An important first step in any research project is to think clearly about the frame that will be used because it affects both the course of inquiry and its results. Without taking the time to define framing, a short explanation can be found in the introduction to Simple Framing by George Lakoff:
Carry out the following directive: Don't think of an elephant! It is, of course, a directive that cannot be carried out – and that is the point. In order to purposefully not think of an elephant, you have to think of an elephant.
The frame used in the Baylor Religion Survey (BRS) illustrates how a human point of view can limit and distort our perception of God. The report identifies (page 28) the two dimensions that were used to analyze the research analysis: “God’s level of engagement” and “God’s level of anger.”
For the sake of brevity, I will focus on the dimension of anger. Since one side of the graph assumes that God has some degree of anger at humanity, all of the responses to the survey are interpreted with that expectation. In this case the “elephant” in the report is “God’s anger.” All of the analysis done and reported results have that image of the angry God built into them.
This reflects the theological position of Baylor, its founders, its faculty and its students, so it is an honest frame from their personal experience. Even as the survey shows, there are many in the United States that believe in the Authoritarian and Critical God, so the researchers do a good job of describing what they know.
However, there are many of us in this country who do not experience God as angry with humanity. When I was growing up, Sunday School teachers constantly reminded me that “God is Love,” and God’s love is one of acceptance and welcome. Just as Jesus gathered the children to him during his ministry, we sang the song “Jesus Loves Me,” further building up that image of a warm, welcoming and caring God.
The assumption of anger by the BRS researchers does not describe my religious experience. By forcing all religious believers into that assumption of anger, they force a theological and experiential bias that is alien to many other people. Just as you cannot forget the elephant in Lakoff’s example, there is no way to forget the frame of anger built into the research reports.
While I keep trying to find some way to salvage some good from the report, I keep running into that angry elephant. I am disappointed because I had hoped to use the research in my conversations with people as their spiritual director. Yet there are two aspects of this research that I can apply.
First, there are a significant number of people in this country who believe that God is angry at them, either as an Authoritarian or Critical presence. When I am with someone in spiritual direction, I want to be sensitive to that belief, to listen carefully to how it affects their relationship with God, and whether it supports or interferes with their spiritual growth.
Second, I want to be aware of my own spiritual frames, and to avoid imposing them upon those who come to me for direction. I want to listen for how God may be acting in the other person’s life, which may be very different than my own history and experience.
It is only with God’s help that I will move beyond my own human, limited perception of God. I pray that God will challenge and support me.
No comments:
Post a Comment