Seventh-Day Adventist Beliefs: God the Father

God the Eternal Father is the Creator, Source, Sustainer, and Sovereign of all creation. He is just and holy, merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness. The qualities and powers exhibited in the Son and the Holy Spirit are also revelations of the Father.

--Fundamental Beliefs, 3

Previous: The Godhead
Next: God the Son

Muke says:

The Father, especially as we see him in the Old Testament, seems to be an unpopular figure. People would rather talk about Jesus; someone who unambiguously loved everyone, than this mysterious and difficult-to-understand person. His motives really are hard to explain, especially to someone who has trouble seeing from his perspective...

I think C.S.Lewis puts it a good way, talking about Moral Law and the God behind it in Mere Christianity:

"The Moral Law does not give us any grounds for thinking that God is "good" in the sense of being indulgent, or soft, or sympathetic. There is nothing indulgent about the Moral Law. It is hard as nails. It tells you to do the straight thing and it does not seem to care how painful, or dangerous, or difficult it is to do. If God is like the Moral Law, then He is not soft."

...which I think hits the mark in a way, even if only obliquely.



In recent months it has seemed to me that there has been too much God in this pulpit.

Those of you who know me know that I'm not a complainer. But I am a "concerned citizen," and I feel it necessary to present my views.

One of the key principles that attracted me to Unitarianism when I first joined in the early 1950s was the absence of dogma and symbolism. I believe that is a basis from which we can start a constructive search for the truths of human spirituality. It is a basis, too, on which we can build an ethical framework that is relevant to the human condition.

What I've discovered is that I'm an agnostic and a humanist. That means that when the subject of God comes up I'm likely to say two things: 1) Nothing that I've read of heard proves to me that God is or is not. I just don't know, and see no evidence that I will know in my lifetime. 2) I believe that man is capable of self-fulfillment and ethical conduct without recourse to supernaturalism. In short, I'm a Merriam Webster's Dictionary humanist.

So in religious matters I try to avoid dogma and symbolism. They are not parts of my philosophy except when I unconsciously fall into past habits. So I'll tell you now where I stand, and if you disagree we can start a constructive dialogue.


I believe the need for gods in mankind grows out of natural and normal questioning. "Why do I exist?" "What is the purpose, meaning and significance of life?" These are questions which wise philosophers examine but, like Spinoza, do not answer. Theologians, however, are another breed. They are likely to jump into the philosophical fray with answers born of introspection and wishful thinking.

There seems to be a human need to seek the purpose of existence. I suggest that when we consider purpose, we should be aware of its dynamics. Man is the result of evolution. And with the coming of man, evolutionary change could be classified into two types: old and new. There was no purpose or plan in the old evolution. Things were, and they changed according to existing conditions. But with the coming of man, a unique species of life form, some aspects of evolution can be affected by his conscious control. To quote George Gaylord Simpson, from whom I draw most of my information on evolution, "Man, along among all organisms, knows that he evolves and he alone is capable of directing his own evolution."

The nuclear situation is a case in point. Nuclear energy and weaponry have not evolved in ways that are on balance, good for the healthy evolution of humankind. However, if we can effect a nuclear freeze we will have favorably affected the direction of our evolution, perhaps to the degree that we avoid extinction.

Certainly our efforts to understand our ecology and protect our environment from deadly pollution are evidence that we can affect the direction of our evolution

But, to return to myths and dogma. One of the problems with fostering myths is that the myths tend to become dogma. It is a simple step for the uncritical mind to accept the myth as fact, and then defend the "pseudo-fact" ferociously.

The most enormous myth is the myth of God, with a capital "G." It is enormous because, for one thing, it extends beyond Christianity, beyond Judaism, and beyond Islam. Its roots lie deep in the past, and like a stubborn weed, it persists.

It is a myth that cannot be proved. It is a myth that fetters clear thinking. Every apologia for God includes assumptions; indeed must include assumptions because, finally, each argument ends in unprovable assertions that are generally stated as facts.

Immanuel Kant said, "... human knowledge is incapable of supplying final verification for God's existence." He said that a long time ago — before the invention of computers, gas chromatographs and similar analytical equipment, but I'll still agree with that.

