What Titles for "God" Resonate with Your Soul?

My New Year's resolution for this month is to look at the 1st Article of Faith and consider how understanding it more fully, from both a Mormon perspective and from the perspectives of other religions, can help me be more Christ-like in the here and now.  I will focus on Buddhism, Islam and Judaism in subsequent posts this month, but I want first to consider the various ways God is described within Christianity - specifically by looking at some of the titles used to describe God in the Bible.  For the purposes of this post, with its focus on Christianity, I am not going to distinguish between Old Testament and New Testament titles - nor am I going to distinguish between titles Mormons might apply differently than other Christians (like those we might apply to God, the Father, and not necessarily to God, the Son - or, more often, vice-versa).  As I do so, I will provide what I believe is the best concise definition and a very short summary of my own affinity for and thoughts about each title.    

1) God 

the sole supreme Being, eternal, spiritual, and transcendent, who is the Creator and ruler of all and is infinitein all attributes; the object of worship in monotheistic religions  

I have no problem believing in "God" in this manner.  I understand the idea of creating and ruling, as well as the concept of possessing all attributes.  I also have no problem with the concept of worshiping such a Being, since "to worship" means "to reverence; honor; give homage".  Finally, I have no problem accepting the existence of a sole supreme Being who will my "ruler" and the object of my worship eternally.  There is nothing, in my opinion, within Mormonism that requires a different view of God - even the idea that we can become like God, as it doesn't necessitate any eventual cessation of our worship of GOD as our God.  

2) Father  

"a male parent; a person who has originated or established something"  

This one gets a bit tricky, since there are multiple interpretations in Christianity about exactly what this title means, as highlighted by the two definitions above I took straight from the dictionary.  Some Christians take the first definition very seriously, believing that God is a "literal" parent in every sense of the word as it generally is interpreted in mortality.  The extreme end of the spectrum is the belief by some Mormons that "God" refers to Heavenly "Parents" (not just a Heavenly Father") and that Heavenly Mother "gave birth to" spirit children in the same kind of gestational way that babies are born here on Earth to human women.  The other extreme is the general view throughout the rest of Christianity that God is our "father" by virtue of his being our "creator" - which reflects the second definition above.  The first view, taken to the extreme, posits that God and his children are the same species, while the second view posits a chasm or "gap" between God and his creations.  

My own view is sort of a combination of the two.  I see "God" as a title describing development, applied to "fathers and mothers".  In the pre-mortal existence of mankind, their bodies were fundamentally different than their "children" in one important way, since their "bodies" were "perfected" and their children's were not.  Thus, their children had to go through a transformative process to gain bodies that were fully like theirs  Thus, I see them as the "Parents as Creators" of our spirits through some unknown process - but I also see them as the "Parents as Ultimate Development Model" through another unknown process.  In other words, I have a very orthodox view of our relationship to our Heavenly Parents in the nature of our potential to become like them, but I do not believe that they are our parents in the sense that they "birthed" us in some way that is similar to the way we are born here on Earth.  That connection simply doesn't make sense to me on any level.  

3) Lord / Master / King - There are subtle differences among the definitions of the words listed above, but they are close enough for the purpose of this post.

"a person who has authority, control, or power over others" 

  

This is similar, in my mind, to the way "God" is used, but it carries a "legal" position that is absent in the use of "God".  Generally speaking, there is no substantive difference in interpretation of these titles within Christianity - at least not anything that can be articulated properly in a post of this size without turning it into a dissertation.  

I have no problem with these titles, with the exception of the use of the word "control".  Given the Mormon belief in personal accountability and agency, which I will discuss next month, I do not believe in a God who exercises "control" over mortals - although I do believe in God having the power to do so.  I believe part of the "perfection" of God is the ability to control unlimited power - and I believe D&C 121 (read in its entirety as one integrated lesson) is perhaps the best explication of this concept that exists in our recorded scriptural canon.  

4) Shepherd  

"a person who herds, tends, and guards sheep; a person who protects, guides, or watches over a person or group of people.."  

This title is seen essentially in the same way among all Christian denominations, but there is an important difference concerning the role / responsibilities of the sheep.  The extreme Calvinsitic view is of sheep being nothing more than animals who respond or do not respond to the voice of the Shepherd based on prior programming on the part of the Shepherd - meaning the "following sheep" have no real choice and certainly deserve no credit for their actions, and the "non-following" sheep also have no real choice.  The opposite extreme is believed by some Mormons who see the sheep as having full choice in how they respond to the Shepherd's voice - meaning the "following sheep" truly deserve the credit for their actions, while the "non-following" sheep truly deserve the blame for theirs.  

My own view, not surprisingly to many who read this blog regularly, is a combination of the two views above.  I believe in personal agency - which means I believe that the sheep collectively do have the ability to choose how they respond to the Shepherd and that, to some degree, they are responsible for those collective choices.  However, I also believe that there are many limitations, of varying kinds and to greatly varying degrees, on each sheep that makes that sheep, as an individual entity, more or less "deserving" and "to blame" for its actions than other sheep.  I also believe that it is next to impossible, if not impossible, to understand exactly how much control over its actions any particular sheep has - so it is next to impossible, if not impossible, to determine exactly how "deserving" and "to blame" that sheep is in the end.  

Thus, I like the story of the shepherd who doesn't shrug his shoulders and blame the sheep who has strayed but leaves the "safe ninety and nine" to find the "lost one".  I think, when looking at our general assumptions about the population percentages of the various kingdoms of glory, it is interesting to look at that story and realize Jesus was said to have left the ninety and nine who were not lost to seek the one who was.  Sometimes, I think we see different percentages in our clouded, imperfect judgments of others.  I certainly think it's worth considering, at least, as we strive to emulate the Good Shepherd.  

I have listed only four titles for God that are used in the Bible.  There are many more.  I would appreciate any thoughts on what I have written above, but I also would LOVE to hear which other titles resonate the most strongly / purely to those who read this post.