god the invisible king-第10部分

快捷操作: 按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页 按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页 按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部! 如果本书没有阅读完，想下次继续接着阅读，可使用上方 "收藏到我的浏览器" 功能 和 "加入书签" 功能！

y　from　　material；　spatial　things；　there　is　always　an　element　of　metaphor　in　　theological　statement。　　So　that　I　have　not　called　this　chapter　the　　Nature　of　God；　but　the　Likeness　of　God。　And　firstly；　GOD　IS　COURAGE。

2。　GOD　IS　A　PERSON

And　next　GOD　IS　A　PERSON。　Upon　this　point　those　who　are　beginning　to　profess　modern　religion　　are　very　insistent。　　It　is；　they　declare；　the　central　article；　the　　axis；　of　their　religion。　　God　is　a　person　who　can　be　known　as　one　　knows　a　friend；　who　can　be　served　and　who　receives　service；　who　　partakes　of　our　nature；　who　is；　like　us；　a　being　in　conflict　with　　the　unknown　and　the　limitless　and　the　forces　of　death；　who　values　　much　that　we　value　and　is　against　much　that　we　are　pitted　against。　　　He　is　our　king　to　whom　we　must　be　loyal；　he　is　our　captain；　and　to　　know　him　is　to　have　a　direction　in　our　lives。　　He　feels　us　and　knows　　us；　he　is　helped　and　gladdened　by　us。　　He　hopes　and　attempts。　。　。　。　　　God　is　no　abstraction　nor　trick　of　words；　no　Infinite。　　He　is　as　　real　as　a　bayonet　thrust　or　an　embrace。　Now　this　is　where　those　who　have　left　the　old　creeds　and　come　asking　　about　the　new　realisations　find　their　chief　difficulty。　　They　say；　　Show　us　this　person；　let　us　hear　him。　　（If　they　listen　to　the　　silences　within；　presently　they　will　hear　him。）　　But　when　one　　argues；　one　finds　oneself　suddenly　in　the　net　of　those　ancient　　controversies　between　species　and　individual；　between　the　one　and　　the　many；　which　arise　out　of　the　necessarily　imperfect　methods　of　　the　human　mind。　　Upon　these　matters　there　has　been　much　pregnant　　writing　during　the　last　half　century。　　Such　ideas　as　this　writer　has　　to　offer　are　to　be　found　in　a　previous　little　book　of　his；　〃First　　and　Last　Things；〃　in　which；　writing　as　one　without　authority　or　　specialisation　in　logic　and　philosophy；　as　an　ordinary　man　vividly　　interested；　for　others　in　a　like　case；　he　was　at　some　pains　to　　elucidate　the　imperfections　of　this　instrument　of　ours；　this　mind；　　by　which　we　must　seek　and　explain　and　reach　up　to　God。　　Suffice　it　　here　to　say　that　theological　discussion　may　very　easily　become　like　　the　vision　of　a　man　with　cataract；　a　mere　projection　of　inherent　　imperfections。　　If　we　do　not　use　our　phraseology　with　a　certain　　courage；　and　take　that　of　those　who　are　trying　to　convey　their　ideas　　to　us　with　a　certain　politeness　and　charity；　there　is　no　end　　possible　to　any　discussion　in　so　subtle　and　intimate　a　matter　as　　theology　but　assertions；　denials；　and　wranglings。　　And　about　this　　word　〃person〃　it　is　necessary　to　be　as　clear　and　explicit　as　　possible；　though　perfect　clearness；　a　definition　of　mathematical　　sharpness；　is　by　the　very　nature　of　the　case　impossible。　Now　when　we　speak　of　a　person　or　an　individual　we　think　typically　of　　a　man；　and　we　forget　that　he　was　once　an　embryo　and　will　presently　　decay；　we　forget　that　he　came　of　two　people　and　may　beget　many；　that　　he　has　forgotten　much　and　will　forget　more；　that　he　can　be　confused；　　divided　against　himself；　delirious；　drunken；　drugged；　or　asleep。　　