Signs of Talking about God Too Much
Assume that the open and relational understanding of God is closer to truth than, say, alternative perspectives that assume God is all-powerful and knows the future in advance. Assume that God is noncontrolling, loving, open to an as yet undecided future, luring all creatures toward well-being, and a deep listening in which all things unfold. Can those of us who see things this way talk about God too much? If so, how would we know?
We are talking too much if our talk is:
Or if it:
Or if it:
Or if it:
I use "talking too much about God" as a stand-in for all of these problems, some of which may be apply to situations familiar to you and others not. All represent forms of speech and attitudes that are contrary to the open and relational spirit.
I first encountered the problem of "talking too much about God" through a friend named Julia. I want to say more about three of the problems: the neglect of non-theistic forms of spirituality, the reduction of God to an idea in the mind, and the neglect of the fact that love is more important than how we think about God. Julia is my teacher.
- Riddled with slogans and cliches.
- Obsessive (as if that's all we want to talk about)
- Overconfident (as if we are absolutely sure we're right)
- Filled with proclamations and declarative sentences.
- Tinged with anger at "wrong" ways of thinking about God.
Or if it:
- Dominates conversations, making sure people get things "right"
- Overuses the word "God" at the expense of other language.
- Forgets that all language is but a lure for feeling.
- Forgets that people can experience and respond to the very God of whom we speak—a God of love—while holding alternative conceptions of God.
Or if it:
- Assumes that 'getting things right' conceptually is what matters most to God.
- Suggests that God is primarily an idea, an object of the intellect, the subject of definitions.
- Forgets that God is always more than our concept of God.
Or if it:
- Obstructs our capacities to listen to others with the ears of the heart.
- Forgets that love of others is more important than ideas about God.
- Functions as a substitute for helping heal a broken world.
- Neglects the wisdom and beauty of non-theistic approaches to life.
- Forgets that we may be completely wrong almost everything.
I use "talking too much about God" as a stand-in for all of these problems, some of which may be apply to situations familiar to you and others not. All represent forms of speech and attitudes that are contrary to the open and relational spirit.
I first encountered the problem of "talking too much about God" through a friend named Julia. I want to say more about three of the problems: the neglect of non-theistic forms of spirituality, the reduction of God to an idea in the mind, and the neglect of the fact that love is more important than how we think about God. Julia is my teacher.
Too Much God, not enough Love
Julia and I go to the same church. She is a non-theistic Christian who believes in Jesus and the Holy Spirit (understood as a spirit of love in the universe) but not in a separate being named "God" from whom that spirit might flow. Jesus and the Spirit are enough for her.
She avoids open and relational theology because, in her words, it "talks about God too much." To my mind, her interest is in what I call the horizontal sacred: the sacred nature of our relationships with other people, plants, animals, hills, rivers, trees, and stars. I get the feeling that, for her, other people and the natural world are her sacraments. Maybe music, too.
Relationality is very much part of her life. She is a mother of two and a social worker. When you are in her presence, you feel "listened to" in a caring and loving way. Many people consider her one of the kindest people they know. She is also very funny and possesses a zest for life. Her entire way of being in the world seems to me to be "open and relational."
However, as I said, she is not interested in open and relational theology because, as she sees it, the proponents are overly preoccupied with what is, for her, essentially an idea in their heads. She wishes they would focus more on open and relational approaches to life, rather than being so centered on God.
I am sure I am one of the people she is referring to. I recognize that in my own work, I spend a lot of time—perhaps too much—thinking about God. That's one reason I appreciate and identify with open and relational approaches to God. However, I also acknowledge that excessive talk about God can become obsessive and that, somewhere along the way, even God gets lost. This page is dedicated to her.
The Value of Open and Relational Thinking
First, let me state the obvious. An open and relational understanding of God appeals to many who have been troubled by authoritarian or harsh images of a personal God. It presents a God who is responsive, loving, and actively engaged in the world's complexities. For those raised in authoritarian traditions, it offers a refreshing and hopeful reinterpretation of what was once harmful.
