I was poking around in a Salvation Army store (I had to get a pair of overalls for a costume, dammit, and they had a pair), when I came across this book sitting on the counter by the checkout stand. “Your God Is Too Small: A Guide for Believers and Skeptics Alike”, by J.B. Phillips. Now I’m an atheist, but I was mildly curious what his arguments were going to be and what he was trying to promote. The blurb on the back says Phillips was a canon of the Anglican Church, so I’m pretty sure where is answer was going to lead, but I wanted to see what he had to say. For a buck, I picked it up.
This book is copyright 1952, so it’s not like it’s new or anything. Actually, that date is mildly relevant, in that in a few places he makes some examples and uses things that relate to WWII. It is a little strange to read him saying, for example, people being conditioned by the war to avoid unnecessary travel, and thus remaining cautious about using the train and going on trips. Then I remember the date puts the war as a very recent event, as opposed to something over 60 years ago. Also, he appears to be British (Anglican Church should be a sign).
Anyway, he structures the book with two major parts: Part One is labeled “Destructive”, where he examines his claims about what some people hold as their idea of God and explains why that idea is insufficient for the modern world and human needs. Part Two is labeled “Constructive” and tries to justify what he feels is an “Adequate God” for modern living and human needs. It doesn’t take a Spoiler Alert to know what his answer is going to be, but the devil is in how he frames it.
He starts off his Introductory with
Aw-Oh. Weak foundation, IMO. He continues:
Actually, this seems a fairly reasonable proposition, with the caveat that that are plenty of people who don’t seem to have this struggle.
After a bit more,
Uh huh. Might have to quibble with that “inner dissatisfaction” thing - seems to be projecting.
He then begins his dissection of Gods that are too small.
- Resident Policeman - this is the God of your conscience, your inner voice. His argument here is that, on the one hand, conscience is not infallible, and on the other hand, it is unlikely that someone would be moved to worship a nagging inner voice spoilsport.
He gives several examples where he demonstrates that conscience can be too weak or too strong, or can be tweaked to make you feel guilty for things that aren’t really wrong (the aforementioned train travel example) or can make you not feel guilty for things that are wrong (justifying unethical behavior). These arguments are fairly solid.
And he says this isn’t really something we would consider worshipping.
- Parental Hangover - this is seeing God like your parents, only more so. He starts by discussing how much of our lives are shaped by our attitude toward our parents from our early years. He points out several adjustment problems and neuroses and how they can be traced to poor parenting (overbearing, too indulgent). He goes on to argue that many people take their attitude towards their parents and transfer them to their conception of God. Being afraid of your father will lead to projecting a God that is fearful. Basically, humans are flawed, and so people will project the flaws of their parents onto God.
Here he also calls out a rather “pathetic” type of Christianity that depends upon guilt and fear.
He also mentions that Christ Himself used the analogy of God as Father, but stresses the difference is recognizing the analogy and the direction it goes. He wants to stress the emotional relationship, the love and interest, as a model for the relationship with God.
-
Grand Old Man - this is the old bearded man living in Heaven. The problem with this conception, he says, is that people see God as old, and project the way they see old people on him. He’s forgetful and has trouble with technology and modern science. He’s old fashioned. He mentions a psychological test asking people if they think God understands radar, to which they replied “no” because it’s modern and God is old. The point is that you can’t hamper God, that we need a “living contemporary God”.
-
Meek-and-Mild - His complaint is that meek and mild are lame, milquetoast words that do not adequately describe someone worthy of worship. So he points out that those terms, while often used in hymns and such to describe Jesus, are rather inaccurate for a man who
He said this leads to believers being too afraid to speak their own minds out of a wrong sense of being loving. It also leads to an inaccurate view of “saintliness”. Don’t turn a blind eye to evil or pretend other people are faultless.
