Human Limits in the Perception of God

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.

The Tricky Part

Last night I saw The Tricky Part written and acted by Martin Moran. The play is based upon a book of the same title, which I am now reading.

Martin told of his experience as a twelve year old boy being sexually misused by a 30 year old man, Bob, and how many years later Martin still carries that boy within. It is not the same story as those in the headlines the last few years of priests molesting altar boys, but runs in parallel with them. Martin was an altar boy and attended a Catholic school as a child, and while Bob was not a priest, he was Martin’s camp counselor.

The play is intimate and honest, a blend of emerging sexual awareness, emotional need and loneliness, spiritual questioning and guilt, desire and manipulation. When he describes his relationship with Bob, it is not that Bob was just a trespasser. Bob was also a friend and teacher. The relationship continued off and on for three years because Martin needed much of what Bob offered even as the boy was being manipulated by the man.

This is all in the context of the Catholic school with the nuns and priests, seen with all of their strengths, weakness, and flaws, preparing the children for life. As the boy goes between physical encounters with Bob and conversations with the nuns, none could have known how each person’s ideas of God, Sin and “mortal sin,” sexuality and guilt, and love would be put together. The mind of the not-yet pubescent male tried to make sense of his experiences, and the adult Martin is still exploring the meaning.

What stunned me as I listened to him retell the story – for who knows how many times now – was how gentle and vulnerable he still seemed to be some thirty six years later. Of course, he is being the actor. But he is retelling his own story and the depth of his past could still be felt. The honesty and courage of making public the most intimate of experiences and thoughts was incredibly powerful. I will never forget it. What I heard in that room of 35 people was as intimate as what I hear in the privacy of providing spiritual direction. I am amazed at the ministry he is offering to those trying to understand.

I had decided to buy his book before it was over, and as I stood in the lobby waiting to talk to him, I was aware of how different he seemed. He was greeting friends and members of the audience, being bright and cheerful. He had admitted in the play how shy he had been, and as another person who deals with shyness, I could see him acting in the expected role. It was a necessary separation from the intense experience in the theater.

When he turned to me, with my recently bought book in hand, he asked me my name so he could personalize the note. Feeling awkward, I asked him to repeat the line in the play which summarizes what The Tricky Part is all about. He replied “Is it possible that what harms us might come to restore us?”

His note was short. “To Bruce – with blessings X O Martin”