Should we return, with Mr. Reagan, to the "good old days?" It was much easier in earlier, savage cultures to know who or what gods were. The sea, the sun, the stars; anything incomprehensible was given a name and propitiated in some way. With the refinements of civilization, deities evolved themselves into a closer knit family of gods. Some readers may remember the Carl Reiner/Mel Brooks record called "The 2,000 Year Old Man." The 2,000 year old man said they used to pray to "Phil." Ohhh, Philip. Please don't take our eyes out, and don't pinch us, and don't hurt us. Amen." Then Phil was hit by a bolt of lightning, and they said, "Hey! There's something up there bigger than Phil!"

The mythological forbears of God served a purpose. As Julian Huxley points out, "Mythology fills a necessary place in the history of human ideas. It arises when man first demands some explanation of the strange surroundings in which he finds himself, some comprehensible guidance in the frightening chaos ... the formation of myths is bound to continue in any domain so long as our desire to know and to understand is confronted and overtopped by our ignorance."


When we ask "Who is God?" we show the persistent influence of the personalization of God. With all his fear and humility man unquestioningly cast the most awesome of concepts in his own image. Doris Hunter, in her introduction to the pamphlet "Unitarian Universalist Views of God" says, "We seek to liberate ourselves from patriarchal and anthropomorphic concepts of God." That's one of the reasons why the title of the talk this morning is "God, the Father???," followed by several question marks. I like the joke about the astronaut who journeyed far out into the universe and radioed back that he could see God. Mission Control asked him what God was like, and the astronaut said, "Well, first of all, she's black."

Some of the early heterodox sects in Christianity conceived the soul as a fine gas, and God himself as a still finer gas. Somewhat along these lines an early philosophy defined God as "a gaseous vertebrate."

The depersonalization of God has made Him less intimidating, and has emboldened someone to define Him as a bogey man designed to keep us from stealing marbles and hanging our teachers.

Browning spoke for the romantics when he wrote, "God! Thou art Love! I build my faith on that." For my part I don't agree. Love is a human quality that should be nurtured and practiced and appreciated, and not relegated to a deity.

Someone said, "God is a Baptist." Someone else said, "Ultimate Reality is a combination of phosphorous and glue." And to paraphrase an older, amusing definition, "God is a sort of infinitely magnified and improved Barney Miller."


I was tempted to overlook the fundamentalist view of God, but I think we should give it 'equal time.' The fundamentalist view of God is categorically presented in the Handbook of Doctrine of the Salvation Army which is an evangelical church. In Chapter III, Section II, paragraph 2 it is stated that the attributes of God are those perfect qualities and powers which belong only to Himself. These are:

  • Self-existence (as proven by Scripture)
  • Eternal Existence (it says so in the Bible)
  • Immutability (it says so in the Bible)

and so on through Omnipresence, Omniscience and Omnipotence to Perfect Benevolence.

It is obvious that God is truly infinite in His variety. Since God is a subjective interpretation of life and the cosmos. He is infinite in His variety because man is infinite in his variety.

It is a little unsettling to realize that the kind of myth-formation described by Julian Huxley is still so much with us, even though it wears the shiny veneer of modern psychology, or any number of neo-philosophies.


In the Unitarian/Universalist pamphlet "UU Views of God" there are six views of God. four of which are variations on old themes.

  • There is God as "ineffability," an attempt to put a label on what is divine in man. Arthur Foote says something I agree with, "We need the language of poetry as well as of science," but he puts it in a deistic context.
  • There is God as "process," articulated by Ann Fields. She says, "God is ... the process by which we listen to one another and learn from one another and arrive at new levels of spiritual awareness as a result."
  • Alice Blair Wesley writes of God as "experience." "Much God-talk is confused and meaningless because it has been disconnected from its experiential content ... it is reasonable to believe there is an objective pole to subjective experience of the holy, the sacred, the divine life of our life."
  • Then there is God as "presence." Marni Politte writes "How do you prove God? How do you prove Love? It can only be proved by the evidence of its presence; by the witnessing acts that convey the assurance that lets one feel love. One feels God ... and then one knows!"

The other two views of God in the pamphlet ar humanist so I'll spare quotations from them but I commend them to your attention.

