God As Projectile

Peter Rollins continues to be a great source of life and energy for my theological reflection and thinking and I am thankful for his life and ministry. Recently I heard him speak on a podcast about how some think that God is merely a projection of our fears, desires and beings into the heavens. And to bring the point even closer to home for Christians, he makes the point that denominations are often failing because denominations are many times just projecting what they think God is compared to other denominations.

Rollins reminds us that God is less projection and more projectile that shatters our projections of God. The Taoist tradition has this line in their sacred writings:

The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao; The name that can be named is not the eternal name.

Within the tradition I practice we say of God in Christ is:

"The name which is above all names'

The point being that when we give God a name we are only casting a projection. I agree that some projections are clearer than others, but a projection non the less. The True God is less a projection and more projectile that shatters our projections. The moment we try to name God, put God in some theological framework (AKA: a box) or project God we are missing the power of what/who is God.

Finally, Rollins makes note that the beauty of denominations is that the word "denomination" means to "de-name" something. Denominations, when at their best, are doing the work of de-naming God so that God is no longer a projection. The act of de-naming God is scary and even dangerous to some, however in only be de-naming God do we come to an even deeper and fuller trust in that which cannot be named because our projections of God becomes smashed.

Why are they called denominations?

There is a guy named Peter Rollins who is brilliant and is also someone who I have a very difficult time understanding him. It is not because of his accent (he is Irish*) but because he is a philosopher and I am not. In a conversation I heard between him and Science Mike and Michael Gungor and Peter Rollins said something that hit me.

From what I recall, Rollins was talking about metaphor. A metaphor does both describe and negate that description simultaneously. For instance, if you described someone as having a heart of gold, you are both saying something about that person's heart while at the same time saying their heart is not a block of metal. Metaphors both affirm and negate. 

The next step of the conversation was about how all language about God is metaphor. When we say God is father we are both saying something and negating something. God is like a father, but God is also not a literal father. This is the beauty of language about God, it is both helpful and limited. It gives us insight into something but it also leaves us a little lost. 

We Christians have had a habit of elevating one half of the equation while dismissing the latter half. That is to say, we like the side of language that affirms (God is father) but do not like the side of language that negates (God is not father). Rollins points out that the role of religion is to move people to embrace that which is unknown and so religion needs to elevate the side of language that negates in order to help us mature. 

Rollins pointed out that he likes that Christian divisions are called "denominations" - they are groups that de-name. Can we be a denomination that embraces the power of language in it's fullness? Can we be a people that is at ease with both what God is and what God is not? Can we be a people who are courageous enough to look at a situation that is done in the name of God and stand up and say in fact this action is not of God? Are we mature enough to see that God is and at the same time God is not? 

Maybe this is why they are called denominations. They are groups that are trying to be mature enough to embrace the fullness of God, and not just the parts of God we can name.

* I originally identified him as Australian. I apologize to all Australians and Irish and all thinking people.