Referring to God, the first person of the Trinity, as “Father” is one of the most common ways God is addressed.
However, Barth’s understanding of “Father” comes from a different place than is commonly practiced. Most times, people seek to understand God from their human experience. Thus, because we know what a human father is, we think that tells us something about who thee “Father” is. Barth never seeks to understand God starting with human experience. Instead, when Barth seeks to understand God, he does so starting with God.
Barth quotes Athanasius, who wrote, “For God is not patterned after human beings, but rather, human beings are named fathers of their own children after God, who is preeminently and alone truly the Father of his own Son.” [393]
For Barth, the word “Father” is not a mere title. It is not a way that we understand who God is from our experience. Instead, God is truly Father.
If God is truly Father, how might that broaden our understanding of God? If Father is more than a title, much more than a metaphor, if God IS Father what does that tell us about who God is?
Greg,
ReplyDeleteIf we limit our understanding of God as Father we have limited God's very essence. Athanasius should be read within the context of his time. God understood more broadly as both Father and Mother gives us a much fuller understanding of how all encompassing God's love for humanity is. So, perhaps the question should read, "If God IS Fahter and Mother what does that tell us about who God is?"
Now - it seems the possibilities are endless - doesn't it?!?
Debra