really getting into the text together
Lissa wondered whether all this discussion of “trustworthiness” doesn’t involve projecting human characteristics onto God, maybe illegitimately. We might be more comfortable with the notion of “a power greater than ourselves,” which is less likely to invite these personalistic projections. John brought in the relationship of hope to faith, that faith might be in the relationship, where hope is related to the outcomes. Heather thinks there is an element of choice in faith, involving a decision not to give up on the object of faith. John, too, echoed the sentiment of not giving up on God, while Jeannine says she likes the idea that God is God, in charge — which is such a relief, since that means we don’t have to be.
Even though Linda likes the idea expressed in Wayne’s recurrent use of the term namaste — “the divine in me greets the divine in you” — we know we aren’t God, but rather participate in God. So we ourselves, as Sue points out, are not as reliable as God is.
The question of projection brought us to the issue of language, which comes up in this chapter, and on which Smith takes a pronounced Barthian stand. (Heather thinks she knows what that means, and doesn’t like it. She commends Calvin’s view of “accommodated language,” or the Bible as “baby-talk.” Karolyn, on the other hand, thinks that saying “those are God’s words,” even if “accommodated,” already skates in the direction of an unacceptable, potentially oppressive idolatry of the Bible that would be difficult to correct.) That led into a discussion of specific Biblical words, and the way Biblical language plays in to our concepts about God. The class represents a whole spectrum of views on how to articulate Biblical language to our concepts of God and our understandings of what Jesus taught, or meant to teach, and how we need to accept that. As One Esteemed Member noted, “Jesus and his ghostwriters” still provided the texts we concern ourselves with. (We all agreed we love the phrase.)
We probably also agree that using Father language for God does not make us think that our own fathers are God. We are not that confused. (Heather thinks that some fathers might get a little confused about that, though. Especially Fathers of their countries. She was thinking of James II, divine right of kings, and all that.) However, we acknowledged that father language does have some relationship to personal experience, as some of us who grew up without fathers in our homes relate to that word kind of abstractly.
Still, as Karolyn points out, sometimes the focus on words can sidetrack emphasis on action — easier to talk about a mission statement, for instance, than to put it into practice. And as Jeannine points out, not all meaning is contained in words. What about the idea of God as an artist, who “brings forth” without explanation — far beyond words.
Next week, Chapter 4!
