God Needs Man Just as Much as Man Needs God

4/27/2021

Christians spend a great deal of time broadcasting man's need for God. Without God, they argue, man is lost. To support this argument, Christians point their fingers at the external world and say, "You see? You see? You see?"

Of course, there is nothing inherently wrong with any of that. Christians are right - man does need God. Without God, man is lost; and God-less man has made an awfully terrible mess of the world.

At the same time, Christians rarely consider the possibility that God needs man just as much as man needs God. That without man, God might be a bit lost. That without man, God may not be motivated to do more than point at the external world and say, "You see? You see? You see?"

Without God, man is impoverished - but doesn't the same hold true in reverse? That without man, God is impoverished, too?

Man needs God. That is beyond argument.

Yet, God also needs man.

This immediately raises some crucial questions:

Why does God need man?
What does God need man to Be?
How can man meet or fulfill God's need?

Need here does not mean duty or obligation. At the core of this mutual, divine-human need is the freely offered supply of something in order to bring forth the manifestation of a desired state.

This something to be supplied is creativity.

Above all else, God needs man to be creative.

God is the Creator and He needs co-creators.

When Christians expand their standard formula of man's need of God by adding the simple equation of God's need of man, the divine-human revelation will begin to unfold and the creative transfiguration of the cosmos will begin.

20 Comments

Dennis Roe

4/28/2021 03:26:36

The powers that be are scared to death of creativity. We're "educated" to be compliant automotons. Sheep. Perhaps all that is changing now, the big lies are starting to be seen,

Francis Berger

4/28/2021 08:12:55

@ Dennis - Yes, keeping people in a state of slavery consciousness (for lack of a better term) is a primary goal. At that low level of consciousness, people really do function at the level of compliant automatons; they believe nearly everything is determined by forces external to themselves and are unable to resist these external forces.

Ingemar

4/28/2021 03:32:34

With all due respect Frank, this is heresy. God has no need of us. He created because He is love, and loves.

4/28/2021 07:34:59

@ Ingemar - What I have suggested is certainly heretical from the perspective of traditional Christianity and church doctrine, but your idea of God having no need of us is just wrong.

4/28/2021 11:56:54

@ Ingemar - The larger point I'm trying to raise is this:

Atheism and materialism deny God and exalt man.
Traditional Christianity exalts God, but devalues man.

Neither approach is "correct."

If we are made in God's image, then surely we have value. I propose an approach that exalts God and values what is divine within man - the establishment of a way of thinking that understands that God and man need each other.

4/28/2021 20:48:45

Au contraire.

Atheism and materialism deny God AND devalues man.
Traditional Christianity exalts God, yes--but teaches that the proper value of creatures (man included) is in their relation to God.

I'm not unsympathetic to disliking dogmas. For instance, although I am a self-identified "Trad", the notion that God made everything good, yet left man concupiscent--leading to The Fall--sticks in my craw. I've heard (though I haven't read for myself) some early Church fathers say Adam and Eve lasted only two hours before eating the forbidden fruit.

As much as I don't like this, I can't just make up new doctrines to patch over my dislikes. This leads inextricably to protestantism and atheism. And between you, Bruce and William, I think we all realize how enervating atheism is.

I don't take your disagreement personally and I hope you don't take mine personally either.

jorgen b

4/28/2021 19:38:16

"He created because He is love, and loves." -- Ingemar

That Orthodoxy, who started it? Augustine or CS Lewis? It ain't in the Bible. (Did anyone honestly say anything so Hallmark and trite before America existed?)

Its always seemd to me that their idea is "God loves so much that he loves things that don't exist and therefore is compelled by said love to make them exist."

But that contradicts one of the other planks of their orthodoxy, i.e. that he freely created, that it was a choice and not constraint.

If he loved non-existent things so much he had to create them, then he was constrained and it wasn't free.

Now I always have seen people create primarily because they're bored and have always assumed its the same with God. That is my orthodoxy.

But most people outside our two orthodoxies see creation as overtly malevolent, that he created out of hate to watch us suffer and point and laugh. And there is more support in human experience for that than for creation from love, because "life is suffering."

But boredom as the motive of creation explains both the good and the bad of creation, and doesn't ascribe malevolence (nor constraint to create) to God. You could be bored and create or bored and twittle your thumbs, no coercion.

