These types of statements drive me crazy. And they illustrate a kind of literalistic fundamentalism from progressive-liberals. And its factually wrong and misleading.
— Jim Palmer is ex-religions as far as I can tell. And Keith Giles identifies as a progressive Christian —
I want to focus particularly on the “much less a person” part.
But first…
Factually Incorrect
As far as strict definitions go, that “X means Y” or “A is B”, this quote is wrong.
There is at least a third one in 1 John 1:5.
This says that “God is light.”
So, if we are playing the fundamentalist proof-texting game, which Palmer is playing and Giles is echoing, they are wrong.
Which makes you think, What else does this get wrong?
“God is Love” requires personhood
Most religious traditions would affirm something like “The ultimate reality is spirit”, meaning that it is immaterial, beyond the confines of this material existence. And of course that is understood in many ways.
And many religious traditions would affirm that “The ultimate reality is a force of some kind.” That it is energy, powerful, creative—illuminating or enlightening, we might say. And this is akin to saying “God is light.”
But “God is love” is VASTLY different.
And no other religion claims that God is love.
Why?
Because for love to be love is more than an immaterial force, more than a reality-defining power of some kind.
Love, if it is to be love, involved choice, direction, intention, and opportunity.
Love is the giving of and from the self—from the inner resources. And this giving is offered to another self who receives and understands the gift as from a self to another self.
Ok. That was very philosophical.
Simply put.
Love requires personhood to make sense.
Actually, to keep it from being narcissistic, love always requires many persons in reciprocal, spontaneous relationship.
So love is actually interpersonal, not just personal.
And Christianity has alway taught that God — the God who is love — is actually three persons, a Holy Trinity of Father, Son, and Spirit.
Lastly, Persons in Action
The Bible regular shows God in open, creative, reciprocal, and spontaneous relationship with human persons.
This, by definition, reveals God is a person.
To look at the Bible for “definitions” of God by looking at statement containing “is” in and “God” is an all too modern. It is fundamentalist, literalistic reduction of what counts as knowledge.
This is why I repeatedly say that progressive-liberalism and evangelical-fundamentalism are caught in the same modern framework.