Umm….don’t linger there too long. 🙂
A good friend of mine said something recently that has really resonated in my soul. He said, “Every metaphor breaks down at some point.” NOW does the title make a little sense? 🙂
Since the fall of man, when man essentially became separate and alienated from God…God has been on a mission to redeem man back to Himself, to restore the relationship that was lost. It is a constant theme throughout Scripture, and I believe it continues today. Emergent/Missional types like to refer to this idea as “Missio Dei”–the mission of God.
Part of that mission requires that an infinite God try and define Himself in terms that finite, fallen humans can understand. If God is seeking relationship with us…who or what is He, and what will that relationship look like? Depending on the aspect of Himself that He’s trying to reveal…God will describe Himself using the verbiage of a whole range of human relationships. He uses these as metaphors, if you will, to try and describe who He is, and what He wants to be to us. Among these many relationship terms, God reveals Himself as a Father, a Judge, a Kinsman-Redeemer, a Bridegroom/Lover, a Mother, a Guardian, a Teacher, a Comforter, a Warrior, a Protector, a Provider…the list goes on and on.
All of these descriptive terms, and many others, taken together, paint a sort of picture of God and His intentions toward us–or at least as good of a picture as can be done using finite metaphors to describe an infinite God. If it were a real painting (for you artists out there)…I think it would be an Impressionist painting rather than a Realism painting. It’s God, seen “through a glass darkly”…but it’s God, as best as we can see Him in this life.
A tendency I see among us nowadays (and I am likewise guilty of it) is to focus on the particular metaphor-pictures of God that most resonate with us–and sometimes to shun the terms that do not resonate as much. For example…lots of people nowadays like to refer to God as “Father”, “Papa” or “Daddy”. Others–especially a few years ago–focused mainly on Jesus as our Bridgroom, or the Lover of our Soul, gravitating to worship songs with an almost romantic flair (I’ve actually written some songs like that)…which has prompted the coining of the derrogatory term, “Jesus-Is-My-Boyfriend” songs, and caused some people to decry and denounce that entire trend.
The fact is, there is nothing inherently wrong with seeing and relating to God as Father, or Jesus as a Bridegroom. There are some context issues to take into account, but both are Biblical. But here’s the problem with this:
Every metaphor breaks down at some point.
If you only focus on describing God in terms of one human relationship, your picture of God will become warped and distorted at some level.
- If you only see God as Father, you will balk when He has to render judgment. You’ll only want to crawl into His lap, when maybe it’s more appropriate at the moment to fall at His feet. (And even your idea of a “father” will be based somewhat on flawed human experiences.)
- If you only see Jesus as your Friend (read: “Homeboy”), you are more likely to relate to Him with hi-fives and chest-bumping, and you won’t show the proper respect that is due the Creator of the Universe.
- If you only see God as a Judge, you will likely be legalistic, inordinately hard on yourself, and even harder on others–and you won’t let yourself get emotionally close to God.
- If you only see Jesus as the Bridegroom and a Lover–admittedly, that can get just plain weird.
So if every metaphor breaks down, why use metaphors at all? Because when you take them together, not exalting one over the other…you get a more balanced picture of God. Each relationship metaphor reveals a different aspect of His nature. Like a mosaic, each piece fits in place to make the picture clearer–not perfectly clear, but certainly clearer than if you just focus on one piece.
I love how Paul put it: “For now we see through a glass darkly, but then face to face.” (1 Cor. 13:12) That’s a really good way to put it. Right now…the metaphors, the analogies–they are all we have, all we are able to process with our finite nature. But one day…the picture will be crystal clear.
Because it won’t be a picture. It won’t be a metaphor, or a group of metaphors. It will be God. Face to face with us.
But for now…we need the metaphors, because they help us relate to an infinte God in a finite world. And we need all of them–not just the ones we like the best.
Wayward Son
Musician. Composer. Recovering perfectionist. Minister-in-transition. Lover of puns. Hijacker of rock song references. Questioner of the status quo.
I'm not really a rebel. Just a sincere Christ-follower with a thirst for significance that gets me into trouble. My quest has taken me over the fence of institutional Christianity. Here are some of my random thoughts along the way. Read along, join in the conversation. Just be nice.
View all posts by Wayward Son →
Jeff,
Loved how you wrapped this post up:
“Right now…the metaphors, the analogies–they are all we have, all we are able to process with our finite nature. But one day…the picture will be crystal clear.
