God's Otherness: From Confusion to Revelation of Transforming Knowledge

I. What "God" Means: American Historical, Intellectual, and Popular Sources
The word means whatever various camps mean by it: vital Christianity, cultural Christianity, Therapeutic Moralistic Deism, indifferent populations, diverse demographics, etc.:

Vital Christianity draws from consistent sources of Christian tradition

(worship, community, scripture, sacramental life, charity, mission, etc.).
These sources, and Christian literacy, have weakened in many American circles.

Cultural Christianity draws from Constantinianism and folk religion.
Therapeutic Moralistic Deism (Christian Smith) draws from contemporary forms of pragmatism.
Indifference draws from competing priorities and stimuli (cf. Matt 13:7).
Diversity (see this 2020 study) draws from immigration, globalization, and American religious ingenuity.
(Where have these and other forces been informing your churches' and families' meanings of God?)

II. Is "God" a Misunderstanding? The Challenge of Modern Secularism
Secularism (George Holyoake) draws from the Enlightenment, especially 19th and 20th century "Masters of Suspicion":

Freud/Nietzsche: Belief in "God" destroys human freedom (in order to cope, or to pacify others).
Marx et al.: Belief in "God" sanctions exploitation of the weak (marginal, poor, female, etc.).
Feuerbach: Belief in "God" constructs a super-personal, or impersonal, projection.
Durkheim: Belief in "God" reinforces mere private, personal 'taste' or group identity.
Contemporary pop culture synthesis: From secularism to "the death of God" (Nietzsche), apathy (Schopenhauer), "the culture of death" (John Paul II) ... and Critical Theory.

Secularist arguments come from cultural and personal influences, not just logic (Henri de Lubac, The Discovery of God; Karl Giberson, Saving Darwin).

What do they produce?

Do they really remedy the conditions critics attribute to belief in God (immaturity, servitude, exploitation, ignorance, uncritical loyalty)?
Or might these conditions have other sources?
What other 'fruits' or effects do they have (cf. Matt 12:43-45)?

Are they valid (cf. Jer 16:19-21)? For at least some theologies? For ours?
Where does this leave God's teachers and students?

III. First Things First: The Doctrine of Hiddenness
The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob:

Deut 4:15-16, 5:8: "Since you saw no form, ... beware.... You shall make no image."
Job 38:4: "Where were you?"
Isaiah 55:8: "My thoughts are not your thoughts."
John 1:18: "No one has ever seen God."

Luther: God is revealed even in hiddenness (as transcendent) and hidden even in revelation (immanent).

IV. From "God" to God: Lessons from Yahweh
God's people negotiate similar environments throughout biblical history.
As when Moses meets his maker (Ex 3:13-15, Ex 19:16-20:8, 20:18-26), God's witnesses have learned about God's reality and attributes (qualities). For instance:

Activity: What God does, whether natural or supernatural, reveals God's character and purpose; thus knowledge of God is genuine knowledge. Theology involves a 'kataphatic' via positiva.
The Name (YHWH): God is personal; thus knowledge of God is 'I-thou' knowledge.
Goodness: What God does is deliver, justify, reconcile, include, heal, refine, mature; thus proper theology honors, reflects, and pursues wisdom.
Life: God is the living life-giver; thus theology involves foundational gratitude and trust.
Unity: God is one; thus knowledge is coherent.
Revelation: Knowledge of God is a gift of God; thus theology relies on special (though also general, Rom 1:19-20) revelation.
Mystery: God is not naturally accessible to us; thus confession involves epistemic humility.
Holiness: God is other (Barth: "wholly other"); thus theology also involves an 'apophatic' via negativa. (Analogy has been one way to reconcile these.)
Tradition: Indirect knowledge of God is mediated; thus God's people share, receive, and heed our reliable knowledge, preeminently in canonical scripture.

These lessons are not 'faith' versus 'reason,' but warranted inferences arrived at through disciplined trust.

Subsequent events, including God's own advent, remain surprising yet consistent.

V. Contextualization: Redeeming 'God'
Can YHWH's disciples reliably use a term with such diversity of incoherent meanings?
Abram renarrates the Canaanite creator-god 'El' (Gen 14:17-24).

This 'bridging' demonstrates what Lesslie Newbigin calls 'true contextualization.'

By contrast, the prophets reject the Canaanite lord 'Ba'al' [1 Kings 18:21].

That 'syncretizing' is 'false contextualization.'
That kind of confusion happens all the time in 'Christian' cultures like ours.

Jesus 'bridges' in both orthodox Judea and synchretistic Samaria

as his gospel corrects and transforms understandings of God,
bringing a new worship of "the Father in Spirit and truth" (John 4:21-24).