Cute premise, but a little simplistic. Presumably the "names of God" partake somewhat of His nature and are eternal--perhaps never known before, but known now. The proclamation of the Name would seem to partake of that as well.
Be that as it may, each of us sees God in a slightly different way, colored by our lives. That's not to say that every view of God is valid--a lot of views seem to be more like glimpses of the devil.
But I've noticed that each of us in Bible study seems to have something different to contribute--some aspect of faith or practice that the others didn't notice. We see as if in a cruddy bronze mirror, but one day face to face--and even there I suspect that what we each see will not be quite the same--giving us something to share. And with our name call on His name.
"That's not to say that every view of God is valid--"
ReplyDeleteYes, this. In the renaming language debates about scripture and worship, I have often heard people say that "we should have more names for God, not fewer, because of the varieties of experience." This has been especially the case with nongendered language. I have a good deal of sympathy with the sentiment, but it simply has to be established that just because it's a name and someone likes it that it is valid. Without this, no discussion can take place and it becomes simply about power.
Satan often disguises himself as an angel of light, but by his fruits you shall know him.
ReplyDeleteUh, NOT valid. Proofreading is my friend
ReplyDeleteMy mind filled in the gap and I didn't even notice the typo.
ReplyDelete