However, the typical focus on God in open and relational theology can alienate those whose spirituality is not centered on God and may overshadow other vital aspects of spirituality or practical engagement with the world that some might find equally or more important.
Can open and relational theology evolve to resonate with these individuals? Can it come to include open and relational approaches to life, and not focus quite so much on the subject of God? I believe it can and should.
To this end, I focus on the three problems Julia has with people who "talk too much about God." They
(1) Neglect non-theistic spiritualities,
(2) Objectify God in the imagination,
(3) Deflect attention and energy from what is most important: Love.
I realize that open and relational theologians may quickly respond that they have somehow "dealt" with these three perceived problems. They - we - have recognized that there are many forms of spirituality, and that the God of whom we speak is a spiritual presence not necessarily named God or understood in personal terms; that we well recognize that God is more than our concepts of God, including the concepts that lie in our own minds and imaginations; and that we define love as about the flourishing of life, and believe that this is God's primary concern. We will think that we have "answered" the questions. But defensiveness of this sort is not what is needed. What is needed is a deep listening to the problems as perceived. This, and only this, will mean something to people like Julia.
Neglecting Non-Theistic Spiritualities
Discussions exclusively focusing on theistic perspectives can inadvertently exclude those who identify with non-theistic but spiritually rich traditions. Many people engage with the world through a spirituality that does not involve a deity, resonating with principles such as openness, creativity, listening, responsiveness, zest for life, and love. Although some monotheistic thinkers may view all forms of spirituality as inherently theistic, process theology—a form of open and relational theology—is particularly adept at appreciating both non-theistic and theistic spiritualities.
The Cobb Institute for Process and Practice offers an example. It defines spirituality as the seeking and sustaining of "rich experience" with others:
"In a process-relational perspective, spirituality is how we are inwardly animated, enlivened, nourished by life-giving forms of experience and ways of living in the world. Alfred North Whitehead speaks of these qualities of felt beauty, understood as satisfying forms of harmony and intensity in our relations with other people, the natural world, the heavens, and ourselves. John Cobb, in The Liberation of Life: From Cell to Community, refers to them as forms of 'richness of experience.' Spirituality, then, is the seeking and sustaining of rich experience in community with others and, as Whitehead emphasized, the solitariness of the heart."
The Cobb Institute advocates for integrating various forms of rich experience, such as attention, compassion, faith, forgiveness, hospitality, imagination, listening, meaning-making, openness, peace, playfulness, silence, wonder, and a zest for life. These experiences are available to people of all ages and faiths, tailored to the circumstances of their lives. The varieties of rich experience can be fostered through diverse spiritual activities, including rituals, gatherings, and collective actions aimed at supporting local communities that are creative, compassionate, participatory, inclusive, humane to animals, good for the earth, and joyful, with no one left behind. Such communities are the building blocks of an ecological civilization. An integral spirituality can provide the nourishment that sustains such civilizations."
On this view, both theistic and non-theistic spiritualities are valid. Process-relational thinking enriches this approach by recognizing the intrinsic value in all beings, acknowledging relationality as a characteristic of all life, and inviting a recognition that spirituality itself can be the enjoyment of “richness of experience” in various types of relationships: human relationships, relationships with the more-than-human world, and relationships with God. Process theology also suggests that many aspects of the universe are "ultimate" in different ways; the cosmic Thou in whose life the universe unfolds (God) is one of these ultimates, but not the only one. Each sentient being is ultimate in its way, as is each moment of experience. Likewise, the creativity of which all existents are manifestations is ultimate in its own right. Different spiritualities can be centered on different kinds of ultimacy.
Objectifying God in the Imagination
When discourse surrounding God is dominated by definitions of 'what God is' and 'what God isn't,' it risks transforming the divine into a static and confined concept within our minds. Such discussions often reduce God to 'subject' in our mental sentences, to which various 'predicates' such as "love" are then attached. This grammatical approach unwittingly reduces God to a subject of declarative sentences, obscuring the fact that God, as a living presence, is much more fluid and ungraspable. In effect, we render unto God that which belongs, not to Caesar, but to the subject-predicate mode of grammatical expression, and then let the subject, in this case God, become reified in our imaginations.
