Is God the Father a Model or an Idol - Research Paper Example

 Is God the Father a Model or an Idol? Sallie McFague is one of America’s most famous people in the field of theology. In fact, she is known as a Feminist-Christian theologician. She was born on May 25, 1933 in Massachusetts and had her Literature degree from Smith College in 1955. In 1959, she had her divinity degree from Yale Divinity School and, after having that degree, she went on to have her Master of Arts degree in Yale University. She was awarded a Ph.D. in 1964 as her thesis was published in Literature and the Christian Life. Her theories are heavily influenced by Karl Barth’s dialectical theology and also H. Richard Niebuhr’s. Sally McFague’s major contribution is bridging literature and theology. Her works frequently touch on literary theory and theology, and her theories are known as Metaphorical Theology. Metaphorical Theology has four defining aspects and this has greatly influenced how McFague created her idea. It will be discussed in the subsequent paragraphs. First: theology is achieved by “hearing” out God’s word. Secondly, God being in Jesus Christ means that all the flaws in humanness, all the problems and ambiguousness, is significant. Thirdly, theology should be reviewed and renewed constantly to avoid “idolatry and irrelevance”. And lastly, the world, or the human world at least, is made of language (Wildman, 1994). Theology is achieved by “hearing” out God’s word. If a person does not “hear” or understand the word of the God, then it is unsuccessful, it is a farce. This thought echoes throughout McFague’s work, and it is has seen to be heavily influenced by Barthesian ideas. The mere fact that it constitutes communication as a part of major theory, is a sign that McFague’s thrust on the understanding of literature is evident in her study of theology. The second aspect, “God being in Jesus Christ means that all the flaws in humanness, all the problems and ambiguousness, is significant”, is an aspect that shows that McFague tries to bridge the gap between the relationship of theology and literature. It is quite evident that the tension between these two fields are quite palpable, as the realm of the sublime and the secular (as represented by Jesus Christ, son of God) can clash at times. This second aspect is an attempt to articulate that tension, and it turns out to be possible. The third aspect of McFague’s Metaphorical Theology is theology should be reviewed and renewed constantly to avoid “idolatry and irrelevance”. This is also heavily influenced by Barth’s ideas and the nature of language, which is dynamic. Anything that is related to God can be deemed powerful and substantial. These images, or words, related to God can be overvalued (as it is related to something divine) and abused. This makes some words and images prone to overvaluation and idolatry. Corollary, the overvaluation of some things can make other aspects of faith and belief overshadowed and will exclude them in other analyses of idolatry. This makes theology, or religion in this matter, rather biased (Wildman, 1994). The fourth aspect is about language. For McFague, the world, or the human world at least, is made of language. This theory is quite Barthesian in nature and proposes that everything exists because of its own definition. This is probably the most important aspect of metaphorical theology. This is where McFague’s literature background comes in. Language is quite powerful. It dictates meaning, and with meaning comes reality. Therefore, language is the medium of reality, because it conveys it: how we mean things and how we interpret things. Without words and things of expression, we cannot have realities. Although with language comes not the realities of fact, it qualifies meaning; meaning is different for every reality, for every person. Meaning-making is practically making a metaphor for one uses contrasting words and comparisons to convey meaning. It also uses familiar contexts for conveying unfamiliar meanings. These unfamiliarity (with the use of the familiar) will cause new insights. This is why humans can have vicarious experiences through literature. People can actually experience the world that they are about to experience (or never experience) because of the contradictory nature of words by using “meaning”. Language is actually very paradoxical in nature as it can simultaneously deny and affirm certain things to illustrate the meaning of objects. For example, the word this is also the word that in terms of meaning. Although they are of different words, they convey the same meaning. McFague’s interpretation of the world is largely affected by this theory. Language can affect one’s interpretation of religion and it can result in various meanings as well. Thus, language can be harmful as meanings can be interpreted differently per person and these differences can spell differences and conflicts in people. But they also bring in knowledge and an understanding. That’s why the nature of language can be very fickle. With this premise, McFague adopts the literary approach to theology as it seems fit. Theology, or at least the interpretation of religion, depends on language. By recognizing the fact that “metaphors” in the field of religion are not interpreted as they are as they are interpreted in language’s conceptual and literal nature, McFague points out that theology should always be reviewed constantly to prevent idolatry, especially when interpreting the word of God. That is how metaphorical theology was born. When we say metaphorical theology, by its own premise, it should have something to contrast to, in order for it to have meaning. With metaphorical, the contrast is systemic theology. However, by defining metaphorical theology, people should use concrete terms in order to convey metaphors. However this may be contradictory, this is how it works. The nature of language is quite ambiguous and this makes it more effective in proving a metaphor and meaning. In order to understand how McFague’s metaphorical theology, one should do language/literary analysis. First, one should understand the first level of meanings of words, as in literally. The second level is interpreting it figuratively. One should remember the relationships of the first and second level of language though. This is where the concept of model comes in. For McFague, a model is a combination of first and second level orders of language. It is a relatively permanent and consistent metaphor that you can compare various new insights brought upon by new meanings and experiences that are related to reality and practicality. However, in theology, these models always work with paradigms and they are controlled by devices called root metaphors. These paradigms and root metaphors serve as the mark what metaphors are to be acceptable as the truth, or which ones are not. Even Nietzsche said “What then is truth? A mobile army of metaphors, metonymics, anthropomorphisms: in short, a sum of human relations which become poetically and rhetorically intensified, metamorphosed, adorned, and after long usage