Discussion on Home as a Metaphor
Andy: The idea of “home” is an elegant metaphor. Is it also useful? It’s etymology ties into
ecology, economics, etc. (oikos). It is a relational ontology (way of knowing), and ties into
the Trinity theologically and into other religions views that people don’t exist
independently of one another. The Trinity as a model for humans would suggest, in some
theologians’ views, that people are relationships. However, we’re not all that good at
homemaking nor at caring for the environment. But, is the metaphor useful?
There are different roles of individuals in the home. We assume we are the decisionmakers, not children. Sometimes parents are thrust into that role. How well equipped are
we to take the role of parents? It is helpful to think about knowing and familiarity implied
by home.
What is “mine” to care for? The usual concept of home is limited – we care for certain
things, but not everything. Can the metaphor be extended universally? If everything is a
member of the household, then is “home” useful?
Back two generations the extended family was the norm. We had a different idea of home.
Perhaps the extended family is a useful way of looking at home.
Home is a place. We have to be there long enough to know it. It may be a smaller area than
we think. It implies also some continuity in time as well as a state of mind. What is the scale
that’s relevant? What are we capable of knowing well enough to manage?
There is also the condition of being “dis-homed,” as with refugees. We are in the second
condition of the metaphor, a dysfunctional situation. We have inherited the bad decisions
of the past and continue to live within them.
Native American vs. Christian creation stories present humans horizontally within creation
vs. vertically. In the former we learn from the creatures who are brothers and sisters with
whom we are interdependent, whereas in the latter we are the caretakers, decision makers
over creation. Simone Weil talks of maintaining respect for the autonomy of the other and
for their differences within loving relationships. Is it possible to preserve some of that
dynamic of Weil and Native American stories (humility), given the undeniable power we
now exercise? We have a lot to learn from other members of our family. We need to stop
and listen to them, unlike a parent who doesn’t really pay attention to what a child is
saying.
When we call it our home, it is our place, where we belong, a place familiar to us, with
which we have kinship. However, many Christian groups say “we are just passing through,
this really isn’t our home.” So, we could get some push back here from some Christians. We
as a people need to rethink kinship. We do have things in common with all creation,
something larger than any of us. We share a common destiny.
Jerry – he doesn’t like the image of us as parents. We have power, but not control. Humans
are more like rebellious adolescents. Our power is more like that of a teenager out-ofcontrol. God is our parent, not us. We are children. We have power, but not control. We view
ourselves wrongly in the system. If God is in control, God is head of the household and our
decisions become more about discerning God’s will, listening to the Spirit for direction.
We may be forced into a situation where we realize we aren’t in control, like an alcoholic
hitting bottom. The job of the church then is to offer hope and to bring about conversion.
We have lost track of the main topic – the consideration of the individual vs. the whole
system. Homes change. Is it, eg., with the spotted owl that we just don’t like this change? On
the other hand could it be that it’s being forced out indicates that we’re losing the whole
system?
In this case not acting is a decision. So, we have to choose one way or another. How do we
have the wisdom to know what to do? Can a family metaphor help us figure this out? Some
cases clearly are more disruptive than others.
Do we have conflated metaphors here? Family and home aren’t necessarily the same thing.
Home is a bigger category, of which family is a part. E.g., farm homes involved animals,
fields, woodlots, and in some ways other farms whose members helped other farmers. We
would have to help people understand what “home” means.
In a family the most important questions is, what type of people do we want to be? With
families we are more concerned about how we attend to our relationships rather than what
the end is that we want to achieve. It is more an ethic of virtue rather than a
consequentialist ethic.
When people separate themselves from their home, they lose the ability to discern good
decisions – they lose who they are and a sense of what’s right. One can’t make decisions on
“your own.” Virtue can only be found in connection with others. Yet many people who make
decisions about land are “absentee landlords.”