“God” is just about everywhere you turn.
The word, I mean. Belief in God, trust in God. God-given. Godless. It’s a term that gets thrown around a lot, in plenty of contexts.
The most interesting, important and somewhat frustrating, context of “God”-language is that of religion. Since conceptions of the divine are so vast and varied, I’ll stick to specifically Christian articulations.
Yes, the concept of “God” within Christianity has some particulars to it. A theistic God, one with some relation to humanity. Traditionally understood in a Trinity (by some), with a varying emphasis on one or more members. Informing a community that has some sort of relationship to the Bible, sometimes with another text or two mixed in (and that Bible might feature some books others might leave out). Rituals. Sacraments. Other stuff. “God” is central to word and deed in the Christian community.
But when you just begin to think you have a working definition of this “God,” you’re in for a surprise. Few symbols in our language shift and reshape more rapidly (and dramatically) than that of “God.”
As an atheist, it can be a bit disconcerting. Because that thing you say dissent towards—the “theism” of a-theism—quickly becomes a moot point. You’ll find the conception you rail against to also be opposed by the very people you expected to embrace it.
I say this not to only address Christians, to say in exasperation “Your religion is constantly changing! At times, what do you even mean by ‘God?’ ” I don’t expect religion to remain solid and monolithic. Lives change, and our relationship to our spiritual engagements change accordingly. Religion is always in flux, as history has proven in big ways—the Reformation, for example—and in the small variances of day-to-day life.
No, I mention this for the sake of other secular individuals like myself. Because too often our difficulty with engaging religious communities comes out of shifting definitions for God. I’ve regularly been surprised by the wide array of God-conceptions that develop. For those of us who aren’t fond of “God” in the forms we’ve experienced, the subtle shifts in meaning can sometimes go unnoticed.
I’m guilty of this from time to time. I have a particular issue with the Christian tradition—the Resurrection, for instance—when I’m met with some interesting responses. “Not central to my theology,” says one. “Many don’t take it literally, including me,” says another. And I scratch my head, having grown up in a very literal (Southern) Baptist corner of Christendom. Christianity without a bodily Resurrection? Seems to miss the point. I don’t get it. But it’s not the centerpoint of every Christian’s theology, and so we shouldn’t expect every Christian to hold to it. Meet people where they’re really at.
On the other hand, those of faith must also realize that their own conception of “God” is by no means universal. Some realize this, others don’t. Many of us secularists won’t know your particular formulation. And there are questions to be asked about the use of “God” and the edges of language. If ‘God’ is merely the summation of “being,” or the natural processes of the universe, then “God” is a tenuous term at best. It’s an understanding far divorced from much of historical Christianity, with an incarnate deity, a Second Coming, and the interaction of God within history. All of which may not be essential to all Christians, but have been understood to be essential by many.
So where does that leave us? Well, we have several things to keep in mind.
For Christians, know that others might not quite understand what you mean by “God.” It’s not apparent, no matter what denomination you might hail from. Conceptions of deity vary wildly—not to mention finer points of theology, like “Resurrection” and “Second Coming.” Atheists and other secular individuals might oppose all forms of “God” conception. They might just be opposing specific formulations. So be specific when you can. But speak up when secularists oppose a straw-man religion, not supported by you or others in the conversation. We’ll all benefit.
For secularists, it’s a similar message. We assume specific definitions for religious concepts at our own peril. Often, we need to clarify what “God” means within our discussion, and to be generous in language. Genuine in our engagement, by not attacking forms of religious thought that others we talk with might not hold. But also realistic, calling out stretches of language that might defy the limits of theological words. I do think ‘God’ language can outlast its usefulness, and carries baggage that some believers might not always notice.
Once that’s established, let the discussion begin.
Joshua, this is an interesting, valid critique of the sometimes-unconsidered language we all use. I’m intrigued that your post reflects the challenge to dialogue when so much appears to be in flux, changing, not as you anticipate, etc. For me, if dialogue works, it is because we truly tune our ears to the moment and hear behind the words used by the person to whom we’re listening. It’s not easy–our egos are prepared to jump in, defend our “turf,” and sometimes attack the speaker, often by “fixing others in place” based on a word or two that they use–but my sense is that we do best when we listen fully and well to another, and speak more in the direction of what we are “for” and a whole lot less in the direction of what we are “against.”
A really wonderful observation, Jennifer. Thanks!
Thanks Joshua for the call for us to be generous in language and also to Jennifer for calling us to make a distinction in how we use it to construct ourselves.
This is a helpful deconstruction because it points out the necessity of understanding the self and how various perceived constructs are particular, not universal. Thank you for this thought out piece.
I would add to what Jennifer said by claiming the first part of dialogue is to truly understand what one believes and how that belief is unique to them – and then move to engaging in conversation. This allows for equal exchange. It moves past my sense of wanting to “know” something of “the other” into an atmosphere where both parties equally know themselves and are able to share on a very self-aware level.
Thanks for this very insightful and provocative post. God and God-talk do seem stubbornly unwilling to sit neatly under doctrine. As you note, religion is always in flux, as are the people who compose it.