This will be the very first post I've ever written about my spiritual life. I'm gonna be completely honest here, even though I know I'll probably be getting all kinds of "attempted conversion" comments on here.The thing is, I'm not really a spiritual person. I guess I don't really understand exactly what it means to be spiritual. I grew up in church. My dad's a pastor now. I've read the bible, and still read it occasionally. But what exactly does it mean to be spiritual, or to have a relationship with God?
I used to pray and read the bible often. I used to feel that God talked to me. But then I realized that God wasn't actually talking to me at all. It was my own imagination and wishful thinking.
Then I figured if I, as a reasonably intelligent person, can be fooled into thinking God talks to me, can't just about anyone be fooled into the same?
It strikes me that prayer is pretty much a one-way conversation. How is that a relationship? All the relationships--the real relationships--I've had have been with real people. People I can see, feel, hear, interact with. That's what having a relationship is all about. Interaction.
I'm not doubting God's existence here. I have no doubt that God exists. My doubts have to do with whether we can actually have a real relationship with him the way modern Christians believe.
How do you have a relationship with an invisible God? Of course, I see God in everything around me. Nature itself is a virtuosic display of the power and creativity of an ultra-powerful God. But it's like seeing a painting by Picasso. Of course I can see his work. I can marvel at it. I can appreciate it. It can be all the proof I need that Picasso did (or does) indeed exist. I can even, perhaps, draw conclusions about some of Picasso's personality traits. But does that mean I actually know Picasso?
God is not only invisible, his voice is silent.
Well..."spiritual" people will talk about the still, small voice and brag about how God speaks to them all the time. But usually people who are so sure God speaks to them are in dire need of a visit to some men in white coats.
It's been my experience that people who talk that way are people who just like to sound spiritual and have probably never heard God's voice any clearer than I have.
I know people who fret about "God's will" for their life. And they pray and fast and read the bible searching for the answer as to whether they should buy the Honda Civic or the Toyota Corolla.
I just don't understand it. As my creator, didn't God give me free will to decide things for myself? Didn't he give me a brain and arms and legs so I can think up a plan and execute it on my own?
I marvel about people who "seek God's will." How the hell can you possibly know if God wants you to move to such and such a place or choose such and such a career if he doesn't have a voice to tell you? People often rely on "signs" or "confirmations." I think people just read too much into coincidences.
Or what about "relying on God?" What does that mean? When I hear people talking about "relying on God," I always think of this old joke...
A man sits on the roof of his house as the flood waters rage around him. A man in a boat shows up and yells "Jump in! I'll get you outta here!"
"No, it's okay!" The man on the roof replies. "God told me he was going to save me!" So he refuses to get in the boat and stays on his roof while the waters continue to rise.
Then another boat comes along, but the man once again refuses saying, "God told me he was going to save me!" The waters continue to rise, and the man is at the very peak of his rooftop, the water lapping at his ankles.
Then a helicopter materializes overhead. The rescue guard is lowering down the basket to snag the man from the roof. But again, the man refuses: "God will save me!"
Finally, the waters cover the entire house, and the man is washed away. He drowns in the raging waters and his last thought is a bitter one: "Why didn't God save me?"
So as the man's spirit appears before God, he questions Him: "Lord, why didn't you save me. I though you told me you'd save me from the flood?"
And God answers: "Well, my child. I sent you two boats and a helicopter, what more did you want?"
This is the image I get in my mind every time someone talks about "relying on God." God gave me a brain. And arms and legs. God wants me to use them, I think. If I were the man on the roof, I'd hope for a boat or helicopter, but I'd be tearing up the damn roof trying to build a raft, just in case none came.
The most successful people in the world are people of action. They don't sit around waiting for God to do something. They take action themselves and make something happen. That's me. I'm a "doer," I think.
I don't pray very often. It's not that I don't believe God hears me. It's just that I can't hear what he's saying to me. How is that fulfilling? How does that make me into a better person? How is that a relationship?
There's one thing that strikes me about the bible: the central theme of love. Jesus said the greatest commandment was to "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength." The second one is like it: "Love your neighbor as yourself."
