Beyond Blind Faith (Hearing God Ch. 3)

Hear this promise of the Lord:

"God is able to penetrate and intertwine himself within the fibers of the human self in such a way that those who are enveloped in his loving companionship will never be alone (HG 43)".

Emmanuel. God is with us. The Lord be with you. I will never be forsaken. We are promised repeatedly through God's word that we will never be alone in this life. Christ Himself says He will never leave us or forsake us. I don't have any profound insight into this for today. I can only think on all of the times in my life that I feel utterly and completely alone. It is a powerful truth to realize that God is not only WITH us, if we belong to Him, He INDWELLS us. He is WITHIN us.

For me this means that when I don't even understand why I feel what I feel or where to begin in pouring out my worries and desires to Him, I have the confidence to say that He has so deeply ingrained Himself in me, that even without my telling Him, He has a full grasp of my every need. This is confidence itself, because it is ONLY He who can fulfill my needs. As the ultimate source of all good things in my life, God is with me.

How do I know that He is with me (beyond what is told to me in scripture and by theologians like Willard)? Willard says, "Our conviction – willing it to be so – is our only proof that God is present in our lives (HG 46)." We often scoff at this blind faith as being rudimentary. Perhaps it is - in the sense that a rudimentary understanding of Him is needed as a foundation for futher understanding of Him. We start here, with the faith that wills us to accept that God is who He says He is. But we don't stop here.

It is dangerous for anyone to assume that blind faith is the only type of faith we need when approaching God. In order to understand the mysteries He wishes to impart to His children, we must always be striving to push beyond a blind acceptance. Willard says that the call to Christ involves the discipline of constant study. We are all made to be theologians. We will not all be Calvin, but we should all use our God-given brains to try and know Him more.

Willard points out one last "proof" that we can have of God's constant presence. He says, "Life with effects beyond the natural always depends upon intimate interactions between us and God, who is therefore present (HG 50)." We, as believers, can SEE God move in this world. We are voyeurs of miracles every day. Any time that we see a life moving in an unnatural direction, we should recognize God at work (God's presence). When a man of God chooses to swallow his pride and admit his wrong before the body of Christ, we KNOW that God has moved and is therefore present. When we follow Christ's example, we KNOW that God has done this in us, because we are incapable of doing this without God.

Choose to see Him act, believers, and choose to "envelop [yourself] in His loving companionship (HG 43)."

Pressing Onward - Hearing God Chapter Two

It was interesting for me to go back and read over the beginnings of this book study on my blog and realize that I had been inclined to focus on very different points in my first reading. Now, I suppose I take some of the earlier truths that I learned for granted and am beginning to be able to find new truths to grapple with in my reading. I think this is the way that God intends to reveal Himself to us through scriptures, giving us layer upon layer of Himself, unfolding Himself one truth at a time.

Yesterday in church, I played "How Firm a Foundation" on my violin. Building this foundation through "His excellent Word" as the hymn sings, is this process of accepting one truth and then stacking upon it another... and another... and another. I used to think that the need to review something I'd already read was a weakness I should not allow myself. What a know-it-all! I now find that I love to reread novels and literary classics and passages of scripture. It's amazing what you can glean the second and third time through!

Now onto chapter two of Willard...

This second chapter led me to think about the role of marriage in God's kingdom. I'm probably not the only one who has ever wondered why in the world Christ would say that marriage does not exist in heaven. I think about how much time and effort goes into this primary relationship of our lives, and I wonder what is it all for if it is not eternal? Well, scripture answers this by referring to marriage as a mysterious earthly example of Christ's relationship to the church.

Willard says that "God’s speaking is intended to develop into an intelligent freely cooperative relationship between mature people who love each other [with agape love] (HG 31)." This cancels out what I was blogging about yesterday, the idea that we can simply go to God to receive our daily list of to do's, and an answer for all of our questions. This relationship with God is RECIPROCAL. It is a marriage relationship.

