A Brief Overview of Why God Needs You

4/29/2021

The other day I wrote a post in which I claimed that God needs us as much as we need God. This set off alarm bells in the minds of some Christians who read the post. Some believed that what I was suggesting amounted to heresy. Some felt it was intuitively wrong. Some insisted the very idea is frightening and destined to scare Christians away. Others maintained that the mere notion of God needing us does not fit within any conceivable Christian framework.

Though I can sympathize with the unease many Christians experience when they encounter the possibility that God may need us, I cannot for the life me understand why so many Christians adamantly maintain that God does not, cannot, and will never have any real "need" of us.

My post from the other day received a fair share of comments (as noted above), but one in particular - submitted by fellow blogger William James Tychonievich - stood out for me:

Each of us can contribute something to Creation that no one else can -- and, yes, "no one else" means not even God.

William's comment not only encapsulates the essence of what I was trying to communicate in my post from the other day, but also addresses some painfully overlooked and under-emphasized positive imperatives within Christianity.

First, William's statement touches upon our inherent freedom and agency. Whether Christians are fully aware of it or not, we possess the ability to choose and we possess the ability to act upon our choices through agency.

Consider the possibility that God has very little or, perhaps more correctly, no control over our choices. Once again, this is bound to set off alarm bells in Christian heads. Yet at the same time, most Christians are perfectly at home with the idea that people can ultimately reject God and refuse Christ's gift of everlasting life through salvation.

If we possess the freedom and agency to reject God and refuse salvation, would it be too much of a stretch to consider that we also possess the possibility to use our freedom and agency for positive purposes, and that the limits of these positive purposes may extend way beyond "worshiping" God and accepting Christ's gift? Moreover, that God may "need" us to begin using our freedom and agency in such a way because we may bring something to Creation that he may not be able to offer on His own?

Second, William's assertion that we are able "to contribute something to Creation that no one else can" emphasizes our uniqueness; in particular, the unique quality of our own spiritual natures. We all carry the image of God within us and harbor a divine spark within our depths, but the manner in which we carry the Image of God and harbor the divine spark is unique, unparalleled, and unrepeatable.

On the other hand, William's observation also addresses our capability to actively participate in Creation as co-creators. Since we carry the Image of God within our divine selves, we have the potential to contribute something to Creation, not just physically, but spiritually as well. If we align our divine selves with God and Creation, we have the potential to add to Creation - and what we can potentially add will be something not even God would be able to add alone because our potential contributions will emanate from the combination of our freedom, agency, and uniqueness.

Lastly, consider the possibility that God actually wants and needs us to positively contribute to Creation - that our purpose and meaning in life are not limited to gaining redemption and salvation, but that life might be for something as well. This for is the contribution we can make when we align ourselves with God and begin working with Him creatively through the joint agency and cooperation of the divine and human.

This union of divine and human operation is exemplified by Christ.

Through Christ, God has proven that the co-operation of the divine and human is not only possible, but desirable.

God can bring the divine part is spades, but he "needs" us to supply the human part of the operation.

And he "needs" us to supply this human part from a position of freedom, agency, and love.

In light of all of the above, I don't understand why the mere thought of God needing us unsettles Christians so.

15 Comments

Michelle

4/30/2021 03:06:29

You seem to have really touched a nerve with your posts, Frank.

I'm not as well educated, well spoken, well written, or well thought out as any poster here, but I would say very simply- of course God needs us! Why else would He have put us here? He put us here to get us back to Him. Why else would He have bothered with any of it?

(Go easy on me)

Francis Berger

4/30/2021 09:19:41

@ Michelle - Yes, God does need us to get back to him. This is the core of Christianity. The most important point is salvation - the acceptance of Jesus's offer of everlasting life. But I suggest getting back to God also implies aligning ourselves with God in such a way that we are able to contribute to Creation via a personal relationship with God, and that God "needs" this personal relationship as much as we do.

On a side note, getting back to God is the overarching aim of "oneness" religions, but this sort of becoming one with God is completely different compared to what Christianity offers. (I am not implying that what you said about getting back to God implies any of this, I'm just clarifying a larger point).

Christianity has a tendency to undervalue the human aspect of the divine-human operation, which is striking when the reality of Jesus is taken into consideration, to say nothing of the reality of bodily resurrection.

So your question of "Why else would He have put us here?" really strikes at the core of the matter and adds a needed perspective to the issue.

jorgen b

4/30/2021 05:44:41

"Each of us can contribute something to Creation that no one else can -- and, yes, "no one else" means not even God."

Is this the function of saints in Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism? So maybe saying "God doesn't need us" is inherently Protestant, an opposition to saints.

4/30/2021 09:31:36

@ jorgen b - Orthodox denominations - particularly Eastern Orthodox traditions - emphasize the importance of theosis. In this regard, they are closer to the concept of God needing us than Protestant denominations are (as far as I can tell; there may be exceptions to this).

But I think the larger point is that no denomination has given the idea that God "needs" us the consideration it truly deserves. God "needing" us hinges on developing our understanding of our relation to God.

This obviously makes Christians nervous because it implies that there is an aspect of Christianity that has yet to be fully revealed/understood.

The loopy New Age strains in Christianity don't help.

William James Tychonievich link

4/30/2021 07:47:18

"I don't understand why the mere thought of God needing us unsettles Christians so."

