A ‘Non-religious’ Critique of ‘God’ Language - 3
6. If the Vanderbilt professor’s presentations matter, they must matter in the sanctuary. It seems to me the ‘God’ language heard in the sanctuaries of the congregations toward the liberal end of the theological spectrum (and, therefore, the congregations that would be most responsive in the classroom to presentations such as the Vanderbilt professor’s presentations) stops far short of building intentionally and consciously off a serious regard for the morphic nature of ‘God’ language. If the Vanderbilt professor’s proposals are taken into the sanctuary -- what happens to the manner of praying? to reading/hearing scripture? to the choice of and interpretation of hymns? to reasoning in sermons? to . . . ? I guess it is obvious why I am drawn toward the story of the ‘scrapheap’ Job and the Ecclesiastes essay, toward the ‘negative theology’ tradition, toward the Letters and Papers Bonhoeffer, toward Berdyaev, toward the silence of the Quaker tradition, toward . . . . To continue the comparison with ‘Santa Claus’ language I mentioned yesterday -- it seems to me that, even in the more liberal and thoughtful congregations, the most senior and adult members still for the most part ‘believe’.
7. I agree with your observation that explicitly prefacing every ‘God’ language statement in the sanctuary with a reminder about the morphic nature of the statement would not be practical and would sap the language of force/momentum. How, then, is the idolatrous use and hearing of ‘God’ language to be approached? ‘Idolatry’ is a very intense word/assessment (somewhat analogous to ‘epidemic’ in public health discourse) – i.e., ‘idolatry’ is one of those words better left unused unless one is prepared to follow through with the implications. If the use/hearing of ‘God’ language is in fact idolatrous, should these linguistic idols be allowed (much less, endorsed) as one among several ways to speak of and experience ‘God’? I think the answer should be ‘no’, except for young children who are not yet mature enough to think more abstractly (again, the ‘Santa Claus’ comparison). For them, crossing from a literal to a morphic understanding of ‘God’ language should be a necessary stage in theological and spiritual maturation. I asked you how the congregation’s leaders would respond to this proposal. You described their approach to such matters as ‘equal opportunity’ rather than ‘affirmative action’, meaning that the leaders would hesitate to be aggressive or to take a stand. I responded by pressing that ‘idolatrous’ necessitates ‘affirmative action’. I see at least three reasons there would be great risk in breaking down the linguistic idols in the sanctuary. (1) The weight of the Jewish and Christian canons, Christian theology, and Christian liturgy is on the side of protecting the linguistic idols. (2) Imagine a 1-to-10 spectrum with ‘1’ representing ‘uncritical thinking’ and ‘10’ representing ‘critical thinking’. ‘Moderate’ congregations would be in the 4-to-7 range. ‘Progressive’ congregations would be in the 8-to-10 range. ‘Moderate’ congregations (i.e., 4-to-7 on the spectrum) as well as ‘popular religion’/‘fundamentalist’ congregations (i.e., 1-to-3 on the spectrum) are ready to welcome the faint-hearted and unsettled from congregations (i.e., 8-to-9 on the spectrum) that might resolve to tear down the linguistic idols. (3) Not too many individuals seem to have the sense of urgency, the time, the energy, and/or the resources to follow through with tearing down the linguistic idols.
Re this spectrum -- I would argue (1) that the Jewish and Christian canons as well as orthodox Christian theology/liturgy well into the 19th century fell in the 1-to-4 range, (2) that the use and hearing of ‘God’ language as literally equivalent to the finite reference points were qualified when Platonic philosophy became the primary conceptual vehicle for expressing Christian thought in the patristic period, (3) that the separations along fundamentalist/modernist lines experienced throughout the ‘religious’ sphere by the early 20th century had in part to do with conflicting dispositions toward a methodological shift to a modern paradigm that accentuated the limitations on ‘God’ language, (4) that two communities of faith in which we have participated – i.e., a Congregational Church in Vermont and this Presbyterian Church USA in Nashville – fall in the 8-to-9 range on the spectrum and represent a very small number of congregations within the ‘religious’ sphere that are not a part of the orthodox coalition (again, to use a parliamentary analogy), and (5) that the ‘10’ end of the above spectrum (where I am) is not accepted/permitted within the ‘religious’ sphere.
My sense of urgency has for 25+ years now stemmed from the conclusion that the understanding of ‘God’ language heard within the ‘religious’ sphere (1) creates the painfully deep agony of the ‘scrapheap’ Jobs in life and (2) demands from those trying to be with the ‘scrapheap’ Jobs in life an allegiance to theological views and systems that discourage being truly/unconditionally present with the ‘scrapheap’ Jobs in life (e.g., the failure of every character as well as ‘God’ portrayed in the story of Job). Personal experience with and growing awareness of the depth/breadth of human misery/tragedy shattered the linguistic ‘idols’ common to the ‘religious’ sphere. This is a central reason the Letters and Papers Bonhoeffer remains so encouraging for me -- i.e., with the realization that the Nazi methods and successes had demonstrated the idolatrous nature of traditional ‘God’ language, Bonhoeffer in his secret prison correspondence with Eberhard Bethge was beginning to cross the threshold beyond which he had begun to see/k radically new approaches to ‘God’ language while surrounded by shattered linguistic ‘idols’ (analogous to the rubble to which Germany had been reduced).