The ladies of my church are studying Debbie Pearl's Helpmeet, a book on the role of the wife in marriage. It occurred to me yesterday in Sunday school that it would be quite possible to go all of my married life doing all the things that the book suggests that I am meant to do (based on Debbie's interpretation of scripture). I could do these things and generate the APPEARANCE of a great marriage without ever really having a REAL marriage, a real relationship with my husband. By never really stopping long enough to seek to understand my husband - who he is, what his dreams are, what drives him to do what he does - I could in fact be married without having a marriage.

This is what we so often do to God, however. When we approach Him simply as someone to be obeyed and not questioned, someone who cannot be understood, someone who will always be out of reach, we are truly saying that he is UNREASONABLE. Willard often points out in Hearing God that one of our biggest drawbacks in our faith is the assumptions we have about God. He writes about one such assumption in the fact that we often approach scripture with the mindset that we are reading "a book of doctrine, abstract truth about God." This creates a barrier between the reader and God so that "one can search endlessly without encountering God himself or hearing his voice (HG 35)."

It is not until we begin to value the revelation of the character of God through His word, until we truly pray for the desire to know God intimately, that we will begin to journey toward the union that God so earnestly desires to have with us as His creation - that normal life of God's indwelling.

Willard leaves us with two reminders in chapter two regarding our attitude when God does begin to reveal Himself to us. First, he writes that "God’s speaking to us does not in itself make us important (HG 38)." When we receive direct communication from someone of importance, it is often difficult for us not to share this information with others in a way that indicates our own significance in the eyes of our audience. We tend to like to "be in the know," and to make others feel our importance. God's communication, however, should always encourage not our pride, but our humility. We are important to God, but He does not choose to speak to us because we are important.

Lastly, Willard reminds us that "God’s speaking to us does not prove us either righteous or right (HG 39)." I think that this may be hard to grasp, because it seems that God's speaking to us would be a way in which He imparts His will to us. If I follow that will, then it would seem that I were acting in a right way, that I were living righteously even. However, I think the attitude that Willard is exposing in this statement is one we might have when we begin to, again, puff ourselves up with the idea that we are somehow deserving of God's communication because of our own righteousness.

I do not think that God's overtures of communication toward us are conditional on our attitudes, our assumptions, or the general condition of our hearts. God called me when I was in sin, He can speak to any of us whenever and however He chooses. What is conditional on our attitudes, our assumptions, and the general condition of our hearts is our own ability to perceive God's voice and what He is saying to us.

Okay, I'd better get ready for work, before I follow another tangent of conversation on this topic. Feel free to comment...

Back to Hearing God - Chapter One

Okay, since it's been a long, long time since I posted anything on this book study, I've decided to start back at the beginning. After putting the book aside for quite some time, I decided there was more to be gleaned from finishing it. But here on the blog, I'm starting back with chapter one, hoping it might be helpful to me and to others to make some basic observations (bringing Willard out of the clouds and hopefully putting some of his ideas in laymen's terms)...

In looking at what I've hi-lighted, the first thing I saw as being important to reiterate is what Willard expresses as "the blasphemous idea that everything that happens in this world is caused by God (HG 18)." Not to delve deeply into what could quickly become a Calvinist/Armenian debate, there is a point at which a believer must realize that though nothing in life can escape God's control, yet not all things are DIRECTLY caused by God. If you look at the classic story of Job, I think this fact is fairly clearly evidenced.

God ALLOWED Job to suffer, but God was not the CAUSE of this suffering. In fact, contrary to what Job's friends believed, Job's suffering was not even a result of Job's own sin. There are times that we must recognize that God is not to be blamed for certain events in our lives, though He retains control of both our lives and the situations which effect them. I think parenthood might give us the easiest approach toward grasping this idea.

As a parent, my actions assist in bringing my child into existence (and facilitate its continuance). There are times that I directly intervene in my child's life, even cause what seems like suffering to my child as a means of discipline or protection. There are other times when my child suffers by his or her own hand, reaping the consequences of his own sin or poor choices. At times I may have the opportunity to step in to stop my child from experiencing the consequence, but I choose to ALLOW this peril to befall him or her, knowing that as James says in scripture, "the testing of your faith produces endurance. And let endurance have its perfect result, so that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing."

