Is He real, to you?
That's been so very...unsettling, this past week.
Is His presence abiding in such a way that you know He's right there, with you?
Or is it something hoped for, believed because of Scripture, alone?
Because He said it's true.
But is it real, to you? Is He real, to you?
Been reading through the major prophets, again. Not in their entirety, but piecemeal. Just...taking in glimpses.
And seeing so much of even the church described therein. Always, with lips that give praise, that speak highly of Him, the proclaim Him as God, as Lord alone...while hearts are consumed with jobs, family, hopes for success.
Which, I know I'm in somewhat a unique position on that front, perhaps. I'd been estranged in varying ways from pretty much my entire family. And have no "family of my own." And have increasingly, over the years, come to experience corporate professionalism as entirely deadening and hopeless. To a point of finally finding hope in Christ. In Him, only.
So, it's His people now who've become a great concern.
...I don't remember who said it, but one of the preachers I listen to said something to the effect of, "we major on minors."
And it's entirely true.
We focus on maintaining doctrine to the exclusion of realizing brotherly love.
We focus on sound theology to the exclusion of seeking to know Christ in spirit and truth.
We focus on maintaining a prayer-life to the exclusion of actuating prayer.
We focus on devoting time to studying Scripture without ever overtly realizing increased nearness to the One by whom it was composited.
We speak highly of Him, but keep Him always at arm's length. As though we're afraid to draw too near to Him.
Like with the professor--one of my former mentors--who told me, last June, not to go "all out" for Christ. Because it's good enough just to be a "normal Christian," just go to church on Sundays and not worry about all the rest. Otherwise, I'd be a target. I'd be attacked on all sides. I'd lose everything.
That probably entirely does constitute the views most folks have of the Lord:
Don't get too close to Him--you'll lose everything!
Which...
...erm...
...yeah, and?
Everything that's here is just transitory, at best. Any love we experience, even, is only a minor reflection of His love. Any joy we might have in accomplishment or attainment or companionship...is only a pale reflection of that which exists in knowing Him.
And, regardless, there are no guarantees that we won't lose everything in a split second, anyway.
Period.
Because the world is still suffering the effects of sin, and the world, the land itself, is revolting against the evils being done. Believe it or not--truth doesn't vary, regardless of acceptance or denial.
He said it would be so, and given all that's been going on, then especially it is proving true.
A matter of sin.
Of having rebelled against goodness, for the sake of doing what we believe is right--doing what's right in our eyes, doing things because they're "the right thing to do," all without subjecting one's own will to God and begging His direction (merely looking at Scripture isn't sufficient--He is the only one who can give proper, apt interpretation).
Over and over and over again, throughout history, that's been the case.
The matter which is most distressing, again, deals with how we relate to God. He's not impartial. He's not off somewhere else, just ignoring everything that's going on. He may be maintaining what most folks would consider "silence," in ways, at this juncture... ..but even that's entirely a matter of perspective and experience, as it's a matter of listening moreso than anything.
It's distressing to hear folks from so many different camps argue either for or against intimacy with the Lord, in varying terms meant to either shame or inhibit or flourish or encourage...as a matter of attempting to get folks to seek the Lord "properly." Even as some such folks view that as being something that must absolutely be without restraint--a matter of uber-familiarity, or otherwise inhibited, then the other side which maintains that unless we're constantly abjectly reverently terrified, we're amiss, is just as far away.
It's a personal relationship, is all. How can you seriously completely outline for someone precisely how they had ought to interact with elder family members, if they have no frame of reference for even beginning? Do you try?
...and, conversely, do you try to restrict people from seeking a deeper relationship with a supportive parent? Because they lack proper reverence? (Pro-Tip: It's impossible for us to properly revere a being so far superior to us, as He is. We can only strive to do so, even knowing we'll always fall short of His glory. But would it be better to refrain from attempt, just for knowing we're incapable of engaging on a level which is properly reverent?...if that were the case, Christ would not have come to us, in the first place. He does meet us where we are. He doesn't leave us where He found us, is all. He will sanctify those who are His, so that we might become more reverent and also more capable of openly abiding in His love.)
