in the attempt of the nation-state to take the place of the church. “Yet secularism has by no means been the end of the story,” she writes. “In some societies attempting to find their way to modernity, it has succeeded only in damaging religion and wounding psyches of people unprepared to be wrenched from ways of living and understanding that have always supported them.”

This is a complicated point. At least as I understand them, none of these authors is claiming that you can’t be secular. I don’t think they are saying it’s impossible to hold a non-religious point of view. Quite the opposite, in fact. Someone who holds a secular worldview (as I do) can feel a sense of continuity and even gratitude for the history that led up to it. We don’t have to throw out all that history, much of which contains valuable lessons. Christianity doesn’t belong only to the orthodox branch of its history; it can belong to its many other branches, too, including the four approaches described by Leaves above. We can own it, transform it, and carry forward whatever elements make the best sense of the world.

None of this excuses us from the fact that for innumerable human generations, religion was the tool we used to make sense of our very human discomfort with violence, even as we have succumbed to the allure of that violence. Call this our ethical imperative. That many of us now feel discomfort toward the word religion suggests it has acquired some of the very taint it was meant to direct into more productive forms. In response, Geering offers a vision of new religious rituals of the future that “will be based not only on our relationship to the natural world. They will also celebrate everything we have come to value in human existence, such as the importance of healthy human relationships and the rich inheritance of human culture” (230). These rituals are religious in the sense of assigning ultimate meaning to certain things; ultimate meaning, for human beings, need not depend on the actual existence of a supernatural deity.

Patheos Book ClubThis is one of two blog posts about the book Reimagining God: The Faith Journey of a Modern Heretic by Lloyd Geering, during the Patheos Book Club. There are several ways you can get involved in book discussions:

  • Visit between November 1 and 15 for a free online book club with a variety of resources related to Reimagining God, including a full study guide.
  • Use the comments section of this blog (below) to share your reflections on the book.
  • For those fortunate enough to live in beautiful New Zealand, as Lloyd does, you can join the official book launch November 7th, 6:45 p.m., at St Andrews on the Terrace Church. More details here.
  • There is also a study guide available for The God Problem, which you can download here.
[divider style=”hr-dotted”]

Cassandra FarrinCassandra Farrin joined Westar in 2010 and currently serves as Associate Publisher and Director of Marketing. A US-UK Fulbright Scholar, she has an M.A. in Religious Studies from Lancaster University (England) and a B.A. in Religious Studies from Willamette University.

14 replies
    • Cassandra says:

      Gene, I think it would fit best under panentheism, in the sense that it suggests a force that permeates all things.

  1. Dennis Dean Carpenter says:

    Gods are irrelevant. When fundamentalists realize you realize this and that you are just as inflexible as they are, the conversation turns to the more relevant and important things in life, like good barbecue and the garden.
    Religion doesn’t need gods to abuse. It has people of other faiths.

    • Cassandra says:

      Dennis, what do you think of the suggestion by Armstrong that secular structures have not succeeded in displacing religious ones? It seems like that is related to your point. I haven’t finished reading her book, so I can’t comment much on her conclusions, but you may have come across similar arguments elsewhere.

      • Dennis Dean Carpenter says:

        I doubt that secular (“concerned with this world,” “not spiritual nor sacred”) will displace “religious,” because secular does not account for hope. Religious institutions are shrinking, as witnessed by their decline and the rise of “non-affiliated,” but apocalyptic views, that there will be a great “revealing,” where good will overthrow the evil in the world is a hope for those who are hopeless. And, there are more of the hopeless than the satiated in the world. Always have been.

        I think my point had more to do with humanizing rank-and-file fundamentalists.

  2. Jim High says:

    We live in the age of changing AUTHORITY, and I believe this is why our language has and is changing. We no longer have a central place (The Bible) where all authority comes from. Our understanding of God is also undergoing drastic change because science and evolution shows us a quite different world and God from what we find in the old authority of the Bible. Within Christianity and all other beliefs there are many new ideas about Life, Oneness and our connections to all that exists in the Universe from which Life emerged. Maybe we will never again have a single Authority as we once did. Maybe that is a good thing, but for sure only we humans have control over what happens in the future, good or bad.

    • Cassandra says:

      Sarah, the discussions are happening online, largely in blog form. Patheos offers a platform for individual groups from all different faith backgrounds around the world to utilize the resources for local discussions. Here on the blog, I would really like to put together a post featuring a roundtable of reader comments in the coming week, so feel free to leave thoughts about the book here!

  3. Jamie Spencer says:

    I have read Geering’s book with delight. Here are some quotes that particularly spoke to me. 1)“The modern world is no longer Christian …[but]… it holds in high regard the moral values, aspirations and social mores it has inherited from its Christian matrix.” 2) “We are all products of language-based cultures, and every religion is clothed in a specific language and expressed in a particular set of verbal symbols. This is one important reason why the medieval church was reluctant to allow the bible to be translated into the vernacular, and why Islam refuses to allow any translations of the Qur’an.” He thinks the way I do but articulates it far better.

  4. Rosekeister says:

    Lloyd Geering is a national treasure although the county is New Zealand. His talk to Christchurch on YouTube is almost a map of where Christianity should be heading at least in his opinion. He is speaking to a filled Church about beliefs that include a lack of a personal God, Jesus as wholly human, supernatural world and no afterlife. Geering still finds value in the church but I believe many people are recognizing that Christianity and religion, doctrine and dogma are not the core of what people find valuable there.

    From tribal beginnings through agricultural fertility cults through the mythologies and first state religions and only then through Judaism and Christianity, the core has always been the community gathering for a meal, dancing, celebrations but also morning. I keep thinking about a community gathering and what that might mean in a post-Church era.

  5. Gene Stecher says:

    I’ve never quite understood how ‘no God’ or ‘impersonal God’ fits with the ‘human Jesus.’ What we’re really saying is that if Jesus lived today, when the three tiered universe and ‘spatial’ God has been rationally eliminated, God would not be part of his belief or language system. How would anyone know that? The thing Is, if the gospels tell us anything about the human Jesus it is that his belief and language system included a personal God. Do we really know that in today’s world, for him, rationality would obliterate intuitive, revelatory, relational, and other forms of knowing what is ‘whole’ and ‘ultimate,’ ‘personal and impersonal.’ It’s just another case of making Jesus and God in our own image. Going along with this is the notion that Jesus ‘ teachings can somehow exist on their own apart from his deity orientation. His teachings re-present the kingdom of God. They are not isolated nuggets of wisdom raising rationality to
    to its own level of divinity.

    • Dennis Dean Carpenter says:

      I agree with that summary, Gene. A secular Jesus would never work in today’s world or yesterday’s, because it is not true to the “religious Jesus.” He would have been, at the very most, a figure within his world. Geza Vermes drew parallels between Jesus and Honi and Hanina ben Dosa that were probably fairly accurate. Then, I think of earlier Borg work, where he talked about the “spirit world.” Any reflection of Jesus that is accurate has to take into account his theism and the general beliefs of the day; otherwise, one is merely creating a secular “god.”

  6. Cassandra says:

    Hi everyone, I’ll hold off on further responses in the comments this week so that I can highlight some quotes here on the next blog post, which will be a roundtable of reader responses. Thank you!

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] for the future? What do we mean when we say “God”? In my last blog post I introduced four alternatives to fundamentalism from Nigel Leaves’ The God Problem, among which Leaves placed respected New Zealand […]

Comments are closed.