Here, too, process theology is helpful, to the degree that is influenced by Whitehead, who critiqued subject-predicate thinking. From Whitehead's perspective an excessive reliance on subject-predicate thinking mistakenly confuses the actual entities of the universe with grammatical subjects in a declarative sentence, such that the subject can remain the same even as the predicates change. The alternative is to see actual entities as momentary events whose concrete relations with others (their feelings or prehensions) are part of their very existence. This means that entities change with their changing relations.
Open and relational discussions of God do indeed say this of God. They distinguish between the abstract essence of God, which is love, and the concrete instantiations of this love in God's ongoing life, which are changing as is God. The problem, however, is that "too much talk about God" can suggest that God is a fixed entity whose nature is love, and that God can become solidified in the imagination as just this kind of entity, protestations to the contrary.
Deflecting attention and energy from Love
Focusing too intently on pinning down the exact nature of God can divert attention from perhaps the most critical aspect of divine concern—the flourishing of life. This preoccupation with defining theological correctness can overshadow the more urgent needs of promoting well-being among people, other living beings, and the broader ecological health of our planet. Emphasizing actions and policies that foster life and vitality is arguably more aligned with the essence of what many believe God values most, ensuring that theological discussions contribute directly to the enhancement of life in all its forms.
To be sure, open and relational theologians are quite interested in the "applications" of open and relational thinking to real world issues: injustice, counseling, education, church life, preaching, etc. But so often emphasis is on how a certain way of thinking about God, namely in open and relational terms, is the point of departure and destiny of the discussions, as if "ideas about God" are the central point. It is doubtful that, to God, ideas about God are what is most important.
Moving Forward
The solution to these problems is not to stop talking about God but rather to balance talk about God with talk about other matters; to recognize that an open and relational approach to life can include non-theistic as well as theistic commitments, to balance use of the word "God" with other ways of speaking that do not use the word at all; to employ creative ways of speaking that avoid the seduction of subject-predicate thinking, to partake more deeply of apophatic approaches that appreciate the mystery (and unsayability) of God, however named. Above all things it will require that open and relational thinkers embody a spirit of listening and take listening itself as a primary practice of open and relational theology.
Will this satisfy Julia? She wishes that open and relational theology would expand to include more than God. Thomas Oord writes:
"Many in the open and relational community also use the term 'relational' to talk about interactions between us and others. Our lives as individuals and groups will be partly determined by how we relate to other people, creation, and God. We live in an interrelated universe, which means our actions make a difference to others and ourselves. Relationality extends even to the simplest levels of life, including quarks and amoebae. We live in a relational world and interact with a relational God."
Julia is more interested in the fact that we live in a relational world than that we interact with a relational God. Does she have a place in the open and relational community? I think so and hope so. If we practice open and relational listening, and if we can get over our assumption that everybody and everything needs to be "about God," then there's a place for her and countless others who believe in love but aren't so sure about God.
There is no need to say to them: "But you really believe in God." Why say it? Just let them be who they are. The love is enough.
- Jay McDaniel
Julia and I go to the same church. She is a non-theistic Christian who believes in Jesus and the Holy Spirit (understood as a spirit of love in the universe) but not in a separate being named "God" from whom that spirit might flow. Jesus and the Spirit are enough for her.
She avoids open and relational theology because, in her words, it "talks about God too much." To my mind, her interest is in what I call the horizontal sacred: the sacred nature of our relationships with other people, plants, animals, hills, rivers, trees, and stars. I get the feeling that, for her, other people and the natural world are her sacraments. Maybe music, too.
Relationality is very much part of her life. She is a mother of two and a social worker. When you are in her presence, you feel "listened to" in a caring and loving way. Many people consider her one of the kindest people they know. She is also very funny and possesses a zest for life. Her entire way of being in the world seems to me to be "open and relational."
