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

I. "What Do You Mean by 'God'?" Historical, Intellectual, and Cultural Sources
The word means whatever various camps mean by it: vital Christianity, cultural Christianity, folk religion (such as '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. "Beware": God Is Not Obvious
The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob doesn't live in plain view (Acts 17:29):

Deut 4:15-16, 5:8: "Since you saw no form, ... beware.... You shall make no image."
Job 38:4: "Where were you?"
Isaiah 40:18: "To whom then will you liken God?"
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. "How Did You Come to That Conclusion?" Lessons from Yahweh

God has revealed himself to people who occupy a variety of common spiritual contexts:

'Polytheists' organize their lives around various 'gods' or 'powers.'

These are often arranged in hierarchies, perhaps with one superpower on top (Deut 4:16–19, Dan 3:26, Acts 17:22–23).
How seriously they take these powers varies.
'Powers' is a broad category, so this way of life describes not only pagans and animists, but also many professed monotheists, atheists, agnostics, and even Trinitarians.

'Henotheists' serve only one such god or power; 'monotheists' claim there is only one worthy of the name.

A 'god' named YHWH reveals himself and calls for radical loyalty (Gen 12:1–3, Josh 24:2–3),
breaking through pagan imaginations as 'the one on top' (Gen 14:17–15:1, Josh 24:14–15) and eventually convincing them that YHWH is in a class by himself (Ps 82, Gal 4:8).
These may or may not take their god/God very seriously either.

'Trinitarians' understand the one true God, YHWH, to be Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

These three persons have so revealed themselves, decisively (Matt 16:13–17, Heb 1:1–2:4).

In each case, they may or may not take 'God' seriously.

The actual faith of professed Trinitarians can still be only vaguely monotheistic, or henotheistic, or even polytheistic.

Regardless, God still 'breaks through' personally, relationally, to people of all these dispositions to grant new personal and shared identity in him (1 John 1:1–7; like Job 42:5?).

V. Learning from God's Self-Revelation

Such witnesses have come to know God's reality, identity, and attributes (qualities):

for example, when Moses meets his maker (Ex 3:13-15, 20:18-24).

Their testimonies and stories teach about God (as well as about people), and reveal a stable set of theological features:

Activity: What God does, whether natural or supernatural, reveals God's (and our) character and purpose; so knowledge of God is genuine knowledge. (Apologetics investigates its sources' reliability and rationality.) Christian faith is more historical than philosophical. Theology involves a via positiva that can make confident assertions (1 John 1:1-4).
Mystery: God as self-revealed is not naturally accessible to us, so even our confident assertions remain humble. 'Natural theology' is severely limited (Rom 1:20).
Power: God's signs and wonders work power beyond all of creation's powers (Heb 2:1-4, 1 Cor 1:18-2:5).
Revelation: Knowing God is God's gracious gift, so theology relies on special (though also 'general' natural) revelation.
The Name (YHWH): God is personal, so knowledge of God is 'I-thou' interpersonal knowledge, rather than just knowing about God.
Goodness: What God does is deliver, justify, reconcile, include, heal, refine, mature, and sanctify; so proper theology honors, reflects, and pursues wisdom, love, and hope.
Life: God is the living life-giver (and -taker), so theology involves foundational gratitude and trust (i.e., faith).
Unity: God is one, so our knowledge is (or ought to be) coherent and our allegiance total.
Holiness: God is other (Barth: "wholly other"), so theology also involves a via negativa that acknowledges God's transcendence over the created things our words otherwise involve. (Analogy combines the positive and negative ways.)
Tradition: God's people share, receive, and heed our reliable knowledge, in teaching and preeminently in canonical scripture.

These lessons are not 'faith' versus 'reason,' but warranted inferences involving disciplined trust.

God's demonstrated trustworthiness calls for repenting and following, not mere assent (Matt 11:20-30).
Subsequent events, including God's own advent in Jesus Christ, remain surprising yet consistent.

VI. "Have You Considered This?" Redeeming 'God'
YHWH's disciples reliably use the term 'God' despite its incoherent diversity of 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).

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

Jesus 'bridges' in orthodox Judea, synchretistic Samaria, and pagan Gerasa

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

His disciple-makers bridge tribal, cultural, social, generational, and geographic distances

to share God to the ends of the earth (Matt 24:14, 1 Cor 9:19-23).
(Many Christian traditions do not bridge as sacrificially and fruitfully as the NT church.)