In an 1947 Time Magazine interview C.S. Lewis is quoted as saying the following about using anthropomorphic language when speaking of God (source):
“. . . When [people] try to get rid of manlike, or, as they are called, ‘anthropomorphic,’ images, they merely succeed in substituting images of some other kinds. ‘I don’t believe in a personal God,’ says one, ‘but I do believe in a great spiritual force.’ What he has not noticed is that the word ‘force’ has let in all sorts of images about winds and tides and electricity and gravitation. ‘I don’t believe in a personal God,’ says another, ‘but I do believe we are all parts of one great Being which moves and works through us all’—not noticing that he has merely exchanged the image of a fatherly and royal-looking man for the image of some widely extended gas or fluid.
“A girl I knew was brought up by ‘higher thinking’ parents to regard God as perfect ‘substance.’ In later life she realized that this had actually led her to think of Him as something like a vast tapioca pudding. (To make matters worse, she disliked tapioca.) We may feel ourselves quite safe from this degree of absurdity, but we are mistaken. If a man watches his own mind, I believe he will find that what profess to be specially advanced or philosophic conceptions of God are, in his thinking, always accompanied by vague images which, if inspected, would turn out to be even more absurd than the manlike images aroused by Christian theology. For man, after all, is the highest of the things we meet in sensuous experience.”
Lewis is correct. While anthropomorphic language may fall short of explaining a God that is far beyond us it is the best language we can find for humans are the most “god-like” figures in creation. When we attempt to venture away from anthropomorphic language toward something that sounds “deeper” and more philosophical we may find that we are speaking of a depersonalized deity that is more of an oblong glob than a god.
the archives near Emmaus 
Yes, indeed. I suppose the writer of Hebrews was saying in his prologue that God had decided to go all in on anthropomorphism.
Great find. I was having this discussion with a friend of mine recently. I was processing “image” and “likeness” in Genesis 1 and the implications that had on a theological anthropology and I found him moving away from it seemed to imply about how God chose to reveal Himself and towards a more philosophical, logical way of understanding Him. Nice article! I love me some C.S. Lewis!
Mike
Well said!
Tony
I don’t mind philosophical inquiry to God, but we must remember that the language we use provides pictures for our mind. Some may not want to think of God as a human beyond our imagination, but as Lewis noted, it beats thinking of a bowl of pudding beyond our imagination!
Interesting. It seems as if C.S. Lewis likes anthropomorphism because we are able to retain in our conception some likeness of God to us. But, I have found that when people identify anthropomorphism in Scripture that they seem to want to discard it and claim God is nothing like us. But, that’s the problem, imo, with this way of thinking. He’s not like us; we’re like him. He’s the referent. We have what we have, because we are created in His image, His likeness. Theomorphism, if you will.
Demetrius
I’d agree and disagree. First, we can say that “in Christ” there is a sense in which anthropology does move from God to humanity, but I don’t think that “theomorphism” works very well since before the incarnation it seems quite obvious that speech about God in human terms was merely analogous. God had no lips or tongue to speak, giant hands, a giant “strong” right arm, and so forth and so on.
Also, again, while Christology may morph this a bit, the “image of God” doesn’t seem to be as much about “physicality” as it does functionality. As you may have seen I’ve been posting some thoughts on John Walton’s book on Genesis 1 where he sees creation as “functional” rather than “physical” in that passage. I think this includes humans. Yes, there may be an ontological creation as well, but the primary point is that male and female have been given the role as God’s representatives to creation in creation. So the image of God doesn’t prevent us from seeing anthropomorphic language as being grounded in human experience (rightly) projected on God for the sake of speaking of God.
Good point, Brian. However, I just I don’t have a problem with God having form. What does it mean then for man to be made in God’s image, if He didn’t have an image before the incarnation? The incarnation is when the Son took flesh, not when He took form. I’m not trying to force anything thing here, but I don’t have a problem with the thought of God having hands or a mouth or what have ya. Having form (morphe) does not necessitate physicality or limitation as we know it.
Demetrius
I don’t think the “image of God” means we “look like” God. It is another way of saying we are “regents” of God. As a Caesar may use a coin with a picture that resembles him so God uses humans. Both reminds the subjects of a King who it is that rules over all. While the coin “image” may have something to do what Caesar “looked like” this isn’t the primary point. The primary point is that something that bears an image stands in the authority of a greater figure as a representative and a reminder. So I don’t see a point in stretching the language to make it literal.
I don’t think the form and function aspects of image are mutually exclusive. I dig the ‘function’ aspect you’re bringing out, but the so called anthropomorphic language (as used in places like Ex. 33:21-23) is so vividly seen throughout Scripture, that I find it difficult to omit the ‘form’ aspect from my conception of image. I think there’s room for both, probably even more facets to image than that.
It’s just that I have found anthropomorphism to be something people to claim too quickly. And I would venture to guess what informs this instinct is, ironically, what Lewis is trying to avoid – an impersonal-force understanding of God. Shapless divinity and without form. Lewis says use language so that we won’t view God that way; but we go on to dismiss the language we use and continue to view Him as such anyway.
Demetrius
True, that can be the unfortunate result, but I fear that what you propose moves us from realizing that our day-to-day world, especially the human person, provide the best language for conceptualizing God while being aware of the caveat that God is not a super-sized human. In other words, our anthropomorphic language is the best we have considering that we are talking about a being who is infinitely greater. If we move in the direction you present we may find ourselves limiting God another way, though I do understand the point you are trying to make, and it is worthwhile.
