Blue Like Jazz - Chapter 1 - Who's Your Daddy?

It's been a long time since I sat down to write, and the new book study we're doing at church has inspired me to take up the pen - or, sit at the keyboard, to be more precise. My intention is to blog along with the study of Donald Miller's Blue Like Jazz to give you my perspective on some of his "nonreligious thoughts on Christian spirituality." I've enjoyed the book very much - agreeing with some of what he writes, disagreeing with some of what he writes and being shocked into new insights by some of it. It has made me think, laugh, shake my head in disappointment and for all of that I give the book two thumbs up. (You can still join in the study group at New Creation MCC on Wednesday nights at 6:30.)

In Chapter One, Don writes: Today I wonder why it is God refers to Himself as "Father" at all. This, to me, in light of the earthly representation of the role, seems a marketing mistake. Why would God want to call Himself Father when so many fathers abandon their children? Well, my first response is to say that God doesn't refer to "himself" as "Father" - Jesus does! The next part of my response is to bring up the startling revelation that calling God "Father" started long before the current trend of Deadbeat Dads got started. And yet, maybe fathers have always been somewhat "absent" or at least distant - being heads of households can't have been an easy job in any era of world history! In the age of hunters and gatherers, the men usually did the hunting and who knows if they'd come home or not? Men have usually been the warriors and we know that human history is filled with war after war, making some fathers absent again. Even in periods of peace, the rearing of children has been seen as women's work, and children would have had little contact with their Fathers. So despite my snarky reactions, maybe Don has a point - why the parental imagery?

Well, it does bring God closer than images of Heavenly King, Pillar of Fire/Smoke, Sovereign of the Universe, etc. Up until Jesus started talking about God as his Father (and ours) God was considered much more distant and mysterious. Common religious images in the Jewish tradition had expanded to include Sovereign of the Universe, King of the nation, Judge, and even Shepherd, implying more personalized concern. Jesus pushed the evolution of God-language further with his frequent use of "Father" language and it was considered revolutionary! In fact, Jesus went beyond the formal "Father" to use the term "Abba" which is a term of endearment, like calling someone Daddy or Pa Paw or Papi. Jesus was trying to say that God was available, approachable, intimately concerned for each of us, loving, forgiving, etc. If Oprah and Dr. Phil are right when they say it takes a lot more to be a Daddy than to be a Father, then Jesus is making the same point - God wants to be more than an absent or distant Father - God wants to be our Daddy.

I think the problem is that we took the Father image and made it static and claimed it was the new, right, singular image that is the perfect description of God. If Jesus use of parental language was to show the multi-dimensionality of God, then that's the way we should be approaching our language about God. If Jesus was trying to use an image that would shake people up and get them thinking differently about God, then that may be what we should be doing. Whatever images/labels/names we use, the key is to communicate that God is both "out there" running the universe and close to us as well. We should stand in awe of this being who is so clearly a "Higher Power" than we are - and yet we should also be in awe of the fact that this Higher Power has an eye on every sparrow and every person. Like the atmosphere that is so big it encircles our planet to a depth of many thousands of miles and, at the same time, caresses every inch of our bodies, fills our lungs with life and bends light so we can see color and beauty all around us, our God is bigger than big and closer than close at the same time. God's self description seems to be "I am what I am," "I will be what I will be," of maybe "I am that I am" - translators can't quite decide which is most accurate - so maybe we should remember that our God, who "IS," is many things all at the same time.