Much of what functional living is summarily presents almost a pale reflection of the ways of things. Otherwise, He wouldn't have used verbage He did, in describing His relationship to us as He did.
Granted, I have to make some assumptions about what "healthy parental relationships" are like, but I have a decent idea. If for no other reason than for having looked for it, and for having experienced what there is, with the Lord.
...there's no aberrant disrespect to a beloved parent as a characterizing feature of interaction in a healthy relationship, for one. There is a comfort in being able to share completely openly, when trust is part of the relationship. But not flagrantly disrespectful dialogue--not an equating of self on the same level as the parent, ever. Always that basic reverence, unwavering, even as there's a deep familiarity beyond mere acquaintance. And when it comes to having erred against a parent, there's fear, too. For knowing one's own way has been wrong, for knowing there will be severe disappointment or displeasure, at the very least. There's nothing quite as distressing as failing to live up to the expectations or hopes that someone who loves you deeply and knows you deeply has for you. Even as that love is a buffer--knowing it won't ever fail, regardless of performance or failure--still, it's a serious motivation.
The fear part. The reverence. Yeah, it's part of things. As knowing, to even a small degree, the superiority of the parent, and knowing and respecting the fact that your life is in their hands, and knowing their disappointment is a severe chastening in itself, even as their correction is also very stringent.
But the love, though. The love makes it a desirable thing to just be able to share everything, ask advice of everything, and do whatever would be right by them.
There's not a distance. There's not a sense of obligation to engage in conversation--it's a joy to do so!
Especially knowing so many who don't presently take advantage of the opportunity, on open terms which allow for reverent yet familiar dialogue...
I get so distracted, though. Completely wretched.
Talking at Him rather than to Him. And just as so much of what goes on seems more like long-distance prodding with a stick, as an approach to the throne of grace, the reality is that He's more viable than any of us. We're dust. He's eternal. And, for reasons which He alone truly knows, He wants us to be reconciled to Him.
He came, incarnate, for that purpose, to that end, so to make it possible that His justice remains intact, even as His mercy can be shown to those who approach through Christ, becoming clothed in His righteousness.
He's completely infallible. He never changes. He loves us. And yet we still talk to and about Him as though He's in another room, somehow. Or as though He's either unwilling to comprehend the things that we're asking, unless we state them in terms which are wholly eloquent and completely beyond our normal frame of verbal locution. It's insane.
Seriously.
Vestiges of delusion.
Which, that seems the problem. For some reason, we have a difficult time comprehending and accepting a duality of existence, in terms which exceed comprehension. So long as it's on our terms--yeah, sure, quantum mechanics are totally legit!, not even a question...this universe is totally a "projection," a "simulation," a "digital reality superimposed." But if you try to take all of that (which, granted, has only been "legitimized by science" within the past decade as to've even become publicly available for common reference increasingly over recent years)...take all of that in terms of it being a restatement of that which the Bible teaches of reality, then somehow there's still an internal reluctance to submit to ready and constant realization that everything seen is only superimposed upon a reality which is much deeper and more vast than we're capable of comprehending.
The difference between head- and heart-knowledge, moreover.
It's totally possible to consciously acknowledge something as true, to believe it is true, and yet to refrain from acting upon that truth.
...a seriously weird disconnect, if you really think about it.
Like as, say you know the house you're standing in is on fire. You see things which equate to evidence that the house is on fire. Yet there's no urgency incited by that knowledge. Thus there's no acting upon the knowledge that it's necessary to step outside of the house, or otherwise perish.
You know it's true, you know it's real. Yet, somehow that thought doesn't activate any sort of visceral response to the reality of the situation. Your heart is far from it. There's a serious disconnect.
One of the things which comes to mind, along this, as an evidence of abject degradation of a society is that father's lose love for their children--there's a complete breakdown in family dynamic, in other words.
In Christ, love is the driving force for action. Even as God is love, then love is to rule us. Which is wherein the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath (I don't entirely understand that, at present, but it's been revolving, lately, and these are tenets thereabouts). Love, life, obedience, service of others, and rejoicing in knowing God...