However, as I said, she is not interested in open and relational theology because, as she sees it, the proponents are overly preoccupied with what is, for her, essentially an idea in their heads. She wishes they would focus more on open and relational approaches to life, rather than being so centered on God.
I am sure I am one of the people she is referring to. I recognize that in my own work, I spend a lot of time—perhaps too much—thinking about God. That's one reason I appreciate and identify with open and relational approaches to God. However, I also acknowledge that excessive talk about God can become obsessive and that, somewhere along the way, even God gets lost. This page is dedicated to her.
The Value of Open and Relational Thinking
First, let me state the obvious. An open and relational understanding of God appeals to many who have been troubled by authoritarian or harsh images of a personal God. It presents a God who is responsive, loving, and actively engaged in the world's complexities. For those raised in authoritarian traditions, it offers a refreshing and hopeful reinterpretation of what was once harmful.
However, the typical focus on God in open and relational theology can alienate those whose spirituality is not centered on God and may overshadow other vital aspects of spirituality or practical engagement with the world that some might find equally or more important.
Can open and relational theology evolve to resonate with these individuals? Can it come to include open and relational approaches to life, and not focus quite so much on the subject of God? I believe it can and should.
To this end, I focus on the three problems Julia has with people who "talk too much about God." They
(1) Neglect non-theistic spiritualities,
(2) Objectify God in the imagination,
(3) Deflect attention and energy from what is most important: Love.
I realize that open and relational theologians may quickly respond that they have somehow "dealt" with these three perceived problems. They - we - have recognized that there are many forms of spirituality, and that the God of whom we speak is a spiritual presence not necessarily named God or understood in personal terms; that we well recognize that God is more than our concepts of God, including the concepts that lie in our own minds and imaginations; and that we define love as about the flourishing of life, and believe that this is God's primary concern. We will think that we have "answered" the questions. But defensiveness of this sort is not what is needed. What is needed is a deep listening to the problems as perceived. This, and only this, will mean something to people like Julia.
Neglecting Non-Theistic Spiritualities
Discussions exclusively focusing on theistic perspectives can inadvertently exclude those who identify with non-theistic but spiritually rich traditions. Many people engage with the world through a spirituality that does not involve a deity, resonating with principles such as openness, creativity, listening, responsiveness, zest for life, and love. Although some monotheistic thinkers may view all forms of spirituality as inherently theistic, process theology—a form of open and relational theology—is particularly adept at appreciating both non-theistic and theistic spiritualities.
The Cobb Institute for Process and Practice offers an example. It defines spirituality as the seeking and sustaining of "rich experience" with others:
"In a process-relational perspective, spirituality is how we are inwardly animated, enlivened, nourished by life-giving forms of experience and ways of living in the world. Alfred North Whitehead speaks of these qualities of felt beauty, understood as satisfying forms of harmony and intensity in our relations with other people, the natural world, the heavens, and ourselves. John Cobb, in The Liberation of Life: From Cell to Community, refers to them as forms of 'richness of experience.' Spirituality, then, is the seeking and sustaining of rich experience in community with others and, as Whitehead emphasized, the solitariness of the heart."
The Cobb Institute advocates for integrating various forms of rich experience, such as attention, compassion, faith, forgiveness, hospitality, imagination, listening, meaning-making, openness, peace, playfulness, silence, wonder, and a zest for life. These experiences are available to people of all ages and faiths, tailored to the circumstances of their lives. The varieties of rich experience can be fostered through diverse spiritual activities, including rituals, gatherings, and collective actions aimed at supporting local communities that are creative, compassionate, participatory, inclusive, humane to animals, good for the earth, and joyful, with no one left behind. Such communities are the building blocks of an ecological civilization. An integral spirituality can provide the nourishment that sustains such civilizations."
