Support the Café

Search our Site

the Objective God

the Objective God

by Brian C. Taylor


Why is the Episcopal Church – generally so socially-engaged, thoughtful, aesthetic – not bursting at the seams? With its contemporary approach to an ancient faith, it seems to be tailor made for today’s world. So why are so many seekers indifferent to what it has to offer? This question strikes at the heart of any conversation about conversion. After all, conversion implies that there are people on hand who want to convert.


The Episcopal Church usually approaches conversion in the same way that St. Benedict set forth in a vow for his monks: conversion of life. Conversion in this sense is a gradual process of transformation that takes place through an alchemy of individual effort, community life, and God’s grace. So far so good – one would think that seekers today would respond eagerly to this approach. The promise of gradual transformation of life, taking place with the support of an engaged and thoughtful community, is surely more attractive and reasonable to many than the hope of heaven and threat of hell.


Some might say seekers don’t respond because we haven’t been effectively “telling our story,” or “getting the message out” about who we are. Perhaps, but I think one of the other chief reasons has to do with the way we use language in our liturgy, even in its more contemporary forms: we can’t seem to shake the habit of dualism. (My use of the term dualism here is not the historical Christian separation of spirit and flesh, but rather the separation of subject and object).


Again and again we find ourselves as subjects addressing God as an object, a separate being – one whom we seek, appeal to, and praise. We ask this divine being to respond, to have mercy, to grant, to forgive, to act, just as we would ask another person to do the same. “We” speak to a God who is not “us,” but something else, whether we think of God as the one in whom we live and move and have our being, or as something impossibly far away. In other words, we think dualistically.


The problem is that the language we use in church doesn’t resonate with the experience of many seekers today. If you ask them whether they are “religious,” they will frequently say “No,” because they can’t believe there is a super-being who exists apart from us. Instead, seekers today often describe the divine as an “energy,” or a “sense of the sacred infusing everything.” Whether they know it or not, they are describing a unitive experience, rather than a dualistic one. They sense that they are part of a mystery, rather than a subject relating to the source of mystery as if it were an object.


Paul Tillich addressed this issue by referring to God as the ground of all being, in which we have our individual being. He wanted us to avoid what he called “theism” – the tendency to make God into an object, a separate being. But he also believed that the use of personal, relational language when speaking of (or to) God was inevitable. His logic was that our limited consciousness can only conceive of the ultimately unknowable divine mystery in personal, relational terms. These terms, for Tillich, were to be understood as symbolic of something beyond words.


Most Episcopalians would probably agree with this logic, and there is merit to it. Our theology and liturgy is based upon it. For my 30 years as a parish rector I used

and unpacked the symbolic language of scripture and liturgy. As a preacher, I translated the language of traditional symbol and metaphor into the reality of experience.


But since I’ve retired, I’ve begun to see a real problem with Tillich’s conviction and our practice as a church. If over a lifetime we become accustomed to language that constantly reinforces the impression that we are subjects relating to God as a separate object, this language no longer functions symbolically, but seems to describe the reality itself.


For some 25 years, I have studied and practiced Zen Buddhism, and it has provided a refreshing perspective on my Christian experience of unitive prayer and theology. Most Buddhism – like psychology or science – is agnostic. It does not concern itself with the subject of God, but it does have its own way of speaking of what religions call “God.” In doing so, Zen uses poetic, not definitive, language, often pulling the rug out from underneath all our assumptions and easy definitions of reality. And so we Christians hear echoes of “God” when we hear Zen teachers creatively hinting towards the mystery, using phrases such as our original face, emptiness that makes all existence possible, pure being, Buddha-nature, universal mind, the single energy, the absolute, no-thing that manifests as “things”…and so on.


However, in Zen, the absolute is not an essence or a being before all other beings that is something other than what we are. That would make us separate from it; it would then be something to reach, something to achieve. Instead, the nature of reality is our nature. We are that life-giving, spacious emptiness; we are manifestations of universal mind; we are Buddha-nature. We are distinct individuals, to be sure, and therefore in relationship to what is beyond our individuality; but we are not separate from it.


It is no coincidence that in our day and culture, interest in Buddhism is growing just as interest in Christianity is declining. That shift has come partly because Buddhism has a way of speaking about reality in a way that is resonant with contemporary seekers. After all, many of us know ourselves to be part of an inter-related, infinitely diverse, and vastly gifted global village. Contemporary physics tells us that we, and all matter, are not a collection of separate objects, but an interactive flow of energy.


In the same vein, many contemporary seekers sense that they are not a person “over here” who relates to a divine being “over there,” but part of a sacred reality that reveals itself in infinite ways – as you, as me, as trees, as circumstances, as everything that is, seen and unseen. We can willfully separate ourselves from this unitive reality, creating great harm for ourselves and others, or we can live into it cooperatively, encouraging healing, justice, and harmony as we do.


