That which is concrete must be protected and kept. Maintained. Repainted. To keep face, and name. That which moves, or stays silent, is forever changing, forever fluid, forever unassailable, for what would one assail? If God is nameless, an inconclusive name cannot be the reason for war. If God is faceless, then one cannot murder because of paintings drawn.

And as can be seen through history, the pictures we draw of God are entirely influenced by the faces we see in the mirror and at the bus stop. Jesus is a white Australian man in footy shorts. He ate meat pies, he played AFL, he is the son of God. And therefore his fathers face has a beard and a beanie, and drives a holden. Right? God can’t be a woman. That is preposterous. Women aren’t strong, women aren’t capable of ruling the world. And God has to have a gender, because if he doesn’t, how do we paint him? How does our language function? And of course my name for God is the right one, because….

Almost a decade ago I was asked what do I call God? What is my personal nickname for God. And I sat for a moment to think about it. My keeper. The word holds many meanings for me, but, God keeps me. and has always kept me. Safe, Secure, Joyous, Humble, Centred and other cheesy words that mean alive. And if I then stand in front of crowds and tell them “Ok, Gods name is keeper, we shall not refer to him as any other” and then we fight wars on that…. God is nameless for a reason. We can give him nicknames, we can give him a name agreed upon by large crowds, but ultimately, we are safer to assign him/her/it nothing as God is above all of that.

God is the faceless. But the one with many faces. We aren’t to give honour to a picture of God, but neither are we to not imagine and give colour and body to a thing so outside of our mortal consciousness, that God needed to come to us in our form in our language of thought to explain who God is the best way that they could.

But the “faithful” (those connected and not connected to “the church”) have often rallied around a concrete thing, and fought to the death over it. If that concrete thing that we rally around promotes death and destruction and abuse and ignorance, is that really a thing we think that God would champion the rally of? I feel like not. If God is not empire, if God is not selfish and vengeful and insecure like that which we see in the mirror – like that which we paint from and name because of – then should we build nothing, and speak in vague soft terms to promote peace and selfless love in an attempt to promote the spirit of God – the spirit of love, as opposed to the spirit of rightness, elitism and concrete statutes?

What else do we need to understand about God other than He/She/It is love, They are promotors of peace, and we are included in their ranks of forever if we celebrate the ideal of hopeful life.