Baylor’s four views of God

Time magazine had a special report summarizing the ongoing research study American Piety in the 21^st Century at the Baylor Institute for Studies of Religion. This study suggests there are four perceptions of God in the United States:

• The Authoritarian God “is deeply involved in daily life and world events. God is angry at sin and can punish the unfaithful or ungodly.”
• The Benevolent God “is deeply involved in daily life and world events but is mainly a positive force reluctant to punish.”
• The Critical God “does not really interact with the world but is unhappy with its current state and will exact divine justice.”
• The Distant God “does not interact with the world and is not angry. God is more of a cosmic force that set the laws of nature in motion.”

Perhaps you have already determined which definition fits you, or maybe none of them seem to apply? It might have been quick and simple to say “this is it,” or you found yourself caught between different viewpoints? Possibly you see yourself as having started with one viewpoint, but now being in a very different place? Or, maybe its doesn't work for you at all?

One life journey through the viewpoints

As I consider my own journey, this sociological construct of views of God might be useful for reflecting on that journey. As I proceed, I will take these at face value, without considering possible bias.

I was raised in a mainline Protestant denomination that viewed God as Benevolent. In a protected middle class suburban community in the 60’s and 70’s life was comfortable. While there was conflict in the world, it seemed far away and did not threaten me.

The family church was one that provided safety, support and nurture. In spite of mistakes and stupid things, God was not hovering to criticize or punish.

Leaving home to attend college, there was a mainline Protestant chaplain who convened a student group of like minded believers in a Benevolent God. Unfortunately that chaplain left after my sophomore year because the church was cutting budgets. But at least I found a group of like-minded people.

Freshmen year led to an encounter with the Authoritarian God. Fellow students regularly proselytized everyone. They promoted the “Four Spiritual Laws” and proclaimed only those who followed their view of God would be saved. Their Authoritarian God was involved in human life only through Jesus, who was presented as friend for all. I was not interested in the God they promoted. In fact, I began hiding my Christianity since using the word led people to think I was a part of that group.

It was also in college that I first encountered the Critical God. I assisted a woman student with cerebral palsy. She walked with crutches, so I carried her books and her tray at the cafeteria. She told me how her parents believed that her disability was God’s punishment upon her for some unknown sin. She was raised with that belief, yet struggled with it, wanting to reject it but not being able to overcome its dominance in her life. It was completely foreign to how I understood God, and it seemed a cruel belief system that caused her depression and suicidal thoughts rather than love and acceptance.

After leaving college, and beginning life as an independent adult, I began a period of deep personal questioning and doubt. While I attended congregations that proclaimed the Benevolent God, no one could show me how to know about God’s activity in my life. There were no guides to how to develop a relationship with God.

I attended seminary, hoping that along with the intellectual and professional training I would also find a relationship with God. While I had experiences that I now understand to have been of God, the academic atmosphere could not provide the perspective or the people to assist my understanding of God.

After seminary, I was a member for many years of a congregation in the Episcopal Church that took skepticism seriously and many are agnostic. It matched my growing sense of the Distant God. While God was not unimportant, the Christian education program focused on teaching an existential method for making decisions.

It was a powerful experience to get a practical process to think through how my decisions affect others as well as me. I could clearly own the impacts of the chosen action. No decision was fully right or fully wrong, because both sides of a decision involved costs and promises. That realization freed me to more fully reject the Authoritarian God or Critical God, which do not tolerate ambiguity.

However, as an existential process, God was not considered part of that decision making process. I struggled with that aspect. I wanted God to be involved, to be a presence in my life, and the congregation was uncomfortable with that perspective. The Distant God of the congregation was unable to guide me or comfort me.

But the Baylor model has some deep problems, reflecting many of the same biases as those Four Spiritual Laws that I encountered in college. But that is another topic.