If we are serious about conversion of life for those who respond to our invitation to “Come and see” what God in Christ is all about, perhaps we need to rethink the language we use. This can be awkward at first, just as it has been for many men when they first begin to use gender-neutral liturgical language. But the reason we make that effort was that we have come to the conclusion that our language no longer fits either our understanding or our experience. If we were to stand forever on tradition, we would continue to alienate a growing number of people, especially contemporary seekers who could care less about our tradition.


Aren’t we in a similar situation now, with the language we use to speak about (or to) God? Isn’t it worth the awkwardness and the effort to do something about it? If so, how might we express this mystery in a way that resonates with our understanding and experience, but is also faithful to Christian understanding and experience? Most importantly, how shall we move beyond the reinforcing language of dualism in order to support conversion of life in our day, and thereby, to more fully bring about the reign of God that Jesus promised?



The Rev Brian Taylor is an author, CREDO facilitator, and retired Rector of St Michael and All Angels, Albuquerque, NM


Café Comments?

Our comment policy requires that you use your real first and last names and provide an email address (your email will not be published). Comments that use non-PG rated language, include personal attacks, that are not provable as fact or that we deem in any way to be counter to our mission of fostering respectful dialogue will not be posted.

Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Harvey Ray

More evidence of why no one in the Church’s “halls of power” or any parish priest/deacon is going to risk their livelihood/sanity to “walk this puppy down the aisle” of any Episcopal church!
Because this voice of reason is attacked and not heard, it is a loss to not only the Episcopal Church, but Abrahamic religion in general and therefore to “this fragile earth, our island home”. Thanks Brian for at least trying.

John Sponge

I don’t understand a) what any if this has to do with”Reason”; b) why you think it’s a parish priest’s job to “lead” parishioners into questionable fringe theology.

I’m not stupid. But I am a member of the Church because I believe what the Church has taught about Christ and God for centuries. The moment we start trying to teach Zen Buddhism with a veneer of Christian language and symbols, I’m out. And I’m not sure why Zen Buddhist claims about the universe have any superior claim at the altar of Reason than tradition Christian theology.

Philip B. Spivey

“And this, our life, exempt from public haunt, finds tongues in trees, books in running brooks, sermons in stones, and good in everything.” — Wm. Shakespeare

Brian C. Taylor

Some of these comments have echoed a centuries-old misunderstanding and misrepresentation of Christian unitive, contemplative theology and prayer. Once you start talking about non-separation and union with the divine, as so many saints and theologians have, accusations of syncretism, universalism, apostasy, and heresy are quick to appear. But for those who might want to read a good contemporary articulation of this ancient Christian path, try Richard Rohr’s “The Naked Now: Learning to See as the Mystics See” or Cynthia Bourgeault’s “The Heart of Centering Prayer: Nondual Christianity in Theory and Practice.”

leslie marshall

I see the dilemma … TEC says one thing but believes another. I suggest, If you want to bring more people in, match up your beliefs with the language.

As it is, TEC vies for attention among (too many to count) other groups, that offer essentially the same thing. Universalism.

leslie marshall

God is the Creator. We are his Creation.

Can’t get more dualistic than that!

[Christian, please don’t make the fatal mistake of worshipping created things, rather than the Creator.]

When Adam and Eve reached for the fruit (part of creation) for knowledge, rather than getting their knowledge from God, everything went haywire. God kicked them to the curb, and hid the Tree of Life from them. Bummer.

Philip B. Spivey

Father Taylor is on to something essential for understanding my “Episcopal” god: my Episcopal god is four-hundred-eighty-three years old. My Episcopal god emerged at of time capitalist expansion and colonialism. My Episcopal god slayed the papist god of Rome in England when Mary, Queen of Scots, lost her head. Language, indeed, shaped the form and function of my Episcopal god.

God universal, upper-case “G”, resides not only at Canterbury, but in every green and watery acre of God’s earth. The dualism to which Fr. Taylor refers is a dualism reflected in separating mind from body from spirit. There is no separation of these three, except in death. Likewise, I don’t believe God can be separate from any of us; how close? That remains a mystery similar to that of The Trinity.

Those of us who cling to gendered, objectified and literal interpretations of God’s word that are embedded in 483 years of Episcopal tradition, risk speaking to potential newcomers, but not being understood. Will we insist they speak our language as a requirement for membership? Or, shall we put our creative energies into engaging the 21st century without losing our essence.

The battle over revising the 1928 BCP calls to mind a similar dilemma: Can we synergize our Episcopal-trinity of Scripture, tradition and reason into creating something new and wonderful? Some would still say that we didn’t. I believe we did.

Support the Café
Past Posts

The Episcopal Café seeks to be an independent voice, reporting and reflecting on the Episcopal Church and the Anglican tradition.  The Café is not a platform of advocacy, but it does aim to tell the story of the church from the perspective of Progressive Christianity.  Our collective sympathy, as the Café, lies with the project of widening the circle of inclusion within the church and empowering all the baptized for the role to which they have been called as followers of Christ.

The opinions expressed at the Café are those of individual contributors, and, unless otherwise noted, should not be interpreted as official statements of a parish, diocese or other organization. The art and articles that appear here remain the property of their creators.

All Content  © 2017 Episcopal Café