If there's no love, what is there? Paul said without love, everything's empty. Pointless, basically. Just a bunch of activity without ultimate utility.
But that's where we are. We go through the motions, for the sake of believing the routine is sufficient to reap the desired results. Not even as much for the sake of the results, though, as for the sake of doing as is the only thing known to do, so to secure meaningful existence. So to establish and maintain meaning. But for love?
...for love of God?
How can you love He whom you don't know?
And how can you know someone you don't spend time with?
And how can you spend time fellowshipping with someone who's abiding presence you continually disregard?
But how can you have regard for someone's presence, if you can't bring yourself to consciously acknowledge the seemingly "dual-reality" per which they are omnipresent and presently sustaining all of reality?
A lot of it's a matter of fear. It took me years and years to come to terms with a portion of reality being incomprehensibly vast beyond my ability to even begin to comprehend, in terms of the spiritual. So, even dabbling constantly and achieving desired results, there was still a part of me which was desirous of rejecting the truth of "otherness," as it seemed. Because it's just so much "easier" on the mind to only have to accept the things that are visible. It's difficult to be faced with the vastness of the unknown, when it's known there's no conceivable way of even beginning to comprehend the vastness (let alone even that of which it was composed).
But God revealed Himself, making Himself known to various people in history, and then allowing record to be made. So that we can know Him, according to what all He ever revealed.
Still, there's that internal desire to be lord of the realm, thus to reject the reality of anything which doesn't align with that conception. In terms of the supernatural, that's present-day expressed by means of a double-mindedness which simultaneously asserts the reality of God, professes Christ, and yet can't quite bring itself to approach Him except per a sidelong glance. Because who He is completely overwhelms everything else, of life.
Which puts everything to shame. And makes apparent quite how...limited...and absolutely miniscule and incapable we are.
But He loves us, still. And if the way of things described in the Garden, before the fall, is any indication...He wants to fellowship with us. Doesn't need to. Isn't lonely, in any capacity--He's replete, in Himself.
Yet He wants that of us, that we fellowship with Him. They walked and talked with Him.
And He came to restore that which was lost.
To destroy the work of the devil. To reconcile all things to Himself.
That's seriously an inconceivable...honor, even. Humbling, knowing we're not worthy. Which, if there ever comes a point of seeing Him any ways truly, in spirit and truth--humility and contrition are just part of the reality of having ever come to know Him.
Because, compared to Him, we're less than nothing. And given how absolutely good He is, how pure, how loving, how faithful, how patient...anything any one of us has ever attempted on those fronts is complete trash, in comparison. Because our hearts aren't pure.
It's who we are, internally, which flavors everything we do. If there's any amount of pride or self-interest in the working of love or help, then the whole deal is corrupted. Our best efforts are oft harmful, but outside of Christ especially. Largely because we don't know what sorts of spin-offs will become offshoots from those efforts, because we can't control for any ripple effects within ourselves, let alone throughout those surrounding us.
Still, He condescends to work through some of our efforts. As ministry. As charity. As necessity, even, as with those who are His yet who are in positions like Daniel and his friends: believers working in environments which are completely ignorant and/or hostile to the truth of God.
But what would it be, to be unalloyed? What would it be to serve Him, in holiness?
Knowing beyond all shadow of doubt that He is and that He does reward those who seek Him?...and likewise knowing His continual guidance, even through awareness of His constantly abiding presence?
It's not like He leaves. Seriously. We exist in Him, completely, in a very real sense. He holds everything together.
He doesn't falter. He doesn't leave.
But we tend to ignore Him, somewhat pretending He's not consciously presiding in the midst of absolutely everything, everywhere...witnessing all the blasphemy, witnessing the abominable perversions of goodwill, witnessing good being called evil and evil, good. He's not oblivious. He's not absent. He's not ignoring these things. He sees. He feels. He regards it all.
Two things, further, to consider: the wrath of God vs. the wrath of man.
