Personification is a literary device which is used throughout the collection of writings known as The Bible. Indeed, for most students of that book, a number of these will immediately come to mind (e.g., the personification of evil, wisdom, trees, mountains, idols, cities, nations, blood, water, money, etc.). Even so, while we can see that personification has often been employed as a benign literary device to fire the human imagination and better illustrate for us the characteristics of things that might be otherwise hard for us to grasp, we should also be able to discern the danger in employing this device in trying to understand God. In past posts on this blog, I have spoken about the human tendency to compare and contrast things in an attempt to better understand them. Nevertheless, we are informed by the Bible that God once asked: "To whom will you compare me?" (Isaiah 40:25) Likewise, Neo has written about our use of anthropomorphisms (the attribution of human characteristics to God), and how their use has limited our understanding of God.
Strictly speaking, God is NOT a person - God is an entity! And, as we will shortly see, this distinction is about much more than mere semantics - it goes to the "heart and core" of the nature of God! How does personhood limit God and distort our perception of "him"? Most of us tend to think of God as having the form, shape, and look of a human (MALE). We think of God as having a head, torso, arms, hands, legs, and feet. We also tend to think of God as talking, walking, sitting, getting angry, etc. But where did these notions originate? Why do we think of God in these terms? Indeed, this language is so pervasive in Scripture and amongst both theologians and lay people that most of us simply take it for granted and give little or no thought to where these concepts originated! Unfortunately, however, if we are honest with ourselves, we would have to admit that most of us have tried to create God in OUR own image, and this attempt to make God into one of us began with how most of us have interpreted a passage in the first chapter of the very first book of the Bible!
In the book of Genesis, we read: "Then God said, 'Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.' So, God created man in His own image; in the image of God, He created him; male and female He created them." (1:26-27) From this passage, we conclude that God is like us, which is NOT the same as saying we are like him! If I created a humanoid robot with artificial intelligence, I could say that it was made to look, act, and function like me; but its likeness to me would be very superficial in most respects - in most ways, it would be very UNLIKE me! In other words, unlike us, God is not limited by time, space, geography, IQ, environment, the functioning of physical parts and systems, etc. And, as the title of this blog suggests, God cannot be contained by the things which contain us! We forget that God is also portrayed in Scripture as a disembodied voice, a burning bush, a spirit, love, etc.
A couple of years ago, NEO wrote a post titled Armstrongism, Popular Atheism and Their Shared Concept of God for the blog Banned by HWA. In that post, NEO said: "Both pop atheism and Armstrongism have converged on the concept of god as an anthropomorphic being of limited capabilities. Nowhere to be found in their philosophies, and hence their inquiry, is the infinite, transcendent, necessary God who donates being to those things he creates. Armstrongism has created for itself a much smaller god perhaps as a misunderstanding or to be contrarian, who knows. Pop atheism has also circumscribed god closely perhaps to sell books on the mass market rather than develop a comprehensive opposing case. Pop atheism is a more apt denial of the Armstrongist god than the Christian God. In any event, Armstrongism and atheism, over divergent routes and with different maps, have arrived at the same destination – God as Anthropomorph." I would say Amen to all of that and go on to include more traditional Christians and the adherents of most other religions of the earth!
This post was inspired by yet another guest post over at Banned by HWA. Redermann wrote The Annealing Flame of Salvation: Notes on the Holy Spirit and Armstrongism as a commentary on Herbert Armstrong's anti-trinitarian teaching that the Holy Spirit is NOT one of the persons of the Trinity. It is a cogent argument against the Armstrongist position and in support of the more traditional Trinitarian view held by the majority of Christians around the world. And, while I voiced my support for the more traditional views on this topic, it occurred to me that both Armstrongists and Traditionalists go astray on this whole question of personhood! Part of the problem is the way that the doctrine has been framed by many within our community - this is a clear instance of where the preciseness of language matters! Now, while statements like the Apostolic Creed and Nicene Creed are framed in such a way as to clearly indicate three separate but united entities (and the mystery of the exact nature of all is preserved), we also have too many Christian statements which appeal to this notion of personhood. In the Catholic Encyclopedia's article on The Blessed Trinity, we read: "The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion -- the truth that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another." Likewise, in describing their doctrine of God, the Southern Baptist Convention (see Baptist Faith & Message 2000), this same personification is present.