On　　the　contrary　we　are；　in　our　hasty　way　of　thinking　of　him；　apt　to　　suppose　him　continuous；　definite；　acting　consistently　and　never　　forgetting。　　But　only　abstract　and　theoretical　persons　are　like　　that。　　We　couple　with　him　the　idea　of　a　body。　　Indeed；　in　the　common　　use　of　the　word　〃person〃　there　is　more　thought　of　body　than　of　mind。　　　We　speak　of　a　lover　possessing　the　person　of　his　mistress。　　We　speak　　of　offences　against　the　person　as　opposed　to　insults；　libels；　or　　offences　against　property。　　And　the　gods　of　primitive　men　and　the　　earlier　civilisations　were　quite　of　that　quality　of　person。　　They　　were　thought　of　as　living　in　very　splendid　bodies　and　as　acting　　consistently。　　If　they　were　invisible　in　the　ordinary　world　it　was　　because　they　were　aloof　or　because　their　〃persons〃　were　too　splendid　　for　weak　human　eyes。　　Moses　was　permitted　a　mitigated　view　of　the　　person　of　the　Hebrew　God　on　Mount　Horeb；　and　Semele；　who　insisted　　upon　seeing　Zeus　in　the　glories　that　were　sacred　to　Juno；　was　　utterly　consumed。　　The　early　Islamic　conception　of　God；　like　the　　conception　of　most　honest；　simple　Christians　to…day；　was　clearly；　in　　spite　of　the　theologians；　of　a　very　exalted　anthropomorphic　　personality　away　somewhere　in　Heaven。　　The　personal　appearance　of　　the　Christian　God　is　described　in　The　Revelation；　and　however　much　　that　description　may　be　explained　away　by　commentators　as　　symbolical；　it　is　certainly　taken　by　most　straightforward　believers　　as　a　statement　of　concrete　reality。　　Now　if　we　are　going　to　insist　　upon　this　primary　meaning　of　person　and　individual；　then　certainly　　God　as　he　is　now　conceived　is　not　a　person　and　not　an　individual。　　　The　true　God　will　never　promenade　an　Eden　or　a　Heaven；　nor　sit　upon　　a　throne。　But　current　Christianity；　modern　developments　of　Islam；　much　Indian　　theological　thoughtthat；　for　instance；　which　has　found　such　　delicate　and　attractive　expression　in　the　devotional　poetry　of　　Rabindranath　Tagorehas　long　since　abandoned　this　anthropomorphic　　insistence　upon　a　body。　　From　the　earliest　ages　man's　mind　has　found　　little　or　no　difficulty　in　the　idea　of　something　essential　to　the　　personality；　a　soul　or　a　spirit　or　both；　existing　apart　from　the　　body　and　continuing　after　the　destruction　of　the　body；　and　being　　still　a　person　and　an　individual。　　From　this　it　is　a　small　step　to　　the　thought　of　a　person　existing　independently　of　any　existing　or　　pre…existing　body。　　That　is　the　idea　of　theological　Christianity；　as　　distinguished　from　the　Christianity　of　simple　faith。　　The　Triune　　Personsomnipresent；　omniscient；　and　omnipotentexist　for　all　　time；　superior　to　and　independent　of　matter。　　They　are　supremely　　disembodied。　　One　became　incarnateas　a　wind　eddy　might　take　up　a　　whirl　of　dust。　。　。　。　　Those　who　profess　modern　religion　conceive　　that　this　is　an　excessive　abstraction　of　the　idea　of　spirituality；　a　　disembodiment　of　the　idea　of　personality　beyond　the　limits　of　the　　conceivable；　nevertheless　they　accept　the　conception　that　a　person；　　a　spiritual　individual；　may　be　without　an　ordinary　mortal　body。　