4/28/2021 20:56:15

@ jorgen b - Orthodoxy in itself is not a bad thing - there is much that is beautiful in it, but you raise some good points. I tend to view Orthodoxy as a stage in the development of consciousness; more specifically, that it served well for a particular time in the development of man's religious consciousness. At the same time, I am hard-pressed to say it still serves human consciousness well.

The ideas I expressed here were not meant to denigrate orthodoxy or traditional belief, but rather to point out that the future of Christianity lies outside the confines of orthodoxy and traditional belief. We can and should respect orthodoxy for what it is, but not be afraid to consider the fundamental nature of reality may rest outside of orthodoxy's framework.

Concerning love, like Ingemar, I do believe God loves us, but this love needs to be understood from a spiritual perspective, otherwise our mortal lives cease to make much sense (why would a loving God place me in world filled with entropy, pain, and suffering and let me die? which has been a lazy path to atheism for many).

At the end of the day, I do not wish to offend those who hold orthodox views, nor do I wish to alienate them, but I do believe that Christians need to re-evaluate their beliefs and assumptions and have the courage to challenge that which may not add up for them. Moreover, I believe God needs us to this, both for our sake and His.

4/28/2021 19:41:08

another point along the same lines: if God loved non-existent things so much he had to create them, then why do certain non-existent things still not exist? He doesn't love all non-existent things enough to create them? Then how is he ontologically love? (i.e. this whole idea is a misunderstanding of "God is love.")

bruce charlton

4/28/2021 09:42:43

I agree with you. Traditional Christian theologians believe that Men are dependent on God for creation from nothing and continued (moment by moment) existence; and from this inferred a kind of indifference of God to Men (the term is impassible, I think) which is very much contradictory to the life and teaching of Jesus.

I think this traditional view is a confusion mixed with a superstition. The confusing is is conflating God not needing us for his existence (true), and the generalization that it does not make any difference to God what Men do one way or another (false).

The superstition is that terror typical of monotheists whereby any restriction, need or vulnerability imputed to God is a provocation to that God to punish us like an Oriental despot. Christians ought to have set aside such an unloving image of the creator - but a fixation upon making the Christian God also a monotheistic God (despite the divinity of Jesus) fatally confused matters.

I got this understanding from Mormon theologians such as Blake Ostler and Terryl Givens; who have made clear to me that the Christian God must feel emotions such as sorrow and joy, wrt to the doings of Men.

In a simpler way, the fact that Jesus was fully divine, and was emotional; loved and had friends who he 'needed' in some real way (he went to immense efforts with his disciples, as described in the Fourth Gospel) - tells us everything we *need* to know about The Father.

4/28/2021 11:09:10

@ Bruce - In response to Ingemar, he is technically right to an extent, but that technical "rightness" is wrong as far as I'm concerned. I hope he doesn't take my disagreement personally.

From a human perspective, no adult technically needs children. An adult can live out the course of his or her mortal life without the need of having a child. Of course, if all adults decided they didn't need or want children, the species would go extinct. If God decided he didn't need us, He would certainly continue to exist, but his existence would be lessened by our presumed non-existence (if such a thing is even possible spiritually).

When adult humans have a child, the child is utterly dependent on the adults at first. The child will eventually become independent and not "need" his adult parents. Conversely, the adult parents will not "need" their adult child.

But what loving parent or loving adult child would ever claim they didn't actually care about or "need" each other? What loving adult parent would demand his or her child remain a perpetual adolescent whose only meaning and purpose in life is to worship the adult parent?

When I think about God needing us, I approach it from the perspective of consciousness. God needs us to leave our spiritual adolescence and become spiritual adults in order to fulfill the potential He offers us via Christianity.

ToTheRightRon

4/28/2021 15:53:50

Need implies insufficiency or incompleteness, which will scare a lot of folks! I wholeheartedly agree that God has desire, he desires that "all would come to repentance and be saved. With the many rejecting Him does that mean His unfulfilled desire is an insufficiency or an incompleteness? I think not, can one be a perfect God to an imperfect people without understanding unfulfilled desire? Without interacting with agents who have their own will outside His own?

4/28/2021 18:02:35

@ TTRR - Everything hinges on whether or not you believe in the development/evolution of human consciousness in relation to Christianity.

If you don't, then you can settle back into the traditional Christian mode of occupying yourself with the one, overriding purpose of avoiding sin and attaining salvation.

