We all know "atheism" and "theism." You know, where the two are opposites. Atheism in its purest form states positively, "There is no god." Theism, in its purest form, claims, "There is a god." But, throw in a couple more. "Agnosticism" (literally "don't know") argues something along the line that there may or may not be a god ... but you can't know. And then ... there's deism. Deism argues that there is a God ... but He doesn't intervene in human affairs. So,theism in that spectrum holds that there is a God and He is involved in human affairs. Deism rejects miracles; theism embraces them.
Historically, Deism emerged in the 17th and 18th centuries ... and mostly died as untenable. Deism was rampant in the early days of the United States and claimed such adherents as Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and James Monroe. Benjamin Franklin was born into a Puritan family, but later distanced himself from those beliefs in favor of deism. Deism exists today, but isn't well-represented. It falls apart as a faith when you're claiming there's a God ... who doesn't much care.
That having been said ... deism today is alive and well ... in the Christian church. Okay, not formal deism ... practical deism. Practical deism is not formal deism; it's deism in practice. All believers affirm boldly that there is a God and He is intimately involved with our world. But do we live that way? Do we believe that? Not so much. We think we're supposed to mature ourselves in Christ (Gal 3:2-3). We think that God is hoping for our help and probably can't succeed if we don't supply it (Eph 1:11). We give lip service to theism -- God is involved in every aspect, but we all slip into an occasional lapse thinking or acting as if God's not here now. It might be severe -- "If I don't do what I ought, God won't accomplish what He intends." It might be less severe -- "It's okay ... I've got this." But it's always wrong. It's practical deism, a denial of the God who is. (Read, "idolatry.")
Deism is basically the same as atheism in that God is not a factor in life. I hate that I find myself lapsing into deistic modes of acting. We need to constantly remind ourselves of the marvels of our God who is intimately involved with every aspect of our lives.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Deism is “untenable”--at least for someone like me without the personal strengths and resources of our extraordinary “Founding Fathers” (who seemed to have been a minority faction able to flourish under such an unsettling theology). Personally, I see no reasonable benefit to Deism. Who would desire to know of a God who doesn’t carefully superintend His creation or lovingly help His children? I would envision existence under this version of God as extremely disconcerting--even frightening. Thankfully, this is not the God of the Bible, who is very clearly intimately involved in this world. In fact, some would charge that He is too involved in His creation--i.e. requiring that Man serve no other before Him, live to please Him rather than himself, do all things for His glory, trust in His provision for one’s salvation rather than his own efforts, etc. Aah, perhaps that’s why some people prefer a more hands-off variety of Supreme Being--i.e. one who defers to their sovereignty. A very blatant “practical deism,” indeed.
ReplyDeleteA general, undirected comment. Some of you kindly point out errors in my posts. I do appreciate it. I'm getting older and, of late, suffer from a strange double vision in single eyes ... very disturbing. So, while I try to be careful with what I write, I may still miss something. I don't take corrections personally and freely admit I make mistakes. Thanks to those who lend a helping proofreading hand. (Can "proofreading" and "hand" be connected somehow?)
ReplyDeleteStan, I’m glad to learn you don’t mind such help but also sorry to hear of your vision issues! I can relate and attest that losing one’s visual acuity is quite unsettling. I myself have a retinal scar in my right eye, caused by a case of toxoplasmosis I contracted 50 years ago that lay dormant in my eyeball for 20 years. I have a dead spot in my vision that, although thankfully currently slightly off-center, is expected to eventually lead to blindness in that eye. (This is on top of floaters and an extreme case of astigmatism in both eyes--the worst my eye doctor has even treated.) I too make lots of typing mistakes and must re-read and proofread excessively to remove errors. It requires extra time at the computer, but I find that leads me to spend a bit more time writing with care. Happily, while my physical eyesight is weakening, my spiritual vision has not dimmed. I am sure you can take comfort in that as well. (And I trust you are consulting an eye care specialist.)
DeleteP.S. I cannot think of a good connection between “proofreading” and “hand.” Catching your typos would be moreso lending you my “eyes,” so to speak--or at least my one good one! :-D
Actually, I did think of a connection between “proofreading” and “hand.” (I sold myself short. :) Proofreading is an aspect of editing. Editors traditionally used red pencils to mark notations on a manuscript. Red pencils are held in the hand. There you have it!
Delete"Double vision in single eyes" does that mean triple or quadruple vision? Just teasing.
DeleteActually ... yes, David. Which is a nightmare because I see everything twice ... twice. Only barely kidding.
ReplyDelete