What is God? Two weeks ago we noted that the way of apophatic theology, or the via negativa, teaches us to deny things about God as we construct our theology. Take, for instance, time. We know that time is the measurement of change, of succession, and since God does not change (immutable, another apophatic word), he is therefore “not-time,” or eternal. Eternality is an apophatic statement, or negation, regarding God. That he is simple is the negation of composition in God. We must assume these truths anytime we attribute things to God.
So how do we make positive statements about God? Very creatively, alongside the via negativa is the via positiva, or way of speaking positively about God. In order to understand the via positiva, sometimes called cataphatic theology, we must understand the way things are said of beings at all. First, we sometimes say things about a being univocally. We look at the piece of wood hanging on hinges at the entrance of our home, and we say, “Close the door.” We look at the large, solid piece of earth protruding out of the ground and say, “Go stand on the rock.” We notice the muscular appendage hanging out of the side of a person’s body and say, “I want arms as large as that man’s.” In such instances, we attribute titles to beings univocally. In the last of these, we have made two attributions, one of “arm” and the other of “man.” Using univocal speech of God would mean saying Christ is a door means he is hanging piece of wood, that saying God is a rock means he is the same as the solid protruding earth, and saying he is a warrior with a strong arm means he is of the class of the great warriors of Scripture.
There is another way of speaking though, one that we do sometimes use in our common speech. The second way of speaking is “equivocal,” we sometimes talk about someone “equivocating.” Equivocal speech means that something is said in such a way that it has no relation to the thing about which it is said. If I call the hanging piece of wood a table, or the protruding earth a blanket, or the appendages a “snake’s stomach,” you would say that I do not make any sense because the words I am using have no relation to the things about which I’m speaking. So, we say someone equivocates when what they say does not convey what they mean, and we usually associate such speech with lying. Equivocal speech about God would mean the positive statements we read in Scripture really teach us nothing affirmative. To avoid senselessness at such a point, we may be reduced to only using the via negativa again, and therefore conclude that saying God is good, love, being, etc. only means he is not-evil, not-hate, and not-imaginary. Certainly the Scriptures mean to teach us more than that.
The third way of speaking is analogical. Analogical speech means that something true of one being has similarity to another. Thomas Aquinas gives the example of a field “smiling.” He says, “For as smiling applied to a field means only that the field in beauty of its flowering is like the beauty of a human smile by proportionate likeness” (ST I.Q13.A6). If we spoke univocally, we would say “Of course fields can’t smile.” However, there is a similitude that says something true of the field using the analogy of another being. In such ways, God is called a rock, a lion, etc. These are not said univocally, though they certainly say something true of God reflected in the creature (such as his strength). Thus, God’s goodness, wisdom, being are reflected in the things that can be seen. “For we can name God” says Aquinas, “only from creatures. Thus whatever is said of God and creatures, is said according to the relation of a creature to God as its principle and cause, wherein all perfections of things pre-exist excellently. Now this mode of community of idea is a mean between pure equivocation and simple univocation. For in analogies the idea is not, as it is in univocally, one and the same, yet it is not totally diverse as in equivocal; but a term which is thus used in a multiple sense signifies various proportions to some one thing” (ST I.Q13.A5).
There are two directions, though, in which we say positive things about God. On the one hand, we may speak positively of God by using a metaphor, such as the items mentioned above. We can call God a rock or lion or talk about his mighty right arm. In such cases, we are speaking of something that has its primary definition in the creature and is used in some way to convey a truth about God. However, we may also speak in the opposite direction in our expression of perfections. Love and goodness and wisdom and life all exist in creatures as effects of the One who is perfect. These perfections are reflected in the creature, or they are ways in which the creature is similar to God because, and thus they have primary reference to him and not the creature. When I refer to someone as wise, I am—assuming my statement is correct—saying the individual’s thoughts and actions reflect the wisdom of God. When I praise the love of a person, I am saying they accurately reflect God’s love. Even here, we must be careful. Thomas clarifies,
Now our intellect apprehends them as they are in creatures, and as it apprehends them it signifies them by names. Therefore as to the names applied to God—viz. the perfections which they signify, such as goodness, life and the like, and their mode of signification. As regards what is signified by these names, they belong properly to God, and more properly than they belong to creatures, and are applied primarily to Him. But as regards their mode of signification, they do not properly and strictly apply to God; for their mode of signification applies to creatures” (ST I.Q13.A3, italics added; cf. Van Mastricht 1.2.4).
In other words, even when we are speaking of something that has its primary referent in God, we are still constrained to use language and concepts borrowed from creatures.
Where do we see dangers surrounding the concept of univocal/equivocal/analogical language today? It often appears in discourse about what God is, and usually goes under the banner of a “literal hermeneutic.” Consider one prevailing doctrinal cry today: “God is love.” Of course, this statement is biblical, stated explicitly in 1 John and displayed from the beginning to end of the biblical storyline. God displays himself as the God who is love and then explicitly tells us that he is. So, what’s the problem? The problem is that humans often so define love themselves as to undermine what it means that God is love. If I ask you, “What is love?” your answer will inevitably incorporate changing and imperfect creatures. You will use a story as a display of love or talk about a heartfelt feeling of affection toward another person. The danger poses itself when we begin—by our definition of love—to univocally apply our experience of creaturely love to the uncreated Love. What is love? It means being in a mutual relationship of give-and-take, of self-sacrifice and delight, right? What happens when we pack that definition into what it means for God to be love? We end up denying such things as immutability, eternality, impassibility, etc. While we do affirm a similitude, and therefore analogy, between creaturely love and God’s love, between creaturely goodness and God’s goodness, between creaturely wisdom and God’s wisdom, we must be cautious not univocate. Our creaturely love, goodness, and wisdom is a reflection of God. A reflection is not the thing reflected, but neither is it altogether different. And really, it goes further than that. Not only is it creaturely, we have also distorted our reflection of these things by our sin so that we call wickedness love and good things wicked.
By remembering that the created realm is a reflection of God, and by remembering that our positive language about God is analogical, necessarily incorporating creaturely language to attribute things to Uncreated One, and remembering that sin has affected our ability to understand even those things intended to reflect the thrice holy One, we will be much more cautious about how we employ our language and how we embed concepts in the things we say of him. Those perfections in the creature, such as love, goodness, and wisdom, are reflections and effects of the One who is love, goodness, and wisdom.