When Jesus asked Peter, "Peter, do you love me?" And Peter said yes, then Jesus responded "Then take care of my sheep." Taking care of God's people is love. Loving God is loving others. Loving others is loving God. Maybe that's what having a relationship with God is all about.
Simply loving those that God loves. But loving in a real, practical way that enriches others' lives. Since a real relationship can only happen with real people...and the bible tells us God lives in those who love him, and that "they will know you're my disciples because of your love for one another," then doesn't it stand to reason that maybe a relationship with God is not really about locking yourself in a room and having a one-way conversation every morning, but about simply having relationships with those who profess to love him?
I'm curious, my friends, what your thoughts are on this.
The Stan
4 comments:
Good post, Lots of great insight. I think that God speaks to anyone in several ways, all of which you listed.
Through his creation, through loving other people, and through scripture and the church. (These are all scriptural btw.)
These are concrete ways in which God can work and speak to us.
I guess I differ in one way. Revelation. I use that word gingerly, because I think revelation can and should be checked, thoroughly. And that affirmation usually comes through several of the concrete things that you listed. They are rarely about romantic love. Any revelation from God, that has been proven true, is usually something that helps us to understand his love for us, rather than our love for our fantasy girl.
But again, God can choose to speak to you in any way he sees fit. Even if it is through a burning bush, a donkey's mouth.
I also think that God understood this conundrum that you speak of here and solved the issue when he became man. You don't get more concrete than that. So as you said, the church is now that "body of Christ" and that is, or should be the most concrete voice of God to a world that wants to hear a word from Him.
I love what you said about using your brain and your will and your God given abilities to get up off your ass and move. I think that this is essentially hearing the voice of God and doing it, since I believe that all good passions come from God and direct others and us towards God because they amplify that which is good. And that which is good has God at the core.
Lastly, I do think that God wants us to seek Him, or rather to know that we are known by him. Rarely does a man come away empty when "with all his heart he truly seeks Him."
I can't imagine a God that created us with no interest in knowing us or us knowing him. It would go against the very character of the delicate, intimate, interplay of life He created that is a reflection of his mind.
Seth: you said...
"I also think that God understood this conundrum that you speak of here and solved the issue when he became man. You don't get more concrete than that. So as you said, the church is now that "body of Christ" and that is, or should be the most concrete voice of God to a world that wants to hear a word from Him."
I can see the first part, for sure. I have no trouble believing Jesus was the son of God. But it's not like he's around anymore to talk directory to us, is he?
Even when he was here, he focused much of his time and attention on a select few disciples, who, with the notable exception of Paul and Luke, wrote the new testament.
So the recorded words of Jesus are related by third parties, many years after the fact.
If we posit that the Bible is the word of God--and I believe I'll be blogging on that very topic in the near future--then we have God's message to us in print.
But it's a collective message...an "overhead announcement," if you will. A public address to all of mankind. It's certainly not personal, except in the sense that many of us choose to take personal messages from it.
And that brings me back to the question: how the hell do we know if God is trying to speak to us individually, and not just collectively as he does in the bible?
Let's take start with this postulate: God sees and knows all.
Therefore he sees and knows all that I've ever done and thought. Therefore God knows me more intimately than I know myself. Therefore God hears my prayer the first time I pray whatever it is I'm praying about. So at this point, he knows me, but I don't know him.
If we accept the premise that the Bible is God's word--again, I'll blog on this later, but for now let's say that it largely is--then I have a way finding out about God.
But finding out about God and how he wants us to behave is a lot different from actually having a real relationship with him.
I'm still stuck on what exactly that means. A relationship implies interaction. Yet because God chooses to remain completely invisible and inaudible, then there can be no true interaction. Only imagination. Like an imaginary friend. And I get the impression that that is exactly how many Christians view God: as an imaginary buddy. I can talk to God, but the only message I get from Him is what's already in the Bible. Maybe that's all I need and I shouldn't worry about any new revelations or seeking God's will about anything?