Because it won’t be a picture. It won’t be a metaphor, or a group of metaphors. It will be God. Face to face with us.
But for now…we need the metaphors, because they help us relate to an infinte God in a finite world. And we need all of them–not just the ones we like the best.”
Amen!
I’m trying to use as many “terms” as I can for God, because you are absolutely correct…He embodies so many relationships/aspects that it’s difficult for the human mind to give him a “term” because He is everything.
However, I do not like the term “boyfriend,” because in my own personal opinion, that signifies a type of relationship that edges on a biological/human romantic love. While He is our ultimate Love, I think using such a term as boyfriend teeters on a perverse ravine. Again, just my own opinion.
Great blog.
Blessings,
~Amy 🙂
http://amyiswalkinginthespirit.blogspot.com
Amy, thanks for chiming in.
For obvious reasons, I don’t care for the term “boyfriend” either, 🙂 and most people don’t use that term except to imply something negative. And there are some theological contexts with the bride/bridegroom thing I didn’t get into, either.
It’s too much to elaborate on here, but I do think that even the elements of romantic love speak to us something of the heart of God–not in the literal, physical, biological sense you mentioned, but certainly a picture of God’s passion for us. I think of it this way: if God is love, the ultimate Love…then it’s easy for me to think that all the honest expressions of human love contain a piece of that love.
But anything can be taken too far. Nuff said. 🙂
Jeff, I keep coming back to the fact that when God wanted us to know what he was like he used a poor, kinda ugly, homeless carpenter. This man said, “look at me, know me, and you will know my Father.” Jesus is himself kind of a metaphor in one sense. No wonder the people around him had so much trouble.
Love the post. They are all true of who he is. I do think though that he wants to relate to us, in all that he is (and us to him) through this carpenter somehow.
Afer a few thousand years we’re still wrestling with how to describe what is unknowable in human terms!
I agree that we have lost a sense of awe and reverence – I am guilty myself of being a bit too casual at the wrong time. Neither do I believe that we need to set the clock back to a day when we couldn’t even pronounce God’s name – the veil has been torn and we now have access to the throne of God!
Great post – good food for thought.
Jeff,
I totally agree. Why do people Presume that any one of us could authoritatively describe who or what God is. We only know the little glimpses of what He allows us to know, which is more than we can really process any way( at least for me). It all ends up as some sort of religion when we think we have him pegged.. He is just so much bigger than the smartest person’s vocabulary and I think that is a key point in this relationship. If we could completely accurately describe who and what God is, there wouldn’t really be much faith involved, now would there?
Peace
Barb, you make a great point, and one that I think should not be missed: Jesus is our best picture of what God is like–because He is God. “He who has seen Me has seen the Father,” Jesus said. He is more than a metaphor; He’s the real deal. And regardless of how infinite God’s nature is…following Jesus and His example is obviously the way He wants us to relate to Him in this life.
Steve,
I think there is a balance, and the different pictures God gives us of Himself also tell us how we need to respond to Him when He shows up. There are times when it’s appropriate to be playful in His presence as a child to a Father…and there are times to be on our faces in reverence and awe.
Shaun,
“If we could completely accurately describe who and what God is, there wouldn’t really be much faith involved, now would there?”
Good point. 🙂
To Robert Zeurunkl (or RZ, or whatever)…
As you predicted, I did not post your comment. In point of fact, I barely read it, because from past experience I already knew what it contains.
The reason I refuse to acknowledge or post your comments is that you do not merely disagree or question–you belittle and demean. Not only have you seen fit to de-legitimize me on my own blog, but you have also said things that are belittling to other commentors, and even to people in my own house church, whom you do not even know. This signifies a problem on your end, and issues in your own life–not in mine or the other readers here. And it is not helpful to this conversation at all.
What I do not understand is that if you really think we are all so stupid, why do you keep coming back here? You have a choice to read, or not to read. Why not go bother someone else?
I allow for anonymous comments so that those people without Blogger IDs can participate in the conversation. You, sir, are abusing that privilege.
Regardless…please know that you are wasting your time and mine at this point. No comment that even *acts* like it came from you is going to be either read or published. The only thing that might change this is a heartfelt apology and a dramatic change in your caustic tone.
(I apologize to my readers for having to do this publicly. “RZ” doesn’t leave a way to reach him privately.)