。　。　。　　　They　declare　that　God　is　without　any　specific　body；　that　he　is　　immaterial；　that　he　can　affect　the　material　universeand　that　means　　that　he　can　only　reach　our　sight；　our　hearing；　our　touchthrough　　the　bodies　of　those　who　believe　in　him　and　serve　him。　His　nature　is　of　the　nature　of　thought　and　will。　　Not　only　has　he；　　in　his　essence；　nothing　to　do　with　matter；　but　nothing　to　do　with　　space。　　He　is　not　of　matter　nor　of　space。　　He　comes　into　them。　　　Since　the　period　when　all　the　great　theologies　that　prevail　to…day　　were　developed；　there　have　been　great　changes　in　the　ideas　of　men　　towards　the　dimensions　of　time　and　space。　　We　owe　to　Kant　the　　release　from　the　rule　of　these　ideas　as　essential　ideas。　　Our　modern　　psychology　is　alive　to　the　possibility　of　Being　that　has　no　　extension　in　space　at　all；　even　as　our　speculative　geometry　can　　entertain　the　possibility　of　dimensionsfourth；　fifth；　Nth　　dimensionsoutside　the　three…dimensional　universe　of　our　　experience。　　And　God　being　non…spatial　is　not　thereby　banished　to　an　　infinite　remoteness；　but　brought　nearer　to　us；　he　is　everywhere　　immediately　at　hand；　even　as　a　fourth　dimension　would　be　everywhere　　immediately　at　hand。　　He　is　a　Being　of　the　minds　and　in　the　minds　of　　men。　　He　is　in　immediate　contact　with　all　who　apprehend　him。　。　。　。　But　modern　religion　declares　that　though　he　does　not　exist　in　matter　　or　space；　he　exists　in　time　just　as　a　current　of　thought　may　do；　　that　he　changes　and　becomes　more　even　as　a　man's　purpose　gathers　　itself　together；　that　somewhere　in　the　dawning　of　mankind　he　had　a　　beginning；　an　awakening；　and　that　as　mankind　grows　he　grows。　　With　　our　eyes　he　looks　out　upon　the　universe　he　invades；　with　our　hands；　　he　lays　hands　upon　it。　　All　our　truth；　all　our　intentions　and　　achievements；　he　gathers　to　himself。　　He　is　the　undying　human　　memory；　the　increasing　human　will。　But　this；　you　may　object；　is　no　more　than　saying　that　God　is　the　　collective　mind　and　purpose　of　the　human　race。　　You　may　declare　that　　this　is　no　God；　but　merely　the　sum　of　mankind。　　But　those　who　　believe　in　the　new　ideas　very　steadfastly　deny　that。　　God　is；　they　　say；　not　an　aggregate　but　a　synthesis。　　He　is　not　merely　the　best　of　　all　of　us；　but　a　Being　in　himself；　composed　of　that　but　more　than　　that；　as　a　temple　is　more　than　a　gathering　of　stones；　or　a　regiment　　is　more　than　an　accumulation　of　men。　　They　point　out　that　a　man　is　　made　up　of　a　great　multitude　of　cells；　each　equivalent　to　a　　unicellular　organism。　　Not　one　of　those　cells　is　he；　nor　is　he　　simply　just　the　addition　of　all　of　them。　　He　is　more　than　all　of　　them。　　You　can　take　away　these　and　these　and　these；　and　he　still　　remains。　　And　he　can　detach　part　of　himself　and　treat　it　as　if　it　　were　not　himself；　just　as　a　man　may　beat　his　breast　or；　as　Cranmer　　the　martyr　did；　thrust　his　hand　into　the　flames。　　A　man　is　none　the　　less　himself　because　his　hair　is　cut　or　his　appendix　removed　or　his　　leg　amputated。　And　take　another　image。　。　。　。　　Who　bears　affection　for　this　or　that　　spadeful　of　mud　in　my　garden？　　Who　cares　a　throb　of　the　heart　for　　all　the　tons　of　chalk　in　Kent　or　all　the　lumps　of　limestone　in　　Yorkshire？　　But　men　love　En