Response to 'God Resigns'

By: GEORGIA GREEN STAMPER

As a middle-aged woman, I’m accustomed to being invisible. My husband – who’s hard of hearing – says no one can hear me either. It is with surprise, then, that I find myself at the center of controversy.
Satire is hard to write, and perhaps I am not skillful enough to succeed in that literary genre. I am reminded, however, that even Jonathan Swift – one of the most masterful satirical writers in the English language – was taken seriously when he proposed the Irish could survive the potato famine if they would only boil their babies and serve them up for supper in a stew.
Certainly, I did not think readers would interpret my imaginary press conference with God in last week’s column as a theological statement. So that there will be no misunderstanding, let me make clear that of course, I don’t think God will resign, nor do I think he is a powerless and pitiful old man! I also had no intention of insulting God. I am puzzled as to why reasonable readers would reach that conclusion about me – especially given the gentleness of my voice in this space over the past four years. I had planned to write a sequel to the piece this week that would end at a positive place. Concerned that would also be misinterpreted, I have now abandoned that notion.
I have also debated whether to write any response at all to critics. I’m a grown-up, after all. But I’m hesitant to leave unanswered these rather harsh-sounding accusations for fear there are those who would interpret my silence as agreement. Neither Mr. Vincent nor Bro. Hutchens contacted me directly although my e-mail address is published on the website they visited. If they had opened a private conversation with me, I think they would find me “likable enough” – though there are those, I admit, who find me a bit dull in person and little too pious. I am a very traditional grandmother, a devout Christian, a lifelong Methodist who’s been immersed in her church longer than Bro. Hutchens and Mr. Vincent have been alive. (To be honest, a critic of another bent thought my God was too Christian – not ecumenical enough. And then there are always those who bristle at any mention of a God at all.)
I welcome new readers to the column like Mr. Vincent and Bro. Hutchens. I’m hopeful they (and other new readers) will hang with me in the coming months and that together we can laugh a little, cry a little, and think a little. (Btw, I wish Mr. Vincent would read the piece I wrote about Miz Zell True, the individual who is probably most responsible for nurturing into existence, if not actually establishing his New Columbus congregation. If he will contact me by e-mail, I will send it to him.)
Longtime readers understand, I think, that I use humor in every column I write. Sometimes a lot, sometimes a little, but always some. Why? Because humor can make a succinct point. Because humor is part of the Kentucky rural culture that I was born into. Because my Daddy and his brothers were the funniest people I ever knew. And because I think God has a sense of humor, too (although I admit that I can’t support this belief with a verse of scripture off the top of my head. But Miz Zell True laughed a lot, and she was about as close to Heaven as you could get and still be here on earth.)
I do not, however, think that sin is a laughing matter, and had thought that was the point my little story – with humor – made. I’m not a religion writer or a preacher or a social worker – don’t pretend to be. The best writing I do will not persuade the reader to think exactly like me. Instead I hope to nudge the reader to reach within his own experience, to remind him to think a little. Last week, among other issues, I couldn’t get those suburban third-graders who plotted to murder their teacher off my mind. I am hopeful they lingered in some of my readers’ hearts also.
Last week I personified God – not in an attempt to speak for God or to define God – but to call attention to man’s inhumanity to man. Such personification is not (in my opinion) “idolatry” as Bro. Hutchens suggests. It is instead a standard literary device that has been used by writers (Milton, Dante, the list goes on) for centuries. In recent pop culture, George Burn’s “Oh, God” movies come quickly to mind as does Jimmy Stewart’s classic Christmas story “It’s A Wonderful Life.” George Bailey and Clarence the Angel blunder through a cinematic mishmash of theological views for an hour and a half. However, the story moves people year after year with a statement that approximates the golden rule.
And perhaps the golden rule is a good place to end this ramble. As ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise. Surely religious folks of various persuasions – and even my readers who are atheists and object to any mention of God at all – will not fault that advice.

Click Here to Go Back to Community