On this view, both theistic and non-theistic spiritualities are valid. Process-relational thinking enriches this approach by recognizing the intrinsic value in all beings, acknowledging relationality as a characteristic of all life, and inviting a recognition that spirituality itself can be the enjoyment of “richness of experience” in various types of relationships: human relationships, relationships with the more-than-human world, and relationships with God. Process theology also suggests that many aspects of the universe are "ultimate" in different ways; the cosmic Thou in whose life the universe unfolds (God) is one of these ultimates, but not the only one. Each sentient being is ultimate in its way, as is each moment of experience. Likewise, the creativity of which all existents are manifestations is ultimate in its own right. Different spiritualities can be centered on different kinds of ultimacy.
Objectifying God in the Imagination
When discourse surrounding God is dominated by definitions of 'what God is' and 'what God isn't,' it risks transforming the divine into a static and confined concept within our minds. Such discussions often reduce God to 'subject' in our mental sentences, to which various 'predicates' such as "love" are then attached. This grammatical approach unwittingly reduces God to a subject of declarative sentences, obscuring the fact that God, as a living presence, is much more fluid and ungraspable. In effect, we render unto God that which belongs, not to Caesar, but to the subject-predicate mode of grammatical expression, and then let the subject, in this case God, become reified in our imaginations.
Here, too, process theology is helpful, to the degree that is influenced by Whitehead, who critiqued subject-predicate thinking. From Whitehead's perspective an excessive reliance on subject-predicate thinking mistakenly confuses the actual entities of the universe with grammatical subjects in a declarative sentence, such that the subject can remain the same even as the predicates change. The alternative is to see actual entities as momentary events whose concrete relations with others (their feelings or prehensions) are part of their very existence. This means that entities change with their changing relations.
Open and relational discussions of God do indeed say this of God. They distinguish between the abstract essence of God, which is love, and the concrete instantiations of this love in God's ongoing life, which are changing as is God. The problem, however, is that "too much talk about God" can suggest that God is a fixed entity whose nature is love, and that God can become solidified in the imagination as just this kind of entity, protestations to the contrary.
Deflecting attention and energy from Love
Focusing too intently on pinning down the exact nature of God can divert attention from perhaps the most critical aspect of divine concern—the flourishing of life. This preoccupation with defining theological correctness can overshadow the more urgent needs of promoting well-being among people, other living beings, and the broader ecological health of our planet. Emphasizing actions and policies that foster life and vitality is arguably more aligned with the essence of what many believe God values most, ensuring that theological discussions contribute directly to the enhancement of life in all its forms.
To be sure, open and relational theologians are quite interested in the "applications" of open and relational thinking to real world issues: injustice, counseling, education, church life, preaching, etc. But so often emphasis is on how a certain way of thinking about God, namely in open and relational terms, is the point of departure and destiny of the discussions, as if "ideas about God" are the central point. It is doubtful that, to God, ideas about God are what is most important.
Moving Forward
The solution to these problems is not to stop talking about God but rather to balance talk about God with talk about other matters; to recognize that an open and relational approach to life can include non-theistic as well as theistic commitments, to balance use of the word "God" with other ways of speaking that do not use the word at all; to employ creative ways of speaking that avoid the seduction of subject-predicate thinking, to partake more deeply of apophatic approaches that appreciate the mystery (and unsayability) of God, however named. Above all things it will require that open and relational thinkers embody a spirit of listening and take listening itself as a primary practice of open and relational theology.
Will this satisfy Julia? She wishes that open and relational theology would expand to include more than God. Thomas Oord writes:
"Many in the open and relational community also use the term 'relational' to talk about interactions between us and others. Our lives as individuals and groups will be partly determined by how we relate to other people, creation, and God. We live in an interrelated universe, which means our actions make a difference to others and ourselves. Relationality extends even to the simplest levels of life, including quarks and amoebae. We live in a relational world and interact with a relational God."
Julia is more interested in the fact that we live in a relational world than that we interact with a relational God. Does she have a place in the open and relational community? I think so and hope so. If we practice open and relational listening, and if we can get over our assumption that everybody and everything needs to be "about God," then there's a place for her and countless others who believe in love but aren't so sure about God.
There is no need to say to them: "But you really believe in God." Why say it? Just let them be who they are. The love is enough.
- Jay McDaniel