If you do believe in the evolution of consciousness, you can begin to consider that humanity also has a positive and creative purpose within Christianity. That life should not be solely freedom from (the negative imperative of redemption from sin and salvation), but also an aspiring freedom for (the positive imperative of creativity). This does not negate the vital and fundamental importance of redemption from sin and salvation, but builds upon it.

Traditional Christianity maintains that above all else, man should strive to be saved. This is correct, but it is not the only thing man should strive for. What should a Christian do when he is assured of his salvation? Spend the rest of his life protecting it from evil and sin? Surely, there must be a positive purpose to human life as well. That positive purpose is creativity - and this is what God needs from us.

So, yes - I believe there is incompleteness and insufficiency in Christianity - and that is a scary thought! God desires we all come to repentance and be saved, but he also needs us to continue the development of Christianity via the development of human consciousness - the development of how we think about, understand, and relate to God, ourselves, and others.

I understand most Christians will find such notions heretical. At the same time, very few Christians think deeply about the current state of Christianity in the world - that there may be more to the breaking up and steep decline of external, traditional, moderate, everyday Christianity than meets the eye.

Wm Jas Tychnonievich link

4/28/2021 20:35:28

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

4/28/2021 20:58:14

That's an excellent way of putting it, Wm. Thanks.

4/28/2021 21:14:20

@ Ingemar - "Atheism and materialism deny God AND devalues man.
Traditional Christianity exalts God, yes--but teaches that the proper value of creatures (man included) is in their relation to God."

Yes, that's very true. Atheism and materialism claim to exalt man, but without a belief in God, that is impossible.

Relation to God is the crux of what I am trying to get at here. All I am suggesting is that there may be a lot more to our relation to God (and God's relation to us) than what tradition and orthodoxy teach.

As Bruce says, our mortal lives are learning. These kinds of posts and my interactions with commenters help me in that process. I hope they help others, too.

Other than that, I think bickering between brothers is normal and healthy.The most important thing for me is that we are all on the same side.

buckyinky

4/28/2021 23:27:17

The premise of this post just doesn't feel right. I have a sense that it is not true Christianity, but something else, even if I can't explain why in theological terms. I think this could be called intuition, but would you say my intuition is wrong?

4/29/2021 05:16:09

@ buckyinky - I believe intuition should be the foundation of thinking, so your sense that what I am discussing is not true Christianity depends upon what you would define as true Christianity.

And that's a question all Christians should be asking themselves, especially those who devoutly follow the System churches.

As I mentioned above, what I am suggesting only makes sense if you believe in the further development of human consciousness via the further development of Christianity.

James

4/29/2021 01:57:22

I can sense the necessity of what you have said, and it addresses an important aspect of our relationship with our Creator which is neglected, but I have also been concerned that the System is quite good at harnessing creativity for its own purposes. Is there a risk in being creative that would cause many of us to focus on the material world, and tend towards utopian lets-make-the-world-a-better-place thinking? Lots of people in the lower levels of the System genuinely believe they are doing good. When I think about what I could do, I reflect that this often turns in a way that would advantage the System. I know that this must involve discernment - and perhaps I am confusing action with creativity. I suppose I am just attempting to puzzle out what kind of creativity God wants.

4/29/2021 05:35:57

@ James - Yes, being assimilated into the System is a major concern.

I believe salvation comes first, which is the conscious and active choice to follow Jesus to everlasting life. Creativity builds upon salvation. The creativity I'm referring to is mostly a matter of thinking rather than creativity in an artistic sense. My fellow blogger Kevin McCall refers to intuition as the ability to thinking from oneself rather than thinking for oneself. I think that also defines creativity well.

Thinking from oneself involves thinking from what is divine within us. This part of ourselves is outwith the System and cannot be a part of the System; hence, it cannot really be harnessed by the System, in the same way that nothing Christ did could be effectively harnessed by the System of His time.

Creativity is a matter of thinking and consciousness - which means its primarily about how we understand and think about our relation to God, ourselves, and each other - and the understanding that this kind of thinking makes a difference.

As Wm notes above, creativity is the understanding that each of us can bring something to Creation that no one else can, and this no one else includes God. Perhaps this helps explain the importance of creativity and why God "needs" us.

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.

God Needs Man Just as Much as Man Needs God

Leave a Reply.

Archives