You also said that he speaks through the church. Seeing as the church is made up of individuals, each with the same problem I have (whether they believe it or not), then how can anything anyone says be interpreted as a reliable word from God? I certainly wouldn't call it "concrete." More like "jello," because you can't stand on it and it's a bit shaky!
Good points, I think in the end you either "believe" that he interacts with you or He doesn't. I think he does, considering I believe that his “thought” or the Word, or Jesus holds all things together. This interaction is inexplicable. One can only give testimony to things that have happened because of that interaction. Like I said before, the things I believe are truly the Church and its interpretation of scripture can check “revelations”.
Then there is the problem of the innate moral Law. I do something I know I shouldn't do. This violates God's law and bad things happen. The fact that the bad things happen in inevitable because of the way things were set up. So you could say that the bad thing would happen whether God interacted with us or not because of the working of the innate natural and moral laws in nature and man's will. But then again, He still does, or we wouldn't know that they were bad things to begin with, meaning, if the law were simply a written word like a Egyptian code of ethics long dead, we would probably no give a shit and sleep with whoever we wanted and lie and trade our wives like cattle, or maybe rip the hearts out of virgins to appease the sun god, or maybe soldiers would have fun raping a small designated boy when they came home from a long hunt like the Incas did.
I agree, man has a tendency to attribute many, many things to "God speaking to them." Much of it is hogwash. At the same time, if you believe in the Holy Spirit, you cannot help but believe in the interaction of God with man.
Even with the Jews, God was clear but not necessarily "personal." In fact, it was only after the disciples experienced the Holy Spirit that they had the boldness to say what they said, and write what they wrote, despite being hunted down and eventually killed for it. The Old Testament and New Testament is striking in this difference.
"I believe" that man wants this "relationship" with God. He wants the interaction. He needs it. He needs it because he is designed for it. It was something he had and lost. As a Christian, I believe that interaction was restored through the atonement "at-one-ment" of cross. Its not that I don't believe that Jews or Muslims or even Hindus cannot "know" God, it is simply that they do know the fullness of Him and do "things" to know him which eventually end up in rituals and rigorous self-inflicted rule-abiding, rather than the full, free, life that Christ offers, regardless of what legalistic bullshit has been crammed down our throats our whole life or what Pat Robertson says.
"Then how can anything anyone says be interpreted as a reliable word from God?"
This is an excellent question because of our protestant upbringing. However, the Church has held correct interpretations of the scripture for a long, long time. Despite what stupid country pastors spew from their pulpits.
Even today we see different protestant denominations meshing into one belief about God again. If you think about it, it’s only been 300 years or so that there have been a few true variants on a large scale as far as interpretation. i.e. predestination, Mary, Eucharist... I mean, Luther's problem wasn't with interpretation; it was with that rat-bastard money-hungry Pope.
The other things ARE widely agreed upon such as the creeds and seeing the scripture through that lens. Even in the worst abusive periods of the Catholic Church the doctrine and theology was unchanged, however grossly ignored. (There was a time when Bishops ruled large portions of land and people that couldn't recite a single scripture!)
As for the bible, it is a collection of literature, inspired literature (however you want to take that) and again, I find it impossible to NOT believe that God communicates through the words, uniquely. The reason being that the Church believes that God said it. If God said it then the words are eternal and do not live on the page but outside and inside time.
I guess all in all, I would agree with you whole-heartedly if it weren't for the coming of Jesus followed by the Holy Spirit. His coming stands in direct opposition to the idea that God does not interact with man or that man is "known" by God. I think God could have been or remained silent, but he wasn't and isn't.
Not to say the interaction is not a struggle or frustrating. This is scriptural as well. "For now we know in part, as through a dirty looking glass." Paul even knew that to fully "know" God or interact with him will not happen till death but the great hope and Good News of the Gospels is that the way has been restored or, I guess you could say "is being restored."
This is the great beauty of the Trinity. We have been given a part in the inner life of God himself, through indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
Geeze did that sound like a friggin sermon or what?
Repent you filthy bitch-heathen! Buuuuurn that drawer of sin.
Post a Comment