a feeling God? (part 2)

I'm grateful to Doug Chaplin (Clayboy) for re-clarifying the context of the post I quoted yesterday; the discrediting he mentions is that of a clear gulf between Hebrew and Greek thought

... by the time we get to Jesus. There are different histories and different cultural perceptions, but they have been exaggerated and too much tied to ideas of language and the biblical text.

Please read the rest of his comment on yesterday's post for more.  I feel I did not represent this clearly enough and probably applied it out of context.  Apologies.

I confess I am not at this stage going to comment at length on this - I'm far too theologically rusty to make a good job of it. Rather I'll continue with my main (segmented) post for now.

That's the thing about reading others' blogs - they spark off topics in your mind and before long you're halfway round a different block with your own thoughts!

In my original post, I was going to quote Doug again - I will do so because it was another trigger in my head, but then I'll stop (mis?) quoting him!

In another post on this subject, he says of the biblical emotive language that

I interpret it as the metaphor by which the narrative characterises the changing and developing relationship between God and his people, and part of the process where God’s people grow into a deeper understanding of God. I do not see us as being obliged to refer the narrative metaphors to eternal characteristics.

And off I went round the block again, pondering as I went.  (I like going round the block.  I can get quite addicted to those 'thought sparks'.)

Here is where I struggle.  I do not  disagree that metaphor is heavily used when talking about God - in fact how could it be otherwise?  But I believe nonetheless that it is trying to say something about God.

(There are many tangents and byways of course, easily sidestepping into the nature of scripture, inspiration and the nature of language - is it, as some would say, eternally self-referring? Can language be reliable? I'll pull myself out of that tangent before I get onto a new topic entirely.)

If God does not grieve, mourn, or sympathise, if he does not react in any way, if he does not respond to us in anyway, how does he relate?  Can a relationship be static?  Do we not claim that God is three in one?

And what about passages that express the joy of God - such as in Zephaniah 'he will rejoice over you with gladness, he will delight / exult over you with singing' - I'm not proposing he would literally sing (feel free to discuss), but am I then to say that this verse is obsolete, that there is no delight experienced by God, because it is what we would call a feeling?   

Is it simply a way of saying God approves - but then how do we define approval?  And if we say God is pleased do we take it not as literal pleasure - what then, does it mean?  Is it simply that we think he is pleased and thus interpret it thus?  (Hence, it is all about what we think of God and not true of God at all?)

And does the fact that someone feels change their character? Indeed he is the Father of the heavenly lights,who does not change like shifting shadows (James 1-17)....surely this is a testament to the unfailing, unsteady, utterly reliable character of God who does not do things on mere whim but always acts in line with his character - just, true, loving and holy?  The context of the verse is that he is the source of all giving, and that every perfect gift comes from him, and then goes on to talk about the purpose of God - not the feelings of God.  James later encourages his readers to 'draw near to God and he will draw near to you' - surely a verse of cause and effect?  Of God responding  to humanity?  Not a static idea. (Interestingly, just prior to this verse he quotes a scripture which reads 'God yearns jealously'...)  

Of course, we all probably  come from different traditions;  I'm not an Anglican, for example, and I probably place a little less emphasis on tradition than some.  Plus, writing blog posts like this still makes me feel like I am swimming without armbands on, so please forgive any foolishness or stupidity!


I'm also aware of our own tendencies to navigate towards that which we are most comfortable with (whatever that may be).  But more on that, later.

PS The placement of the emoticons is not in relation to the text - merely corresponding to the main topic!  Just in case you thought I was having mood swings throughout...

a feeling God? (part 1)

A few gentle musings on a hefty topic, which is far bigger than my tiny hands.  After throwing out a whole lotta words, I've divided it up a bit into a series of posts, which I'll put up at certain points.  Otherwise, it would be an eye ball roller¹.  Of course, this means I won't cover all points in one go and have to resist the urge to clarify everything at once - which, being me, I'll find quite difficult, as I hate being misunderstood!

In my gentle blogging the bible over at Thirsty Ground, I tend to stick with the story and not widen it into big theological conundrums - but that is not to say I am unaware of wider issues of how we read and interpret the bible, nor am I uninterested in such discussions.  In fact, I'm regularly going off on tangents in my mind, connecting ideas and themes with other things I'm reading or thinking about.  (The joy of being able to think - to perceive, to compare, to relate - does anyone else ever find this startling?)

In looking at the story of God's interaction with Noah, I am doing what I have decided at the start - reading the story and commenting on the story, not trying to squeeze things into categories or make them 'fit' with certain frameworks or, in some cases, make them more palatable.  That's not my purpose.  I'm reading the text as story - looking at the words themselves, applying, i suppose, the kind of technique when reading and reflecting on any story. I do this within the belief that this is of course, not just any story.

Nonetheless, I'm aware that some things, read in this way, will cause our minds to fizzle.  I note, for example, in this post that 'this is a story of a feeling God' which may cause problems for those who struggle with the idea that God has feelings, taking this to imply that God is subject to change.   I would say that I am reading it as story, and therefore am not trying to make a theological point about this.

