XnForums

In the last few days I have been reading a Christian fiction book. ( The Shack) Have not picked one up in years and after a couple of hours I realized why. At best this is written on an eight grade level and maybe less.
As a result I want to consider the following:

Why does the writing of Christian’s always have God as someone else? In this particular book God was a middle aged Black women that enjoyed baking. Not that I mind the use of symbolism in discussions yet this is always the case when these writers discuss the divine. God is always some one else. Even Jesus is portrayed as a carpenter, Melchizedek is a wondering priest. Abraham’s visitors are some kind of Angle of the Lord. Why?

Is it possible that they don’t have a clue what they are writing about? If that is the case why not approach the subject from that point of view? Of course then they would have to admit ignorance concerning a subject in which they claim to be experts. At best writing about the divine is a wish list of characteristics we would like God to possess.

In the history of writing symbolism for the divine the images range from an Old Man with a long white beard sitting on a huge stone Throne, the Abraham Lincoln image, to the now Middle Age Black woman giving hugs with baking flower on her hands. Maybe there is a connection after all? I digress!

I understand the need for moving on to different symbols for the divine. Most of us no longer consider these images to be of any value so writers must develop new ones to keep the customer interested.

In talking to my Gen “X” children and their friends I find it interesting that many have read The Lord of the Rings trilogy and C.S. Lewis and find Tolkien to be far more interesting.
I say this because the L O R imply the Divine yet never state it. Where as Lewis tells everyone what their conclusion must be. I think every generation rejects the Popular image of the divine and looks for the “real one”. With that though comes a curious choice on their part. No image of the divine is far better than a selected one. Maybe the mystics are correct, like the ancient Jews, there is not a name for God, nor any selected identity, He will not be named nor categorize.

Oh well, just some wandering thoughts.

Good points NBK.

My own: At best, their writing about the divine is a wish list of characteristics they devise for themselves of which they desire for the Hebrew god to possess. Deep down I think they realize from reading the OT that "God does not change" nor did Jesus change Him to fit into their fantastic scheme of things. But what are they to do now that they realize they have been sucker punched by theiving Catholics who stole Jesus from the Jews. Like CH said, it's maddening, the preetense of it all.

Every generation seems to reject its current standard of belief and looks for the "real one" of truth that fits their own thought. "Forever learning but never coming to the knowledge of truth." But they keep trying to fit in. Sad really, but a few finally "give up the ghost" and are done with it. These then can move on to better things and a higher self worth.

Good thoughts, NBK. I think there's a deep human need to create God in exactly the image we are most comfortable with. Yet often these images are so ridiculous that they hinder rather than help faith.

Maybe Spong was closer to the truth when he described God as "the Ground of All Being."