Conduct a Keyword Search of this complete site and visit my main index

Names For God

The following was submitted as part of a journal reflection at University in response to theological writings on "Images of God".

One thing that struck me was the different slant taken by each author when dealing with the redefinition of the image of God. Nolen's bias to removing the God of Theism (Nolen, 1996.p 20) was particularly interesting. The author associates the God of Theism as a 'male God' not identifies with women at all and with only an appeal to men who seek to reinforce male stereotypes. The Australian Bishops by contrast, see relating to God as father as not at odds with developing a personal relationship with God, given that proper reflection is made of God's different attributes, and I would personally add, acknowledging the unity of the Trinity.

In Snowden's work, I was struck by the fact that our image of God is often affected by human mysteries such as suffering, which cannot fully understand. Lenihan's work dealt with the power of children's faith, which makes them very close to the purity of God's self-revelation. It is clear that adults have a primary role to nurture this natural inclination towards faith in children. The Catechism reference helped me to reflect on the fact that people's interpretation of how the Church understands God is often at odds with the reality; the Church does not take a fundamentalist approach to God and His revelation and the truth can be grasped.

Whilst I agree that no image of God ever gives us a complete picture of who God is, and that even God's attributes are all conveyed through human authors, I do not agree with the implications of Nolen's contention that an over-emphasis on the Theistic - male God, has meant that ' we totally miss the concept of the Mercy of God being equivalent to womb love". Jesus clearly demonstrated that it is easy to image God in male terms and still see 'womb love' at work. Consequently, viewing Jesus (especially today when more positive male images are being created and emphasised) as the Man which he is and remains, does not prevent us from seeing in him all 'feminine' qualities. Likewise calling God 'Father' does not negate the 'mother' qualities of God described in Scripture. The author doesn't seem to realize that the Theistic God need not be at odds with human understanding and intimacy. If the image of God as father has been given negative connotations, it is because of human interpretation, NOT because the image is not a rich one.

When one uses feminist literary theory when discussing images of God, (which has occurred as Nolen demonstrates) there are certain negative implications for teachers and students. Firstly, a refusal to God 'He' and use neutral or even feminine terms, directly negates our responsibility to God 'Father', Jesus' preferred Name and Title for God. I would disagree that Jesus did this because he was a product of his times. As we all know, Jesus demonstrated a number of times that he was a revolutionary. Therefore, calling God Father is very important and must not be eradicated but encouraged.

Secondly, whilst it is true that the Trinity is a mystery and that gender is a human phenomenon, (as I have often explained to my students), using a pronoun other than 'HE' when referring to God risks confusing students and our Christology. Jesus was and remains central to the Trinity. He becomes automatically separated from God in the minds of children and even adolescents if God is referred to as 'SHE' as I have sometimes heard, even from educators. Also, I find it annoying when no pronoun is used and God is referred to as 'God' constantly. This is too impersonal. Jesus said, "The Father and I are One" and used 'ABBA' to describe the relationship we have with God. We are not to re-form God into our image but follow the revelation of God, through Jesus and the Magisterium, which is inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Finally, there appears to be in today's theology, a trend towards pantheism, which Nolen appears to advocate on page 22 when describing the world as God's body. I see this as a direct result of an attempt to create God in our image, in order to make God more intelligible to the environment conscious people of today, separate from the Magisterium and separate from a balanced understanding of different images and attributes of God. Perhaps, it is simpler to point to Jesus as our first and foremost point of reference when it comes to images of God. Seeing with the eyes of a child is more fruitful in this circumstance. It is better to truly grasp the mystery of the images already revealed to us, rather than create more that have little foundation in Scripture and The Church's Tradition.

As a teacher, I need to make students aware of the dynamics of revelation. How God has been conceived and how God's nature has been revealed through Scripture and tradition. Jesus' revelation of God as 'father' should be understood for the richness it conveys, inclusive of the 'lover' and 'mother' dynamic and in accordance with our thirst for justice and peace in the world, rather than just one in a plethora of images. Further more, the Trinity is revealed according to God's truth, not to our human 'truth' created by emotion or fallible prejudices. Jesus, the climax of all creation, appropriated the 'I AM Who I am' of God because He is God and reveals Him, as Savior of human souls. Are teachers meant to teach a cosmic Christ which actually confuses the Historical Christ? Which one is more logical? (I suggest focusing more on seeing the Church and we as members of the Church, as the mystical Body of Christ on Earth as we continue Christ's mission).

To summarize my thoughts, how can students know God personally if he remains merely "God" or how can students fall in love with Jesus and appreciate the Mystery of the Trinity if God is called a 'he/she or she"? As St. Caesarum said, 'The Faith of all Christians rests on the Trinity" (CCC 103, 47). It is time to redefine 'Fatherhood' in its true sense, and grasp the beauty and depth of what Jesus actually meant by that Name.