Use (or do not use!) these thoughts as you will. Thank you for taking seriously my wanderings and searching. I look forward to our next opportunity to speak together.
Doug
7. I agree with your observation that explicitly prefacing every ‘God’ language statement in the sanctuary with a reminder about the morphic nature of the statement would not be practical and would sap the language of force/momentum. How, then, is the idolatrous use and hearing of ‘God’ language to be approached? ‘Idolatry’ is a very intense word/assessment (somewhat analogous to ‘epidemic’ in public health discourse) – i.e., ‘idolatry’ is one of those words better left unused unless one is prepared to follow through with the implications. If the use/hearing of ‘God’ language is in fact idolatrous, should these linguistic idols be allowed (much less, endorsed) as one among several ways to speak of and experience ‘God’? I think the answer should be ‘no’, except for young children who are not yet mature enough to think more abstractly (again, the ‘Santa Claus’ comparison). For them, crossing from a literal to a morphic understanding of ‘God’ language should be a necessary stage in theological and spiritual maturation. I asked you how the congregation’s leaders would respond to this proposal. You described their approach to such matters as ‘equal opportunity’ rather than ‘affirmative action’, meaning that the leaders would hesitate to be aggressive or to take a stand. I responded by pressing that ‘idolatrous’ necessitates ‘affirmative action’. I see at least three reasons there would be great risk in breaking down the linguistic idols in the sanctuary. (1) The weight of the Jewish and Christian canons, Christian theology, and Christian liturgy is on the side of protecting the linguistic idols. (2) Imagine a 1-to-10 spectrum with ‘1’ representing ‘uncritical thinking’ and ‘10’ representing ‘critical thinking’. ‘Moderate’ congregations would be in the 4-to-7 range. ‘Progressive’ congregations would be in the 8-to-10 range. ‘Moderate’ congregations (i.e., 4-to-7 on the spectrum) as well as ‘popular religion’/‘fundamentalist’ congregations (i.e., 1-to-3 on the spectrum) are ready to welcome the faint-hearted and unsettled from congregations (i.e., 8-to-9 on the spectrum) that might resolve to tear down the linguistic idols. (3) Not too many individuals seem to have the sense of urgency, the time, the energy, and/or the resources to follow through with tearing down the linguistic idols.
Re this spectrum -- I would argue (1) that the Jewish and Christian canons as well as orthodox Christian theology/liturgy well into the 19th century fell in the 1-to-4 range, (2) that the use and hearing of ‘God’ language as literally equivalent to the finite reference points were qualified when Platonic philosophy became the primary conceptual vehicle for expressing Christian thought in the patristic period, (3) that the separations along fundamentalist/modernist lines experienced throughout the ‘religious’ sphere by the early 20th century had in part to do with conflicting dispositions toward a methodological shift to a modern paradigm that accentuated the limitations on ‘God’ language, (4) that two communities of faith in which we have participated – i.e., a Congregational Church in Vermont and this Presbyterian Church USA in Nashville – fall in the 8-to-9 range on the spectrum and represent a very small number of congregations within the ‘religious’ sphere that are not a part of the orthodox coalition (again, to use a parliamentary analogy), and (5) that the ‘10’ end of the above spectrum (where I am) is not accepted/permitted within the ‘religious’ sphere.
My sense of urgency has for 25+ years now stemmed from the conclusion that the understanding of ‘God’ language heard within the ‘religious’ sphere (1) creates the painfully deep agony of the ‘scrapheap’ Jobs in life and (2) demands from those trying to be with the ‘scrapheap’ Jobs in life an allegiance to theological views and systems that discourage being truly/unconditionally present with the ‘scrapheap’ Jobs in life (e.g., the failure of every character as well as ‘God’ portrayed in the story of Job). Personal experience with and growing awareness of the depth/breadth of human misery/tragedy shattered the linguistic ‘idols’ common to the ‘religious’ sphere. This is a central reason the Letters and Papers Bonhoeffer remains so encouraging for me -- i.e., with the realization that the Nazi methods and successes had demonstrated the idolatrous nature of traditional ‘God’ language, Bonhoeffer in his secret prison correspondence with Eberhard Bethge was beginning to cross the threshold beyond which he had begun to see/k radically new approaches to ‘God’ language while surrounded by shattered linguistic ‘idols’ (analogous to the rubble to which Germany had been reduced).
Use (or do not use!) these thoughts as you will. Thank you for taking seriously my wanderings and searching. I look forward to our next opportunity to speak together.
Doug