This may seem like a tangential conversation, but it is essential that the believer understand that God is not to be blamed in suffering, which Paul tells us is the NORMAL existence for the Christian. Actually, I would venture to say that to be devoid of trials and suffering is to be devoid of Christ himself. In fact, what Dillard speaks about as "The normal human life God intended for us: God’s indwelling his people through personal presence and fellowship (HG 18)" has everything to do with trial and will involve its fair share of pain.

Willard laments (and I do with him), that far too often "Our relationship with God is treated as no more than a mere arrangement or understanding that Jesus and his Father have about us (HG 22)." I know I am guilty of thinking that way from time to time. With this attitude, we relegate God to an adopted philosophy, in turn not only missing out on the fellowship we could experience with Him, but also starving ourselves of what both Willard and scripture refer to as the "daily bread" of "personal communion and communication with God (HG 23)."

Out of the midst of trial and suffering so common in the Christian faith comes the instinctual desire to reach out to God Himself as the source of our comfort, relief, and REST. We cannot reach out to a mere god who is the central figure of our life philosophy. He is no more than the one on whom we can cast blame when events turn against us. Besides this, continually treating God in this non-relational manner will lead us "to abandon faith in our ability to hear from God," an action that Willard declares "is to abandon the reality of a personal relationship with God" entirely (HG 26).

Blasphemy of this sort is far more dangerous than blatant disbelief. Buy into the idea that communication with God is simply something that happened in the Old Testament and therefore no longer relevant in our day and age, and you have effectively ripped the very heart out of your own spiritual life. Perhaps as dangerous, though, is approaching communication with God as a means of determining every direction for your own life. Willard bluntly states: "Extreme pre-occupation with knowing God’s will for me only indicates my overconcern for myself (HG 28)."

Our goal then is not only to recognize that God has the power and desire to communicate with us as His creation regularly and intimately, but it is also to recognize that God desires much more than to provide a daily dictation of directions for our lives. Even more, it is not until we take the focus off of our selves and dedicate our full attention to God's greater purpose that we can fully accept the suffering that has been granted to us on behalf of Christ. This is what God wishes to communicate to all who long to have the normal life He intended - His indwelling of His creation on a daily basis, providing for every need, fulfilling every created purpose in human life.

Lamentations

I was just lamenting the fact that a friend had not posted since September 19 (or was it the 16th?). Anyway, I suddenly realized how hypocritical that was coming from someone whose last post was on the 5th of the month that is now nearly over!
This month has been a, well, a HELL OF A MONTH. And I don't necessarily mean that in a good way. Right now I am lamenting the loss of this month, because I have only a few weeks left before I head to Montgomery to take my Series Seven licensing exam.
So much has happened in the past month. Geoff and I went through a harrowing trial of the progress we've made in our marriage relationship - and came through with a sense that what God builds, nothing can destroy. That was both a hardship and a blessing. Also this month, a friend of mine was sent to jail on murder charges. Definitely not an easy thing to deal with. And in the midst of it, another major hardship has befallen my foo (family of origin).
I am impressed by some of what I've been reading lately in Dallas Willard (I plan to update the blog with some of my learnings soon). Willard says, wisely I think, that it is only the immature believer who thinks that to be in God's will means to live a life that is devoid of risk and hardship. Like Job's friends, we too often look on from the outside at those who are suffering and wag our tongues about what that person should have done differently. We too often assume that they must be acting apart from God's will if these trials are upon them. It is just as likely, if not more likely when the sufferer is a growing believer, that they ARE in the midst of God's perfect will and that it is BECAUSE they have chosen to stay within his will that they are living in these trials.
This is certainly not the easiest theology to swallow, especially when you or a loved one are/is the one who suffers. More on this later. For now, it's off to work I go...

The Normal Human Life

I have already addressed my personal issues with the whole idea that conversations with God occur mostly in the heart of the believer, and I’ve also touched briefly on the idea that man was created expressly for communication with God. Now I would like to investigate one idea further.

On page 18, Willard states that “the normal human life God intended for us” involves “God’s indwelling his people through personal presence and fellowship.” This gets into two basic ideas that Willard will investigate more deeply further along in his book. The first is that the example that we are given to follow for our manhood is Christ; and the second is that nothing in creation exists apart from the thought and spoken word of God.