But I do struggle with the belief in the impassibility of God - apologies to those of you who find theological jargon off putting and who do not like hefty blog posts (feel free to turn off or tune out)!  A couple of months ago Clayboy posted on his blog about this topic, saying

It is now quite common to find Christians believing that God has feelings.

He says that this idea, that God can be affected by what he has made - us - is based on what he calls a 'largely discredited' theory of 'static Greek essentialism' and 'some kind of  Hebrew dynamism'.  He talks about this in specific reference to the emotive language used about God in the Old Testament.  Obviously this is something I am particularly immersed in due to my journeying through Genesis, but I am also doing a more generalised 'bible in a year' reading, which I found helpful the first time I attempted it in 2009. 

I feel I cannot possibly approach the topic with any thing like the thoroughness and astuteness that he does, but I am still wary of the influence of Greek philosophical thought on classical Christian thought in this area, in spite of the suggestion that this has been 'widely discredited' - I'd have to examine that claim further in order to be able to comment on that, let alone argue against it.²  But was it not Aristotle who pronounced God as the 'unmoved mover' the one static source from which everything finds its motion? 

If God is moved by nothing, then why should he care, love, or even create?  I feel there must be degrees in this, that it is not merely one fence running through two fields - the passible and the impassible.  Why, I ponder, are we so ready to assume that because we say God must be such-and-such in order to be God (the more philosophical argument, I suppose), therefore he cannot be other than what we say?

I'm not the only one who feels that the image of God we conjure is influenced by a kind of dualism - in her post 'God in a Psychotic Rage?' Lesley notes that

...I am also aware that I tend to look at God through the lenses of the Greek dualism of the earthy being emotional, full of desire, changeable and grubby whereas the spiritual is beautiful, serene, knowledgeable and wise.

Lesley and I may choose to put different items in our wardrobes (see her post here) and we inhabit different traditions/denominations, but I appreciate her honesty, as its something I've always tried to be myself (honest, that is).

The Hebrew narratives feel rather muddier and more complex than our 'pictures of God'.  So, do we try and squeeze the biblical images to fit?  Or do we merely dismiss them?


I don't believe we should create God in our own image - it's the other way round.  I'm not saying God suffers from human feelings (aside from what he does in Jesus - hardly insignificant), thus implying that God feels like me (yikes!).  But I can't at this point condemn the language used as merely our interpretations of God.  Isn't that approach in itself an interpretation of God, open to exactly the same flaws?

More later!

A feeling God? (part 2)

¹Eye ball roller -  not, in this case referring to mere rolling of the eyes, but referring to posts so long that your eye balls dry up and fall out, rolling around on the floor.  Nice.

² I've not been clear here about what Doug meant.  Please see his comment on this post.  

from the little person

Do you know, it's only just sunk in properly that Obama is actually the US President? I listened to the inauguration speech on the radio while doing the washing up, in the dark of evening over here, and then progressed into the lounge to watch it on TV (having to close the door because the digital signal of the television digi-box was slightly behind the analog radio that sits on top of the fridge, to which Andy was still listening). I liked it when he said: '...to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation...'

As the citizen of a different nation, I appreciated the feeling behind the statement. I have to confess sometimes it feels like America oh and the rest of the world but this speech did not make it feel that way. Even when talking about the leadership of America it was not put across in a condescending fashion.

Here in Britain the headlines dwell on recession; not being very economically minded I feel ill equipped to offer much comment except to do what I always do: quietly observe events and wait to see what happens next. I find my not-very-economically-minded brain* trying to get to grips with the whole idea of economy in the larger sense - asking such stupid questions as - where does the money come from- I mean, where does it start? Who are we borrowing from? I feel like a child at the back of the classroom who has somehow missed the first lesson and doesn't know how to catch up, worries about looking stupid if she asks - and probably wouldn't understand the answer anyway.

I glaze over with the comebacks and criticisms of opposing parties: I honestly do not know who is right, and frankly it has come to the point where it appears that whatever one does, the other will burst a blood vessel over it. To me, and perhaps others of us 'little people' trying to make sense of things, the parties and leaders strip each other down for the sake of stripping each other down - so right and wrong seems to recede in the face of simply shouting each other down. The many people who are jaded with politics are fed up either with hypocrisy and suchlike or simply the amount of labels being bandied back and forth - like arrows aiming for weak spots in armour, so any real governing is either disguised or delayed or disrupted by a constant battle.

To me, me who would never make any kind of politician, I am simply reminded that we are all so terribly human, with all our weaknesses. No matter the label or the party. But we are, still, wonderfully human, with all our strengths, and thus I try to take an interest and not become jaded. But so often the media is swamped by minutiae and the bigger, more important issues lie untouched, or unseen.

Perhaps it is just me.

* As in, not good at understanding economics. Not 'ooooh I want to spend loads of money!'

Today: 5/10, medium