[Is God GOD? is a book title that was published in the midst of a broad theological discussion in the 1950s/1960s known as the ‘God’ is dead debate. Most seem to have easily dismissed this debate (e.g., the “God’s not dead, I talked to him last night” bumper sticker). But beneath this obviously sensational phrase remains a very serious and spiritually practical question about the relationship between ‘God’ language and the reality to which that language points. Also, since writing this essay, I have moved to the end of the spectrum in the third paragraph re no contact between God and ‘God’.]
Is ‘God’ God?
Does this sound like a trick question? That is, if you view it as a question at all . . . and many would not. For me, the validity of the question depends on who asks it. Some ask “Is ‘God’ God?” in search of a philosophical novelty or an academic publication or even something that can be marketed. Frankly, for them I have little interest and no time. Others ask “Is ‘God’ God?” out of deep wounds they have experienced or observed. They ask cautiously, yet earnestly. The ‘scrapheap Job’ is among them. I am too.
The force of the question stems from the subtle distinction signaled by the single quotation marks. ‘God’ points to the language we use to picture a reality that transcends the reach of our words -- i.e., God. In other words, God exceeds every meaning for ‘God’. Job’s story probes several variations on the meaning of ‘God’. Have you noticed variations expressed by Job first before and then after his shattering experiences? by Job’s wife? by Job’s friends? by the story’s narrator?
At one end of the spectrum, some are convinced that God and ‘God’ have no contact. At the opposite end of the spectrum, some are convinced that the reality and the language for the reality (usually their particular meaning of the words) exactly correspond. The former see idolatry in every appeal to ‘God’. The latter cannot see their idolatry.
I remember a few Sunday School teachers in my childhood who introduced the word ‘anthropomorphism’ to us. The meaning of the word ‘God’ always embodies something human, whether or not it discloses something about a transcending reality. Nicholai Berdyaev -- a 20th-century Russian theologian -- stretched this assessment of ‘God’ language to include ‘sociomorphism’ and ‘cosmomorphism’. The point -- God does not have eyes or hands (anthropomorphisms). God is not a mother, a father, a shepherd, a king, or a friend (sociomorphisms). God is not ‘up there’ or ‘out there’ (cosmomorphisms). These descriptions are metaphors or analogies.
Is ‘God’ God?
Does this sound like a trick question? That is, if you view it as a question at all . . . and many would not. For me, the validity of the question depends on who asks it. Some ask “Is ‘God’ God?” in search of a philosophical novelty or an academic publication or even something that can be marketed. Frankly, for them I have little interest and no time. Others ask “Is ‘God’ God?” out of deep wounds they have experienced or observed. They ask cautiously, yet earnestly. The ‘scrapheap Job’ is among them. I am too.
The force of the question stems from the subtle distinction signaled by the single quotation marks. ‘God’ points to the language we use to picture a reality that transcends the reach of our words -- i.e., God. In other words, God exceeds every meaning for ‘God’. Job’s story probes several variations on the meaning of ‘God’. Have you noticed variations expressed by Job first before and then after his shattering experiences? by Job’s wife? by Job’s friends? by the story’s narrator?
At one end of the spectrum, some are convinced that God and ‘God’ have no contact. At the opposite end of the spectrum, some are convinced that the reality and the language for the reality (usually their particular meaning of the words) exactly correspond. The former see idolatry in every appeal to ‘God’. The latter cannot see their idolatry.
I remember a few Sunday School teachers in my childhood who introduced the word ‘anthropomorphism’ to us. The meaning of the word ‘God’ always embodies something human, whether or not it discloses something about a transcending reality. Nicholai Berdyaev -- a 20th-century Russian theologian -- stretched this assessment of ‘God’ language to include ‘sociomorphism’ and ‘cosmomorphism’. The point -- God does not have eyes or hands (anthropomorphisms). God is not a mother, a father, a shepherd, a king, or a friend (sociomorphisms). God is not ‘up there’ or ‘out there’ (cosmomorphisms). These descriptions are metaphors or analogies.
You may be wondering, “Could a pair of single quotation marks possibly matter?” The ‘scrapheap Job’ and many who have been deeply wounded by life experiences cherish what makes those marks so significant. For them, the difference is the freedom to remain conscious of God even as previously trusted meanings of ‘God’ die and new possibilities are tested.