-
Absolute Perfection - this is the idea that since God is perfect and demands loyalty, that means humans have to be 100 percent perfect to live up to his standard. This will affect a certain kind of person who is conscientious, sensitive, imaginative and lacking in self-confidence. It will make him guilty and miserable that he can’t live up to the standard of 100 percent.
-
Heavenly Bosom - this is the idea that christianity is a form of escapism, of returning to dependence of childhood, of hiding away from the world instead of going out and spreading the word, of being a symbol and having spiritual muscle.
-
God-in-a-Box - the idea that you have to attend a specific church and “jump through a particular hoop or sign on our particular dotted line” or there’s no God for you. The churchiness, that God is forced into man-made boxes. “Imagining God to be Roman or Anglican or Baptist or Methodist or Presbyterian or what have you.” [Interesting note here: while he speaks of a sense of ecumenicalism, of seeing God as bigger than one denomination, I wonder how he would react to the idea of seeing God via Mormonism, with that extra-biblical stuff, or something like Hindu. Probably not be as accepting.]
-
Managing Director - “to think that the God who is responsible for the terrifying vastness of the Universe cannot possibly be interested in the lives of the minute specks of consciousness which exist on this insignificant planet.” This is basically recognizing the true breadth and scope of the Universe, and then limiting the God that can fathom the whole as not being able to see the details. It’s a kind of projecting that a man couldn’t know that much, so God can’t. Kind of like a commander-in-chief can’t know all the soldiers in the armed forces individually, God couldn’t possibly know every person.
-
Second-hand God - relying on fiction (books, films, plays) to create the conception of God. His claim is that there are three main ways that fiction misleads and creates subconsciously an inaccurate conception of God.
a) The tacit ignoring of God and all religious issues: pretending there is no God at all, that men and women have no religious side to their personalities. He speaks of interesting characters making noble sacrifices and achieving utmost happiness and serenity without any reference to God. Conversely, evil characters that in all their lust, cruelty, etc, they have not a streak of conscience. No spiritual force working to make them better.
Amusingly, here he’s criticizing the lack of God and religion in works of fiction, whereas I see too much of the converse.
b)The willful misrepresentation of religion: playing up the negative images of religion, from comic, bigoted, or childishly ignorant of life, to hypocrites. Of showing those as the only images.
c) The manipulation of providence: because the author is crafting the story, he can create whatever kind of providence is required in his story, but that doesn’t bear any resemblance to how reality and life work.
- Perennial Grievance - the feeling “God let me down”, and carrying that through the rest of your life. The tragic event or prayer that went unanswered that creates the attitude that God is a disappointment.
His argument is that we need to see God as he is and how he works, not expect him to meet our projections. He falls back on the premise of “free will” that creates the inevitable ills and accidents, that the effect of centuries of humans choosing their own wishes over God’s wishes that is what causes the bad things of living.
-
Pale Galilean - it’s a line from a poem, but what he means is a God that provides prohibitions but not vitality and courage. A God that is negative and constricting and joyless and stifling.
-
Projected Image - projecting our own attitudes and flaws upon God.
-
Assorted - here he drops some quick little one-offs.
a)God in a hurry: “Evangelize now, reach everybody in this generation, hurry hurry hurry.” God was never in a hurry.
b) God for the elite: mystics, God of direct visions and such. “I’m special”.
c) God of Bethel: this is a God of rules and contracts. Follow the Commandments, obey certain rules, behave certain ways. Old Testament stuff.
d) God without Godhead: God as an “enlightened” and “modern” concept, the Ultimate Bundle of Highest Values but not having an identity, de-personalized. (I would say depersoned.)
e) Gods by any other name: “the State, success, efficiency, money, “glamour,” power, even security.” Giving them the influence and command that should be reserved for God.
Okay, this is getting lengthy. I will start a new post for Part Two.
Regarding Part One, I will say he has some valid points in there about the inadequacy of many of these concepts. They do not create a God that is worthy of worshipping. And do nothing to engender believing in him. What remains to be seen is if Part Two will do any better. 