I know these are very intellectual concepts, but I’m hoping that in some small way I can make them a bit more understandable. Let’s take the first idea – Christ is the perfect example of what it means to be a man. On the surface, this seems like a truth that all believers recognize and apply in their daily living. After all, isn’t that the goal of every true believer – to do what Jesus would do? But look at the idea a bit more deeply, and I think we will sense a bit of a defensiveness against the concept. The point could be made that Christ was 100% divine as well, fully God and fully man indwelling a single human form. I think that the point that Willard is making here is that Christ, God and man indwelling a single human body, is exactly what God would have EACH of us to be. When we say that Christ acts within us, that we have Jesus in our hearts, that we belong to God even, we become vessels prepared for God’s indwelling. And this is perfection – what Willard refers to as “the normal human life God intended for us.”

The second idea that this gets at is that nothing exists apart from the thought and spoken word of God. Willard will go more in depth on this idea later – referring to creation and the fact that God called into being (with spoken word) each object in existence. This idea of nothing existing apart from the mind of God is one I think we will not fully be able to grasp in our finite minds, because it is about God’s infinitude. It is a concept that confused me as a teen, because logic would move us towards the ever popular “I think therefore I am” – so do we exist only in the mind of God? This calls into question the very reality of our existence (we are a figment of God’s imagination). However, I think the only proper thing to realize when we get to this point in our musings is that the mind of God is infinitely greater than the finite mind of man. While what I imagine has no substance or structure, in fact, ceases to exist the moment it slips from my mind, what God imagines IS.

Anyway, that’s a lot of heady stuff for this morning. I am hoping it might instigate a bit of conversation or thought…

Still Reading

I am torn between going ahead and commenting on what I've read recently a bit further into the book, or sticking with Chapter One until we exhaust it. I have read ahead some and jumped back some, trying to let the information in one chapter influence my re-reading of a second chapter. It occurred to me that I ought to read this book this way because Willard answered my first blogged question shortly past the point that I had read to when I wrote the blog.

For now I will try to stick with a discussion of the first chapter before moving on.
Let me say this, I don't always contaminate a book with a lot of hi-lighting and handwritten notes, but this book begs to be marked in. I find when I go back to blog on a point, I need to have the hi-lighter guide my way through all of the script to find the points I wanted to write on. So I am going back over my hi-lighted points of chapter one, and then will begin to address the discussion questions (or those I feel would be good for a blog) at the end of the chapter.

Lord I Believe (Lord Help My Unbelief)

An interesting point Willard makes in HG (not going to cite at the moment because I don't have the book in the room with me, but I'm sure it will come up again) - he says that to believe that God no longer speaks to us in the ways in which he spoke to folks in the Bible is to not believe that God is who He says He is. Early in my reading, I have found myself thinking that he would confirm my idea (and one shared by many that I've spoken to on the subject) - that God no longer uses the methods found in scripture to speak to His people. I went through this elaborate logic path to basically conclude that the presence of scripture and the Holy Spirit are sufficient for this day and age and that the presence of angels and visions and dreams are unheard of today.
I find that in my heart I harbor a great spirit of skepticism, and I realize that some of this has to do with that idea I shouldn't have and don't want to have, that I know it all. It is all too easy for me to assume that I can reason out the modern times and what I know of church history and of theology and conclude that the God of the Bible is not exactly the same today as He was then. Willard would retort that this is a blasphemous thought. If God gave us scripture as our guidelines for living (and this is what we say we believe), then we must believe that who He is in scripture is who He is today. And if who He is has not changed, then the way He relates to us has not changed.
This is a fascinating thought that I want to continue to revisit and to search out for myself, because if it is true - if God still speaks to His people through angels and His voice and visions and dreams - then this opens up the possibility that anyone (myself included) can have REAL conversation with God. And Willard says this is exactly what God wants. And in my heart that seems to be true - conversation is essential to any relationship.
Anyway, that thought excited me in the midst of some really intellectual stuff about space and time and physics, so I thought I would point out the bit that I understood... (I think)

Recovering from my Biases

"If we give primacy to forms of communication that God does not on the whole prefer in relation to his children, that will hinder our understanding of and cooperation with his voice" (HG, 27).

