Skip to main content

That of God

When folks ask me to describe Quaker spirituality, I always begin with the phrase I often heard when I was growing up as a Quaker in Indiana.  This phrase comes from the oft-cited founder of Quakerism, George Fox.  The phrase claims there is “that of God in every person.”  I am sure as a kid more interested in basketball, that phrase did not have much meaning to me.  But I recall, when life became more serious as a college student facing the tumultuous 60s, that phrase became important and meaningful.  It became both a comfort and a challenge.

And it continues to be both a comfort and challenge to this day.  Let me unpack that, first by sharing what that phrase means to me and, then, why it is still a challenge.  In sharing this, I trust others from different Christian traditions can relate to it from your own tradition.  And even those interfaith brothers and sisters, I hope, can find a way to relate to this Quaker phrase.  We are, after all, brothers and sisters in the Spirit. 

To claim that there is that of God in every person is a bold claim.  I can say it is true for me---while recognizing it as a faith statement.  What that means is I can’t prove it is true.  It is not a fact statement like that.  Some statements are facts.  Oxygen and hydrogen do make water; that is a fact.  But some truths we hold are faith statements.  They are true to us, but we can’t prove it scientifically. 

To claim that there is that of God in every person is simply the Quaker version of what the first Genesis creation text affirms when we read there that humans are created in the image and likeness of God.  We can acknowledge humans lost the likeness of God when we sinned.  Adam and Eve blew it rather quickly (within two chapters!).  And everyone I know also has sinned somewhere along the way.  No doubt, I accomplished this fairly young.  And sadly, I have continued being a sinner along the way.  And that certainly is unlike God.  But we never lose the image.  We always will exist in the image of God. In that sense, we can claim there is that of God in us.

The next point I want to make is how radical that claim is.  If truly I believe there is that of God in every person, I have to accept that means every person.  It means all people---ones I like and ones I don’t like.  It means Chinese, Africans and Americans---every race and nation.  If I were in charge of the world, doubtlessly, I would deselect some folks from this lofty claim.  But fortunately, God is in charge and I believe God wanted the radicality of that claim to be true.  There is that of God in every person.

Even if I can’t see another person in that light, it is still true.  And even when I come up short of modeling God-like behavior in my actions, it is still true.  I do think it is possible to have that of God within me and not be in touch with it.  It is more like a capacity or ability that a material piece of my body or soul.  To claim that there is that of God in me and you is to claim we have the ability to image who God is and how God acts.  And of course, we have the ability to show nothing divine-like.

Another corollary of believing there is that of God in every person is how I need to see them and behave toward them.  To hold this truth means I cannot be a racist or sexist.  I can be someone who puts down old people or teenagers.  I have to respect everyone---although I may not like what someone does or how they act. 

For me it means I have to be a pacifist---killing someone in an act of war is simply not possible. I can appreciate what a moral dilemma this poses for folks, such as WW II in the face of the Holocaust, or even our own age in some political conflicts.  It means I also have to be against capital punishment.  Regardless of how heinous the crime may have been, the criminal also has that of God within him or her.  It does not mean I am against police force.  Sometimes force has to be employed to subdue a dangerous person.  But we can be against violence.  No police department advocates for violence. 

I also confess it is not always simple.  I am conflicted when it comes to abortion.  I have two daughters who are quite clear.  And I may well find myself taking a different perspective on the abortion issue.  Of course, I know it is tricky to decide when life begins.  A woman’s right also figures into this issue.  It is complex.  But so is life.  I want to be clear and consistent and recognize that is not easy.

But I can be clear about the principle I hold.  I do believe there is that of God in every person.  I want that always to be true for me and to guide my decisions about how I act.  That is clear and simple.  But implementing it is where it can get complex.  These are the times I can ask for God’s guidance.  I can ask my own tradition and my own community for help.  I can be aware of others traditions---especially those who might differ from my own.  I can always learn from those with different perspectives.

Finally, I am grateful for this clear, principled starting point. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I-Thou Relationships

Those of us who have read theology or, perhaps, those who are people of faith and are old enough might well recognize this title as a reminder of the late Jewish philosopher and theologian, Martin Buber.   I remember reading Buber’s book, I and Thou , when I was in college in the 1960s.   It was already a famous book by then.   I am not sure I fully understood it, but that would not be the last time I read it.   It has been a while since I looked at the book.             Buber came up in a conversation with a friend who asked if I had seen the recent article by David Brooks?   I had not seen it, but when I was told about it, I knew I would quickly locate and read that piece.   I very much like what Brooks decides to write about and what he contributes to societal conversation.   I wish more people read him and took him seriously.             Brooks’ article focused on the 2016 contentious election.   He provocatively suggests, “Read Buber, Not the Polls!”   I think Brooks puts

Spiritual Commitment

I was reading along in a very nice little book and hit these lines about commitment.   The author, Mitch Albom, uses the voice of one of the main characters of his nonfiction book about faith to reflect on commitment.   The voice belongs to Albom’s old rabbi of the Jewish synagogue where he went until his college days.   The old rabbi, Albert Lewis, says “the word ‘commitment’ has lost its meaning.”    The rabbi continues in a way that surely would have many people saying, “Amen!”   About commitment he says, “I’m old enough when it used to be a positive.   A committed person was someone to be admired.   He was loyal and steady.   Now a commitment is something you avoid.   You don’t want to tie yourself down.”   I also think I am old enough to know that commitment was usually a positive word.   I can think of a range of situations in which commitment would have been seen to be positive.   For example, growing up was full of sports for me.   Commitment would have been presupposed t

Inward Journey and Outward Pilgrimage

There are so many different ways to think about the spiritual life.   And of course, in our country there are so many different variations of religious experiences.   There are liberals and conservatives.   There are fundamentalists and Pentecostals.   Besides the dizzying variety of Christian traditions, there are many different non-Christian traditions.   There are the major traditions, such as Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and so on.   There are the slightly more obscure traditions, such as Sikhism, Jainism, etc.   And then there are more fringe groups and, even, pseudo-religions.   There are defining doctrines and religious practices.   Some of these are specific to a particular tradition or a few traditions, such as the koan , which is used in Zen Buddhism for example.   Other defining doctrines or practices are common across the religious board.   Something like meditation would be a good example.   Christians meditate; Buddhists meditate.   And other groups practice this spiri