Hence, while I agree with the majority of my brothers and sisters in Christ that Scripture presents a Trinitarian view of God, I heartily disagree with this attempt to personify God! Moreover, I'm thinking that the Holy Spirit is probably the most appropriate entity of the three to make this point! This manifestation of God is often portrayed as an invisible force - guiding, influencing, leading, teaching us to behave and think in a certain way. Its pronouns are often neutral. It appeared descending on Jesus in the form of a dove and as tongues of fire over the heads of each and every one of the saints who were assembled for that day of Pentecost which founded the Christian Church! Moreover, its God nature is clearly reflected in the language of the New Testament about God living in us through the Holy Spirit (John 14:23, Ephesians 2:22, I Corinthians 3:16, etc.) In other words, if the Holy Spirit isn't God, then how does God and "his" life dwell within us? Unfortunately, most of us tend to dwell on personality and separateness, and we forget that all three entities (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) are manifestations of ONE God! What do you think?
A response sent to my private email is shared here for the edification of all:
ReplyDeleteA Baptist preacher once declared that Jews do not pray to the same God that Baptists do. An uproar ensued. But wasn't he correct? If a Baptist prays to one God comprising three entities (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), surely the Jew would demur at the "three entities" descriptor? So, is the Baptist praying to the true God and the Jew to a false one? Or is it vice-versa?
My response:
I would say that neither the Baptist preacher nor his Jewish friends have a perfect understanding of the nature of God (I would include the rest of us in that characterization). As created beings, our inability to fully comprehend the One we worship is a given. Also, we are obviously limited by both what is revealed in Scripture and our own interpretation of that revelation based on the degree to which we have yielded to the Holy Spirit! Hence, there is ONLY ONE GOD, but the Baptist's and the Jew's conception of that God is imperfect. In other words, like the Greeks of old, they worship what they do not fully understand. Paul said that we (Christians) currently see through a glass darkly. Someday we will understand, but this isn't that someday! Once again, it is too bad that we use the nature of God as a cudgel against each other - as a way to exclude each other from our respect and fellowship.
Miller,
ReplyDeleteYour point is well taken. Redermann uses the term “Person” for the divine God beings that form the Trinity. This is a standard locution in Christian theology. But the term has its deficiencies. As you point out so well, personification is a demerit. The term "entity” seems barren and minimalist. We just do not have a rich vocabulary for the purpose of describing God. The Bible lapses very quickly into what Redermann calls “downward” metaphors. This is because our glossary for describing God is found in what we know of our world. This, then, naturally engenders analogy.
Personification is actually what Redermann calls “upward” metaphor. There is no doubt much more of this in scripture than Redermann thinks. You have mentioned several examples. Armstrongists, I would expect, argue that the features of the Holy Spirit as an individual being described in scripture are just personification of an impersonal energy. The problem with this kind of idiom is that it usurps the role that can rightly only be executed by a being. For instance, the Holy Spirit is spoken of as an intercessor for us. Making intercession requires mind, free will, independent action, awareness, communication, the ability to analyze empirical data and so on. An impersonal energy does not do this, no matter how generous the ontology. The metaphor walks on God rather than illuminates him. I do think that was the weakest argument the Redermann made but he admitted that it was probabilistic rather than categorical.
When we enter paradise, I think one of the first things that will happen, in order to get us ready to be released harmlessly into the general population, will be that we will go into an intensive study of a glossary that will permit us to speak with accuracy about God and other features of the Spirit realm. Biblical analogy aids understanding through its reference to objects and processes we are familiar with. But it inveighs against finely parsed theology. Some, like Thomas Aquinas, believe we need but negate (via negativa) the finitude of these earthly analogies to generate a vocabulary of God. So “present” becomes “omnipresent.” I don’t think this works. There is a difference in category between God and man that must be effectively accommodated. We are his downward metaphor. The question that nags at me is whether when we are resurrected children of God, we will still know Him only by analogy - better analogy, perhaps but still analogy.
Note: I have encountered Armstrongists who believe they know God comprehensively now through Biblical and Apostolic (HWA) revelation. For them analogy does not exist. Everything is literal. The catch is that this view means that the terminology used in the Bible to refer to the Holy Spirit as a being is literal and cannot be classed as analogy or metaphor. I don’t know how they handle this dilemma.
Addendum:
ReplyDeleteThis lack of appreciation for analogy leads to a curious phenomenon among Armstrongists. One can exult in the reality of the absoluteness of God, in the most praising terms, and Armstrongists will only, with outrage, accuse you misrepresenting God. They seem to believe that they know God exhaustively through Biblical Literalism and what comes at them from the pulpit. And anything that strays from that must be condemned. It is as if they are incapable of personal consideration of God outside of the boundaries that their denomination declares. Most Christians believe that God is transcendental, and we can look forward to epektasis in eternity. I think Armstrongists tend toward the idea that they have the revelation of God well in hand and we might only know his creative products more fully into eternity. This is an impression based only on conversation with Armstrongists and I doubt that I could support it from their publications.