First, because the idea of God needing anything at all flies in the face of the deeply ingrained Hellenized theology of a God who is perfect, omnipotent, and impassible.

Second, because the idea of his needing *us* -- human beings, who we know from direct experience are deeply imperfect and highly unreliable -- is rather frightening. It's reassuring to think that "it's all in God's hands"; to think that some important things might be in *our* hands, though, may well give rise to some good old-fashioned Kierkegaardian angst!

4/30/2021 09:01:48

@ Wm - Yes, the old "fear and trembling." I didn't want to come right out and say in the post, but your comment touches on a couple of key points.

God needing us implies tremendous "responsibility" (for lack of a better word) from our side. Most Christians are uncomfortable with the concept of such responsibility.

Also, the errant Hellenized strains in Christian theology are so deeply ingrained that very few Christians seem willing to challenge them.

bruce charlton

4/30/2021 11:30:51

Perhaps it is also a consequence of the anti-family strain which has permeated traditional Christianity from early on.

God does not need any children in one sense of need - as adults do not need to have children, and parents need nothing from their children in order to survive.

Yet this is a reduction of 'need' to mere survival - and eliminates any positive purpose for creation along with procreation. And indeed, this has happened in Classical Christian theology - creation is regarded as gratuitous.

Although this conflicts with the existence of Jesus Christ, it has been a strain within Christianity pulling it back towards the stasis of pure monotheism - or even towards the Hindu view of creation as a kind of cyclical stasis without any direction.

Christianity includes 'common sense' linear time (Christ was born, died, resurrected, ascended - reality was changed from then), and is based upon linear time - but against this is an older philosophical and religious view that time is an illusion - and that all time is now; and nothing really changes.

It has taken a long time for Men to develop any conceptual scheme that fits Christianity's implicit view that time is real and that reality is linear, irreversible and developmental/ evolutionary.

William Wildblood

4/30/2021 11:33:53

I wonder if on the spiritual plane needing and loving might not actually be the same thing? This could resolve the differences. Also, God needing us doesn't make him incomplete without us. You could just as well say that not needing us would be a kind of limitation.

4/30/2021 11:48:02

@ William - "I wonder if on the spiritual plane needing and loving might not actually be the same thing?"

That's a good question - and it ties in well with Bruce's comment above.

I get the sense that God is great no matter what, but that God with man is greater than God without man - as opposed to man who is definitely diminished without God.

Perhaps it's not a question of incompleteness, but more of a question of being fully complete.

Man is incomplete without God. God is complete without man, but in order to become fully complete, God needs man to fulfill his (man's) divine purpose.

In this regard, God with man does boil down to a question of spiritual love.

4/30/2021 11:59:22

@ Bruce - "Yet this is a reduction of 'need' to mere survival - and eliminates any positive purpose for creation along with procreation. And indeed, this has happened in Classical Christian theology - creation is regarded as gratuitous."

At its core, redemption and salvation could be interpreted from the negative imperative of survival - i.e. - I need to obey God and be saved in order to avoid the fiery pits of hell via damnation. In this regard, Creation is regarded as fallen and sinful - something that must constantly be resisted in order to ensure survival. I think traditional Christianity's focus on this aspect served a purpose and addressed a certain level of consciousness, but I don't think it suffices anymore.

The positive imperative of creativity - the shift from "survival need" to "love need" of the divine-human operation - fits into the linear, developmental, evolutionary view of reality (at least, I think it does)!

4/30/2021 12:03:59

@ Bruce - Just to add, it's not that salvation isn't fundamental, but rather that our view of salvation expands from being merely a movement away "from" something negative to a larger understanding of salvation as a movement from something negative and a movement toward or for something positive (beyond mere survival).

4/30/2021 19:10:33

@Frank - As so often the Fourth Gospel explains salvation as something positive - resurrected life eternal. Jesus saved us from death/ sin - with death and sin being regarded as two facets of the same - but saved us by adding the new possibility of Heaven.

Genie Hughes

4/30/2021 13:48:13

I've always thought of the story of the prodigal son. The father didn't NEED the son to exist, but he yearned for him and was saddened by his absence. I think we do hurt God when we turn away. Perhaps we are all using a different definition of need? Need to some would mean needy - which has negative connotations for many, me included. Aside - I have SO enjoyed reading your blog each day. Thank you for all of the hard work and thoughtful perspective.

4/30/2021 20:07:28

@ Bruce - Yes, salvation is positive and should only be considered as a positive.

What I was trying to get at was that it could and likely has been approached from errant motivation - that the saving from death and sin (and damnation) was given more weight than the positive of following Jesus into Heaven.

Put another way, the desire for redemption and salvation could be motivated by fear rather than love.

Hell and brimstone preachers and the like.

Salvation is positive because it frees us from all fear and propels us toward love.

Alex

5/1/2021 11:34:22

https://www.thedivinemercy.org/articles/death-judgment-heaven-and-hell

Yes, let's underscore this point: "for those who love Him." Loving God is the very key to Heaven. Saint Faustina writes earlier in her Diary that God gave her the understanding "that there is but one thing that is of infinite value in His eyes, and that is love of God. ... Oh, with what inconceivable favors God gifts a soul that loves Him sincerely!" (778).

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.

A Brief Overview of Why God Needs You

Leave a Reply.

Archives