I’d like to say that anthropomorphic language is our best language for speaking of God because it allows us to get as close to God as possible by speaking of him using imagery reflected in humans. Some may think mountains or the ocean work better, and indeed they are powerful, but they don’t have the governing role of humans and this is what is most important.
Scripture’s use of anthropomorphic language is quite evidently analogous. Let us consider the phrase “the right hand of God” which is used for “power.” Why “the right hand?” Well, most people in the ancient and modern worlds are right handed. Our right handed is our hand of strength and coordination. When we speak of God’s power the best analogy we can find that preserves both (1) God as personal (which is better than God as pudding) and (2) God as powerful (which alone would be better depicted using the imagery of a volcano, or a wave, or wind…and sometimes God-language is depersonalized to make this very point) is to find the most “powerful” and “personal” language possible: that would be the right hand of a human.
If we move beyond language as analogy to language as literal depiction then are we saying God is right handed? If he picked up his cup of coffee in the morning with his left hand is he more likely to spill it? You get the gist. Thoughts?
Yes, you have a good point. We don’t want to limit God. But, if God has form, as I suggest He does, then He’s certainly not limited by it in the way we are. While the form may be similar, the substance differs. We are made of flesh, He is spirit. But, I’d like to point out that in the passage I already mentioned (Ex. 33:21-23), that this isn’t our language of God; this is God’s language of Himself. Exodus 33-34 is at the heart of God’s self-disclosure. If I am to believe in a referential theory of meaning, then I have to take these words of His to actually refer to something. Same thing applies with what some call anthropopathisms, which are contained in the same section (34:6-7, 14).
The example you cite of God’s right arm is used as a metaphor for strength. Metaphors are poetic, but they are still referring to something, and in that case: power. But, reading a non-poetic passage such as Ex 33, what would His “hand” refer to if God didn’t have a hand? We believe in God’s omnipresence, but how can we even begin to take passages like Ex 33 if we don’t want to admit that God can assume a localized form?
It seems quite problematic that we can speak of God as one who cannot be contained by the earth, the heavens, and the highest heavens (words attributed to King Solomon in 1 King 8.27; 2 Chronicles 6.18), i.e. cannot be contained. If we think God has some sort of form essential to his identity (and not something he assumes for the sake of visibility/interaction) then what are to we to make of such claims. Does the super-body of God expand and fill things like fluid while retaining a shape like a human? Why would “right hand” be poetic, but “face” and “back side” be literal, not poetically describing some degree of the glory of God?
Also, we must read this passage with the idea in mind that many Jews and early Christians seemed to assume that any “visible” appearance of God must have been angelic representatives, save his final appearance in “a Son” (Hebrews 1.1-3 where Jesus is the “visibility” of God). At least this seems to be the argument of passages like Acts 7.53 and Hebrews 2.2.
Furthermore, we must rethink how we interpret Exodus 33 as Christians in light of the Johannine claim (John 1.18) that Christ alone has “seen” God the Father (which is problematic, “anthropological” language describing the interdependence of Father-Son). If Jesus is the one who has seen God then what did Moses see?
Ex 33:20, 23 sheds some light upon what I believe John was referring to. Moses could not look upon God’s face. No one has seen God’s face and lived. But, even if His “face” was a concentration of His glory wouldn’t that still be taking form?
I think we both agree that God is beyond human conception. There needs to remain a healthy distinction in how we understand our likeness to God. However, a complete severance is the consequence of the insistent anthropomorphizing of God’s language. And this complete severance serves our notions of a God that exists in abstraction.
Agreed.
Stimulating conversation. Thanks for stretching me. 🙂
And thank you for the interaction!
“we may find that we are speaking of a depersonalized deity that is more of an oblong glob than a god.”
So? What if that’s what it really is? What if that’s still too anthropomorphized? If one day we create computers capable of thinking, what will they imagine their God to be? A giant crystal of pure silicon? According to you, that’s what they should do. And they’d be wrong.
If the point of God is to comfort yourself, then by all means — he’s a mile-high Santa Claus. But if you want non-believers to take you seriously, this isn’t a line of reasoning worth continuing.
Isn’t kind of limiting to imagine almighty God as having a *natural* form? By definition God is above nature (supernatural). And if God, being beyond nature, does not have a natural form then it is pointless to think about what God “really looks like”.
Doesn’t it make sense that God would have whatever form is appropriate for the purpose being consdered? For humans, it makes sense to imagine God as human in appearance because we are human and can most easily conceive human-like beings. And if you think that different people having completely different conceptions of the form of God, there is no reason why God cannot be all of these forms and none of them simultaneously, just as an electron is both a particle and a wave.
When making or analyzing definitions, a common bit of advice is “look to the use” – consider what something does rather than what something is. Ask “What does God do?” rather than “What is God?”. For me, the answer to the first question seems to be “nothing at all”, which leads to a natural answer to the second question, but I think this point of view is still useful if you think God is (or has been) active in the world.
Ood
My main concern is not to convince unbelievers. I find value in humanity as the highest beings in creation. If we are the things that come closest to God and we are speaking to each other about this God why not anthropomorphic language. I can see the danger of taking it too literally (something Demetrius and I discussed in the above comments), but if we seek to understand God as personal (something central to Christian speech about God) then anthropomorphic language is helpful.
Mike
I don’t know that Lewis wants us to worry about what God “looks like.” That isn’t the point. Lewis is saying that if we are going to choose language that “depict” God, his actions, and his roles in ways that are understandable why not use anthropomorphic language?