Our ideas of wrath and vengeance are entirely perverted, according to the darkness of our hearts and minds. We tend more toward the idea of vengeance per a bloodlust after what we consider rightful punishment of wrongdoers, based upon often limited understanding of the entire scenario. Moreover, when we conceive of vengeance, we base it upon ideas of what's deserved according to who we are--entirely failing to take account that all sin is ultimately against God, not man. Even one man acting against another in hatred--still sin against God, ultimately. We are His. We were made in His image (in some capacity that I don't understand, except to wonder if it's in terms of being self-aware, able to make decisions, etc.--freewill?), even as we were made lower than the angels. They serve Him, but do they serve and freely fellowship with Him, as Adam and Eve did before the fall? ...I don't get the impression they do, really.
Point being, though, we might take offense, but if we do it's with an entirely limited scope of comprehension. Being inadequate to comprehend the entirety of any such given situation, then we're really not adequate to enact vengeance--especially as, ultimately, the offense is against God at an extreme which we can't really entirely comprehend (or at least only to any extent which we can conceive of His holiness and goodness). He has and does bestow authority to certain people, to enact justice on His behalf, though. But...ultimately...vengeance is His.
He's the source of all goodness, the source of all power. The Majesty of all majesties. And for as loving as He is, then there is wrath engendered against those who despise Him, per their actions and thoughts. Per their rebellion. Only, as I currently (weakly) understand this, the wrath He experiences isn't like ours. He controls Himself, otherwise we wouldn't be here, right now.
Our wrath, on the other hand...at least my experience of it has been that it's not tempered by patience. It springs up, overwhelms, and is often seriously irrational--no matter how understandable the inciting circumstances might be, still our wrath isn't something that tends toward patience.
Our wrath might be sourced from a deep hurt wrought per a serious personal offense, yes. But rarely, barely restrained by anything other than perhaps some notion of self-preservation. And definitely not ordinarily ordered according to true justice, so much as personal ideology.
Which all points back to a need to even understand what justice is. Right doing according to an absolute system of morals is the core component involved, though, so as to have a basis for determining justice. And, within ourselves, we're incapable of knowing everything which might be known, even as to be capable of legitimately ordering values according to a system of absolutes.
If we can't be the author of justice, then we're similarly incapable of indiscriminately determining rightful retribution for violations of morality. Because whether it's a physical, emotional, mental, financial, or social (etc.) violation which yields offense, the core issue is violation of an ultimately moral code of conduct. So, again--against God, ever moreso than man.
(So, that's utterly compounded when a system of justice no longer operates according to the {God-given} absolute system of morality--then, the justice system itself has begun to act against God.)
That's why we can't work righteousness with our wrath, though--we're not in a sufficiently objective position as to really be capable of comprehending the offense. Ever. Not even when we, ourselves, are the victims of dire abuse or intentional neglect or purposed offense. Because we can't comprehend of how vile a treachery against God it is, to've done such a thing against any which He has created, then neither can we truly conceive the due retribution. So, it's not given us to be wrathful.
...although He does seem to have those of His who do periodically and meaningfully express indignation on His behalf, it seems the entire course of their lives were templates of righteousness in continual fellowship with God, not constant expressions of indignation (Moses and the broken tablets, Elijah and the condemnation of false prophets and calling fire upon the armed men come to arrest him, John the Baptist calling all to repentance...our Lord, Jesus, clearing the temple of merchants).
But there's a difference between sincerely adjuring folks to "Repent!, for the kingdom of God is at hand! Turn from your wickedness and seek Him, while He may be found!," and screaming menacingly "You're headed straight for hell! You're a sinner and God hates sin! You deserve hell, and you're going to go there unless you repent and beg God to have mercy upon your wretched soul!"
One comes from an urgent desire to see God's people reconciled to Him, to see God's name glorified, and to see those who blaspheme Him cease doing so (in thought, act, word). The other largely comes from a desire to assert self and a desire for vengeance.
In other words, it's really a matter of what spirit the thing's done in.
Not going to proofread. Time for sleep. But posting anyway, as it were--incomplete thoughts and all. Maybe, Lord willing, to come and finish the point, tomorrow.
No comments:
Post a Comment