Extra Innings
So, wow. There's been a lot of action on my Spotlight Stage Left post. Because of computer/internet issues, I wasn't able to join the conversation the way I wanted, so maybe we can bring it back and I can maybe clarify a few things, and maybe take it a step further.
First, maybe the spotlight/stage analogy wasn't perfect. Ok, maybe it sucked. I have been thinking more about it, and I guess the point is that all of those names of God reflect more on His people than on God Himself. God is everything. He can meet any need and fill any void. That is truly who He is. We cannot define God, and we can only describe small aspects of Him that become evident to us through the Bible and our experiences. And, Justin, while I totally understand what you are trying to say when you say not to only allow God to be bigger than the failures we experience, really all of these names of God are based on inadequacies. The children of Israel knew that God provides because they had experienced want. David knew that God was his Shepherd because he had been directionless. So really, our experiential knowledge of God is inherently based on shortcomings in our life, whether we are the "shortcomer" or the victim of the shortcoming. Having said that, obviously our knowledge of God is not only experiential. That's almost what we were talking about in the first place. If we limit God only to what we have experienced, we are no better than limiting Him to what the children of Israel experienced.
And now, even further out of the box. What other areas of our Christian life are we doing this to? What about the church? It is described as the bride of Christ, the flock of Christ, and the body of Christ. Now each of those names describe different aspects of the relationship between Christ and the church, but do they define the relationship? What other areas in our Christian life are we letting metaphors and descriptions define the limits of God?
First, maybe the spotlight/stage analogy wasn't perfect. Ok, maybe it sucked. I have been thinking more about it, and I guess the point is that all of those names of God reflect more on His people than on God Himself. God is everything. He can meet any need and fill any void. That is truly who He is. We cannot define God, and we can only describe small aspects of Him that become evident to us through the Bible and our experiences. And, Justin, while I totally understand what you are trying to say when you say not to only allow God to be bigger than the failures we experience, really all of these names of God are based on inadequacies. The children of Israel knew that God provides because they had experienced want. David knew that God was his Shepherd because he had been directionless. So really, our experiential knowledge of God is inherently based on shortcomings in our life, whether we are the "shortcomer" or the victim of the shortcoming. Having said that, obviously our knowledge of God is not only experiential. That's almost what we were talking about in the first place. If we limit God only to what we have experienced, we are no better than limiting Him to what the children of Israel experienced.
And now, even further out of the box. What other areas of our Christian life are we doing this to? What about the church? It is described as the bride of Christ, the flock of Christ, and the body of Christ. Now each of those names describe different aspects of the relationship between Christ and the church, but do they define the relationship? What other areas in our Christian life are we letting metaphors and descriptions define the limits of God?
posted by oneweekend at 10:03 PM
5 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dale,
Matty said I should introduce myself to you. I thought I'd do that by interacting with you here.
BTW, congrats on your impending nuptuals.
I think any system of religion, or legislated relationship, more than just idioms and metaphors we use, has a tendency to limit God. We can't help it though, we are finite. God relates to people in their own time and place to allow them a metaphor. We are always tempted to worship and serve the metaphor.
What Biblical metaphors can be abused and classified as bad? All of them. Pop culture can make anything it's victim. Maybe this is why true, undefiled, historic, orthodox christianity is almost synonmous with counter culture movements. When Christianity becomes mainstream, it is historically hijacked, mutilated, and I would say, tends to bigotry. Constantine took legalization to nationalization, what followed was the inquisition and the crusades.
Think of the parallels of the way we talk of how our country's founding was so bold and beautiful and God-centered, but colonialism ravaged entire indigineous people groups. Can we see how the phrase "manifest destiny" is inherently arrogant?
I can point to one abused metaphor.
To some, calling God our Father is an offensive comparison to drive them away from Him, not relate to Him. So we hammer away with words like good father, loving father, all-knowing father - and to someone who has been abused or deserted by their own father, the previous adjectives don't belong anywhere near the noun.
What metaphor might God use today? Could we relate to God who is the good Web-master, whose service never crashes, who offers 24 hour tech support. His "pro" version is offered as a free lifetime subscription except for the commitment of the user. Not a commitment to post daily, but a commitment to post in the way of our everlasting service provider.
I speak poetically, of course, but weren't the authors of Scripture doing the same?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Prof. Dig, I love the name for God. Very descriptive, relevant, and appropriate.
Wow, this is some great stuff. Maybe i can add a little of how i see it. i appreciate the fact that the Israelites called God the Provider and Father, and while i agree we should (and i think do) apply all these names and attributes to God prior to the Revelation's of them in our lives, i think that our finite minds will be substantially aided , when they have been proven to be true in our individual lives. i guess what i'm saying is, i have always known, believed and said that God is a provider, but the last 1.5 years of marriage and starting a business have tought me in powerful ways the truth of that name. The truth is always there, but it is not 2-dimensional. God's providence has new meaning in my life... Well, what do you think???
Post a Comment
<< Home