Our anthropomorphic view of God.

[Ian Gentles]

We visualize, try to understand, the being, nature, actions of God anthropomorphically and in doing so reduce Him to our own image, so have said many theologians. How do we relate, in our humane limitations to God. I suppose the greatest anthropomorphism was Jesus, God shown in a humane body. But can we go to far in our anthropomorphic imagery? isn't God nothing like us? How do we relate to this God Who is so beyond our comprehension? Does God love us as a father does in reality? Biblical writers were limited so used humane language, is this a hindrance or a help? Emotionally, spiritually, we tend to relate to God in our own understanding, imigary, language, is this helpful, is it right?

[Hans Deventer]

We visualize, try to understand, the being, nature, actions of God anthropomorphically and in doing so reduce Him to our own image, so have said many theologians. How do we relate, in our humane limitations to God. I suppose the greatest anthropomorphism was Jesus, God shown in a humane body. But can we go to far in our anthropomorphic imagery? isn't God nothing like us? How do we relate to this God Who is so beyond our comprehension? Does God love us as a father does in reality? Biblical writers were limited so used humane language, is this a hindrance or a help? Emotionally, spiritually, we tend to relate to God in our own understanding, imigary, language, is this helpful, is it right?

Ian, the problem with the idea that we try to understand God anthopomorphically is that it suggests that we have another way of trying to understand God. But we have not. And that is where those theologians were wrong. All we have is God's revelation of Himself, and indeed, as you rightly say, most clearly in Jesus, the greatest anthropomorphism.

So we cannot go beyond that, because we have no knowledge of God beyond what He revealed to us humans.

[Scott Daniels]

Not all of our talk about God is anthropomorphic: He is the rock, the vine, the bread of life, the living water, the lion, the lamb, etc...

Metaphors used to describe God always are incomplete - even anthropomorphic ones. But come to think of it, metaphors for something like "love" always fall short also. That is why we have to keep coming up with new ones.

Two thoughts:
1. That is why we continue to need mystics hanging around Christianity reminding us of a God who is mystery and beyond our ability to conceive and describe.
2. The metaphors don't just describe God but they help us. I once heard a feminist theologian argue that we need to keep using the language of "Father" to describe God because if we stop using that term we will be letting males off the hook. As long as we call God "Father", she argued, his nature and character will be the standard by which human fathers are held accountable. That's an interesting thought. Maybe calling God "Father" doesn't just help us understand God better, it may also help us understand what fatherhood (or parenting) looks like.

[James Diggs]

Scott I think your second point is right on and it is very consistent with what Jesus said in John 10 quoting Psalm 82. Here Jesus responds to accusations that he is blaspheming because he claims to be God and he points to his works as evidence of his claim; unlike those in Psalm 82 his actions show that he lives up to the metaphor.

The Psalm rebukes rulers (gods) for not living up to the title and responsibility of being a ruler. The imagery of being an earthly “god” and ruler goes both ways and carries with it responsibility to reflect God’s character that God keeps those in such positions accountable to. God is a just and merciful ruler, and if you as a ruler or as a person of authority are unjust and unmerciful than you are failing to live up to the metaphor for God your position holds.

I think the same is true for the “father” metaphor like you mentioned. I also agree with your statement about always needing Christian mystics to remind us of the tension between what we can learn about God in these metaphors and the mystery of who God is that transcends them. Good thoughts Scott, thanks.

Peace,

James

[Dennis M. Scott]

We visualize, try to understand, the being, nature, actions of God anthropomorphically and in doing so reduce Him to our own image, so have said many theologians. How do we relate, in our humane limitations to God. I suppose the greatest anthropomorphism was Jesus, God shown in a humane body. But can we go to far in our anthropomorphic imagery? isn't God nothing like us? How do we relate to this God Who is so beyond our comprehension? Does God love us as a father does in reality? Biblical writers were limited so used humane language, is this a hindrance or a help? Emotionally, spiritually, we tend to relate to God in our own understanding, imigary, language, is this helpful, is it right?

It's one of several paradoxes. We only know the image of God revealed as it relates to ourselves, and yet we also discover our shortcomings as we see ourselves in light of revelation. That's one of the values of scripture, and a reason scripture is so important. Without scripture, God as revealed in us is too imaged by far from perfect specimens. Even scripture is interpretted - sometimes even translated - according to who the interpretter or translator is.

Scripture is not God, but reveals God. A believer is not God, but also reveals (reflects) God. Anthropomorphized Jesus is not precisely nor accurately incarnate Jesus. Yet God became man.

Those theologs nearly misuse the term, anthropomorphism. It usually is used when describing non-human things as having human characteristics. There is value in remembering to avoid "making Jesus in our own image."

Related is the issue of sanctification as a second work of grace. Those who have the experience are able to see it throughout scripture. Those who don't have it can't find it anywhere. Theology becomes very subjective. Theology without objectivity is without meaning: without subjectivity it is without value.

[Ryan Scott]

Nice to see you hear, James. I'm sure you'll add some interesting thoughts to the discussion.

[James Diggs]

Thanks Ryan, historically I have always been more of a blogger, but I always like to drop by the Naz Net forums from time to time because I think there are some great conversations going on here. I’ll try to post here more frequently; at least often enough to keep my profile from being deleted due to inactivity again. :)

Peace,

James.

[Hal Paul]

Thanks Ryan, historically I have always been more of a blogger, but I always like to drop by the Naz Net forums from time to time because I think there are some great conversations going on here. I’ll try to post here more frequently; at least often enough to keep my profile from being deleted due to inactivity again. :)

Peace,

James.

Now that my pastor is on NazNet, does this mean I have to behave? :basic05

[James Diggs]

Now that my pastor is on NazNet, does this mean I have to behave?

Not any more than I do

[Kevin Rector]

Welcome to Naznet James good to see another friend. I had no idea you were Hal's pastor. I'll be praying for you Hal. :)