Why am I concerned about the use of the God-symbol? Because it is too often used as a substitute for action. It is vicarious fulfillment for needs that should be dealt with in more straightforward ways. It is an anchor to the past, willingly grasped by people who are unwilling to give up comfortable terminology. It contains vestiges of fear that many people are not aware of.

Now, in this society we are concerned with religion. Is it possible to have religion without a deity? I say yes, it is not only possible, but it is preferable to have a religion without a deity. But we must consider religion in its essence, and not clothed in the connotations most generally accepted in our culture.

John Haynes Holmes spoke of religion in a way which expressed its essence. He said, "I would define religion as a mysterious and mystic impulse working within us to make us greater than we are, and the world, through us, better than it is; to lift us above the low ranges of physical appetite and satisfaction. To drive us to goals beyond the prudetial bounds of time and sense. Religion belongs distinctively to man not because he can think and speculate, and build ... altars, but rather because he can sense the whole life, catch vision of the ideal in things real, and is willing to give his life to fulfilling this vision among men. To be compelled to serve an ideal cause by a conviction of its enduring value not merely for ourselves but for humanity and its high destiny upon earth — this is religion."

Alfred North Whitehead gave a definition of religion which I think is basically intended to help man reach the fruitful heights of self inspiration. He said, "Religion is the vision of something which stands beyond, behind and within the passing flux of immediate things; something which is real and yet waiting to be realized. Something which is a remote possibility and yet the greatest of present facts; something that gives meaning to all that passes and yet eludes apprehension; something whose possession is the final good and yet is beyond all reach; something which is the ultimate ideal and the hopeless quest."

Julian Huxley once wrote, in effect, that when belief in God, immortality and the soul were no longer accepted, the needs out of which those beliefs arose originally, remain to be understood and often to be met.

The world is still in transition in this respect. To quote Huxley, "It is hard to break through the firm framework of an accepted belief system and build new and complex successors, but it is necessary. It is necessary to organize our ad hoc ideas and scattered values into a unitive pattern, transcending conflicts and divisions in its unitary web. Only by such a reconciliation of opposites and disparates can our belief system release us from inner conflicts; only so can we gain that peaceful assurance which will help unlock our energies for development in strenuous practical action."

It is hard to give up old symbols. It is even harder to avoid replacing old symbols with new ones. But it can be done by each of us with steady conscious effort. It can be done by all of us together, through organizations such as this society.


I would like to close with some thoughts for meditation adapted from several which appeared in the Unitarian Register, which preceded the current denominational publication the "UU World." They are as relevant now as they were then, and they indicate that worship need not be deity-oriented to be inspirational. They also clearly show that worship which addresses itself to the essence of religion cannot help but express itself in terms of the finest spiritual values.

We believe in a religion of truth-seeking and of truthfulness; and we would consecrate ourselves anew to the loyalties that make us free.

We believe in a religion of righteousness and we would seek and serve together our highest vision of the good.

We believe in a bond that shall unite us, not in exclusive sectarian bonds but in the holier and universal bond of love. Going down beneath all that separates and estranges, to the principles of freedom and understanding; below religions to religion, beneath all sacraments to the impulse that bends the soul in reverence and awe; beneath all forms to the faith that strives to express itself in and through them; thus touching common foundations and securing a common fellowship, each helping the other by whatever deep insights may be revealed.

The distant stars speak to us, the majestic mountains, the sound of the waves, and the wind blowing from the sea. The earth through her myriad voices reminds us that we are at home among our own.

We believe that all things flow; no achieved forms are final and perfect.

We believe in integrity; it will never be put to shame. Our appeal is to the human; every wrong we commit is against the law of our own being.

We believe in the satisfaction of work well done, in the joys of love and of sharing.

These things are the living waters of life; they are a perpetual inspiration.

This sermon was delivered by Henry P. Lewis at the Unitarian/Universalist Society of Northern Fairfield County, Connecticut on an unknown date but given the fact it was typed on a typewriter and not a computer it was written prior to 1994. It was at that time he acquired a computer. This is long before he'd ever had to look mortality in the face; prior to any operation and certainly prior to his first (non-fatal) bout with cancer.


Sources are not available for this writing, except where mentioned hereinabove. This work copyright 2006 The Estate Of Henry P. Lewis, all rights reserved.

Log in or register to write something here or to contact authors.