seem to a notion fixed, canonic, and binding; truths are illusions of which one has forgotten that they are illusions” (Holub, 1995). For example, take the sentence Christ is the Son of God. With Christ and God being compared, one can assume that Christ cannot have a model of a rapist, and would affirm the model of Christ as a good friend and a loving son. The root metaphor is Christ is the Son of God and the models, the good and the bad, allows the reader to be systematic in terms of analyzing the first level of meanings. It is also a close reading of the sentence’s literal meaning, in terms of content and form. The interpretation of the sentence therefore needs both the literal and figurative in nature, and for McFague, it is important for theologicians to master this skill because they control the people’s interpretation of the Word of God. They main point is that these people should interpret things far from its literal meaning as much as possible and stick to its second level, figurative and metaphorical meaning. This main line of thinking is should not be exclusive to lines and sentences alone. This should also be extended to parables and other Bible stories. The interpretations of the stories and parables are important to the believers as they are the ones who rely on faith, on words about their faith. This is why theology should be reviewed from time to time, as idolatry can come off it and with idolatry comes complications. Along with idolatry comes, as said earlier, irrelevance. With literal analysis, some important facts and meanings in theology can be deemed irrelevant. This is why metaphors are quite important in studying theology, in understanding what is really said in the verses. In the statement, Is God the Father a Model or an Idol, the subject here is about the statement “God the Father”. The model’s definition has been discussed earlier, and for posterity’s sake, idol here refers to “object worshiped as God” (Encarta, 2008). It is from the word idolatry which means “worship of false Gods”. In order to properly decide if the phrase is about a model or an idol, one should do a literary analysis at first, just so to compare if the phrase refers to which. The phrase “God the Father” is obviously a metaphor. The two words being compared are God and father. The root metaphor is actually “God the Father” too. The models are the connotations of “father”. When one says father, what comes to mind? This is now the second layer of literary analysis: the connotations or the second-level meanings. This is where the important models come in. Important because they are the ones which heavily influences what ideas and meanings you are going to associate with the statement “God the Father”. Father. A father is a loving man (unconditional love at that), caring, nurturing and respected. Can you connote being a murderer, or even just hateful to the word “father”? No. Father has a relatively positive universal interpretation. Of course, some fathers could come off as annoying sometimes but generally, they are loving and nurturing. These models are what makes the sentence/phrase “God the Father” understandable. We compare the notion of the word “Father” to the notion we have of “God”. The process, as said before, is ironic as it contradicts and it agrees at the same time. Is the phrase “God the Father” an idol? The question here pertains to the situation if people venerate God as The Father, as in God is a loving, strong paternal figure. Do people venerate that idea, that God is a paternal figure (a man at that), that cares for his children? Yes, most people think God is a man as the word “father” connotes being a male. This is where McFague’s feminist Christianity comes in. For her, the word “father” is not necessarily a man, but rather someone who takes responsibility and will take care of his children unconditionally. This is an example of a metaphorical reading. Actually, McFague also implies that God can be a mother too as the connotations of the word “mother” can be caring, nurturing and maternal. This is by using the word “mother” as a model. However, she says we cannot simply connote that since God is a mother, we came from her. No, the implication that she is mother connotes that she is a fair parent, the one that wants everyone to share space (as within the planet, with plants and animals), the one who scolds children if they were naughty, and the one who seeks justice. However, as God is beyond being male and female, is it important to use those models? Can’t they be both male and female? This is why there should be a constant re-reading of theology, as some of the most common connotations can get trapped and stay that way as interpreted shallowly and commonly. These statements can give way to false ideas and idolatry. The statement, “God the Father” is a perfect example of that metaphorical problem, the need to examine theology to prevent idolatry, and at the same time, to challenge the idea of “models”. Obviously a root metaphor, “God the Father” connotes a lot of meanings because it contains the words “God” and “Father”. These both command certain models, and they are being contrasted and compared just so we can get ideas and context, and derive meaning from it. The models include God being the provider, God being the nurturer, and God being the disciplinarian. It can be a model too, if taken on the context that God is a male and has a child (which, for Roman Catholics, is Jesus). But that would mean that the sentence is “God is a father”, and the statement “God the Father” is a model as it connotes that meaning of him being the father of the offspring. However, due to years of exposure acquired learning that God is a man who has a son, we have evolved to accept that God is a father and we have often called him “God the Father”. As he is a paternal image of a God, He is something to be venerated. This veneration brought forth idolatry as many worship Him. This makes “God the Father” an idol. References: “Idol”. 2008. Microsoft Encarta. CD ROM. “Idolatry”. 2008. Microsoft Encarta. CD ROM. Holub, Robert C. Friedrich Nietzsche. New York: Ywayne Publishers, 1995. Print. Hunsinger, George. How to Read Karl Barth: The Shape of His Theology‎. Oxford University Press, 1993. Print. Johnson, Elizabeth. Naming God She: The Theological Implications. The Boardman Lectureship in Christian Ethics. University of Pennsylvania Scholar Commons. 2000. Web. February 2012. Klassen, Ryan. “Metaphorical Theology: An Evangelical Appropriation.” Quodlibet Journal: Volume 7 Number 2, April - June 2005. Web. February 2012. McFague, Sallie. Metaphorical Theology: Models of God in Religious Language. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982. Print. McFague, Sallie. The Body of God. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993. Print. Need, Stephen. “Language, Metaphor and Chalcedon: A Case of Theological Double Vision,” Harvard Theological Review 88:2 (1995): 243. Wildman, Wesley. The Theology of Sallie McFague. The Boston Collaborative Encyclopedia of Modern Western Theology, 1988. Web. February 2012. Read More