God the Father (Catechism Part 2)
I am pleased and puzzled by this section of the catechism. I'm pleased because it carries on the theme in the first section that humans are "worthy of respect and honor, because all are created in the image of God." I'm pleased because it makes up for the deficiency I mentioned in my last post in this series by calling humans to "care for" God's creation and by implication not exploit it. I'm pleased because all of these aspects are grounded in the very being of God. And I'm pleased because the catechism affirms that we learn all these things through community.
But I'm puzzled. These are all fine teachings about God and his people. But I'm puzzled by what this section doesn't say about God as Father or God as the first person of the Trinity. Perhaps the catechism doesn't stick to its heading, since the language is packed with theological and political controversy. If Trinitarian language isn't problematic enough, the affirmation of God as a man certainly is. But you say, these are traditional and biblical terms.
I'll just lay my cards on the table right now. I have enough Campbellite blood to keep me from being smitten by the unbiblical language of the Trinity. I consider the Trinity to be a nice metaphor for the divine, something that has served the church fairly well over the years, and shouldn't be tossed out completely. But faithful Christians have understood the relationship between God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit in various ways over the past two thousand years. I am agonostic when it comes to whether or not the Trinity describes God in God's essential being.
To think of God as Father is helpful ... most of the time ... unless you had an abusive Father (granted God as Mother language may be equally as troubling for those with abusive mothers!). Yet this parental language communicates something intimate about the relationship between God and God's people, and God and Jesus. But I simply cannot maintain that God has a penis. I can maintain, however, that aspects of God's being can be communicated in part by speaking of God as Father and God as mother. These various metaphors should all be used together alongside others to speak of the vastness of God's character.
Do you mind sharing what various metaphors are useful for you?
But I'm puzzled. These are all fine teachings about God and his people. But I'm puzzled by what this section doesn't say about God as Father or God as the first person of the Trinity. Perhaps the catechism doesn't stick to its heading, since the language is packed with theological and political controversy. If Trinitarian language isn't problematic enough, the affirmation of God as a man certainly is. But you say, these are traditional and biblical terms.
I'll just lay my cards on the table right now. I have enough Campbellite blood to keep me from being smitten by the unbiblical language of the Trinity. I consider the Trinity to be a nice metaphor for the divine, something that has served the church fairly well over the years, and shouldn't be tossed out completely. But faithful Christians have understood the relationship between God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit in various ways over the past two thousand years. I am agonostic when it comes to whether or not the Trinity describes God in God's essential being.
To think of God as Father is helpful ... most of the time ... unless you had an abusive Father (granted God as Mother language may be equally as troubling for those with abusive mothers!). Yet this parental language communicates something intimate about the relationship between God and God's people, and God and Jesus. But I simply cannot maintain that God has a penis. I can maintain, however, that aspects of God's being can be communicated in part by speaking of God as Father and God as mother. These various metaphors should all be used together alongside others to speak of the vastness of God's character.
Do you mind sharing what various metaphors are useful for you?
posted by J. Brent Bates | 10:00 PM
|
4 comments
