The Questioning Christian

It’s not for us to define God

Written by

D. C. Toedt III

in

Blogger Steven S., coming across a posting I did several years ago, has challenged me to define what I mean by the term God:

Still wondering how you would define some of the terms your using, it seems that there is no real way to distinguish ‘God’ the way you use the word from the pantheist deity of Hindus or the deist deity of post-enlightenment westerners.

Isn’t the Christian claim precisely about the definition of the word ‘God?’

Defining God in terms of His self-revelation through Jesus’ crucifixion then becomes the central mark of a Christian theology, doesn’t it?

I don’t try to define God, at least not in the way I understand Steven to mean.  God is what “he” is, whatever that is.

To be sure, we can try to “define” the being(?) we call God, the Creator, le bon Dieu, Al-lāh, ho theos, Gott, and so on, in roughly the same sense that we try to define, say, Russian foreign policy:  We can seek to discover as much as we can about “him.”

FOOTNOTE:  Paul was on to something in Romans 1.19-20, where he argued that “what may be known about God is plain to [men], because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made ….” Based on what we know of the universe and its history, I don’t think it’s entirely implausible to speculate that the Creator might be something like a patient bonsai gardener.

But it would be pretty brazen to construct a mental model of God, then proclaim that none may claim to be a follower of Jesus who do not accept, and worship, that model.  There are times it seems that some in the church do just that. It’s as though The Main Thing for them is their particular taxonomy of belief and making sure people fit neatly into it. They need to remember that the map is not the territory, and the portrait isn’t the person.

Comments

4 responses to “It’s not for us to define God”

  1. Steven S Avatar
    Steven S

    “But it would be pretty brazen to construct a mental model of God, then proclaim that none may claim to be a follower of Jesus who do not accept, and worship, that model.”
    You get an “amen” out of me on this one…
    I will be the first to say that when we speak of God we must always recognize that we are speaking about something greater than our understanding of it; and I certainly don’t expect you to give me a definition at that level prior to using the word. But…
    …I wouldn’t let you get away with using the word ‘fish’ to describe a dolphin although I wouldn’t expect you to include the mating habits of dolphins in your definition of them either.
    I think you will agree that we can’t use words if they are devoid of all meaning. I am simply asking what meaning you assign (and more importantly) how you come to the meaning you assign, to the word ‘God.’
    I am assuming that you will recognize that different people assign radically different meanings to that word and that you would place some of those meanings within the bounds of accuracy, and some without?
    All I am asking you to do is to explain the process by which you define the term in ways that you already seem to be comfortable using it. (You don’t seem to have any problem defining God as ‘Creator,’ I am assuming you would then dispute any notion of God that did not include this?) I am assuming that you would find the concept of God as ‘Shiva’ incompatible with God as ‘Allah?’ Or ‘Zeus’ with ‘Nirvana?’ (Ignoring the disputes as to whether to include Nirvana as a form of deity…) 😉
    Again, it seems to me that, while the Christian claim is not at all about the ‘molecular’ definition of God, it certainly is a significant definition of God in terms of His relationship to the Universe, the manner in which He reveals Himself, interacts with people, and the way in which He intends for the Universe, and individual human lives, to be put together.
    Again, I am not really asking you to do anything more than explain how you can talk about the ‘Essential Three’ without talking about the Crucifixion that, according to historical Christian thought, is the precise way in which we can come to those three points as the ‘essential three’ and additionally define those points in a consistent, applicable, and relevant manner.

    Reply
  2. D. C. Toedt Avatar
    D. C. Toedt

    Steven S. writes: “I am simply asking what meaning you assign (and more importantly) how you come to the meaning you assign, to the word ‘God.’”
    The only meaning I ‘assign’ to the word ‘God’ is something like this: ‘God’ is whatever it was that ordained the natural laws, and set in motion the natural processes, that have produced stars, planets, and us, among countless other wonders.
    Given that overall, life seems to be good, and getting better (see Admit It: Life is Indeed Getting Better) — often at terrible cost — I’m not uncomfortable with the tentative conclusion that ‘God’ is at least something like a loving parent (see The world isn’t broken, it’s just unfinished).
    I’m open to the possibility that maybe ‘God,’ or perhaps one or his creatures, intervenes in those natural processes from time to time in ways we don’t understand. After all, we intervene in those processes all the time in ways that, say, our pets don’t understand. It’s certainly not for us to say that God or his ‘angels’ might not do the same.
    But I’m not going to rely just on someone’s say-so that this has actually happened in a particular instance. We’ve seen too many other claims of this kind that have been based on nothing more than wishful thinking. I want the kind of evidence, and the kind of epistemology, that have proved reliable in other contexts.
    As to the process by which I came to this understanding, please see Why I Still Call Myself a Christian and an Episcopalian. You might also take a look at some of the postings listed at right under the subheading “Building a Universe.”

    Reply
  3. R. Eric Sawyer Avatar
    R. Eric Sawyer

    While I often have a much more explicit idea of God, with this I think we are agreed:
    That I should hold to the Truth tightly, while holding to my ideas about the Truth quite loosely.
    Holding the name of God as “I AM”, I take that to mean ultimate, total Truth, the way things realy are with no blind corners, deceptions or guesswork. For me to reject whatever that Truth is in it’s fullness (and I am quite convinced that a number of unspecified areas of my thinking will be shown up), to prefer my convictions even after I know better, is to cut myself off from truth, and end up in a darkness of unreal imaginings (as good a metephor for damnation as any).
    I take this as a very real caution for myself, and for all of us of strong opinions. Hold the Truth firmly, while holding my ideas about that Truth lightly.

    Reply
  4. D. C. Toedt Avatar
    D. C. Toedt

    I can’t disagree with a thing you said, Eric. Thanks for stopping by.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

More posts