Something I did not consider in my initial response to Ch. 1 was the fact that I was probably allowing my own biases to completely shape my approach to the idea of Hearing God. As I have continued to read, I have been confronted with the fact that God is always speaking - but I am not always listening. I am noticing that the problem is me, not God. That often my motives for wanting to hear God are selfish and impure. And often I approach God with a spirit that has it all figured out. I assume too much - God is "supposed" to act in this way. I almost tend to go to Him with the idea that He is only there to confirm what I have already figured out for myself. How arrogant of me to assume that I know the mind of God! Or perhaps it's not that I KNOW what I want Him to say, it's that I WANT to hear a specific something so much, that I tune out His true word. Ever the skeptic, I am the child that comes to ask my father for bread, all the while expecting to receive a stone.

Willard does confront the issue later in the book that the fundamental issue at the heart of hearing God is a matter of what we believe about God. If our view of God is skewed, we will never hear Him. This makes me think of Jesus' time, when everyone was looking for the Messiah to be a valiant warrior and someone who would overthrow the government. They totally missed the One that God sent. Now I am having to confront the erroneous ways in which I view God. And trust me, there are a lot of mixed messages swimming around my head...

First Thought on Ch. 1

This is my first thought in reading chapter one of HG. I haven't finished the chapter and am doing my best to take it very slowly, so my initial reaction will be more informed later (and therefore may change later) when I finish the chapter and/or the book.

On p 16, Willard says that he comes to recognize a "characteristic thought and impulse" as God's speaking. This seems to me to be in line with what we are taught as Christians to assume that God's voice is, but I feel that this is somewhat dim/disappointing. I am guessing that this "thought and impulse" is supposed to be a deeper form of conversation (like ESP - a direct communication to the brain and/or heart). But supernatural as conversing with God must be, I would expect it would be more satisfying and real than having a human to human conversation.

I think that I know what Willard means by these "thoughts and impulses." I too have had moments where for no deeply held reason, I felt convicted that I should make a certain decision (like choosing to go to Samford over Bham Southern for college); and these are moments of enlightenment that I have attributed to God showing me His will.

But am I wrong to feel that this is not nearly satisfying enough? Is imperfect communication part of God's design - so that we remember to continually yearn for heaven, when we will be in constant communion with God? Going back to God speaking to Moses face to face as a man to his friend, am I wrong to find that far more preferable to some often-inscrutable, but persistent thought or impulse that leads me with no words said?

Preface - the Premise of Friendship

I read the Preface of Hearing God (HG) last night, and was struck by a certain premise on which Willard is basing his book - that ultimately we are created specifically to have a relationship with God (10). I don't think that this is something that I often overlook, but I think what I do often miss is the TYPE of relationship God designed this to be. I often think of my relationship to God as one either of parent/child or of master/servant. While this is not an erroneous view of that relationship, it can lead to an erroneous view of what God wants from us. I will admit that I tend to look at God as having a "to-do" list for my life. He gives orders; I follow them. But there is a much deeper relationship God seeks to build with men.

Willard focuses in the Preface on the friend/friend nature of the God/man relationship. Note the following passages:
Ex 33:11 - where God speaks with Moses "face to face, as a man speaks to His friend"
Ps 23 - I never really paid attention before to the constant side by side presence of God in this psalm, and this made me realize that I tend to think of God like a distant relation - someone who cares for me but is ultimately far removed from my day to day situation

Going back to the master/servant relationship, Willard notes that even if I were to DO everything God commands explicitly in scripture, I may still not BE the person He wants me to be (11). He follows by citing what I think is a fairly unpopular parable with both the Pharisees and the modern day church - Luke 17:7-10. I would summarize this parable by saying that it is a reminder to us as servants that when we do the will of God, we do only our basic duty, yet we expect to be rewarded as if we have done something above and beyond what we are capable of. It makes me think of writing a C paper and complaining because I wasn't given an A. (Willard says that this parable will be part of the foundation of the entire book).

The final note that I made from my reading last night was Willard's point that merely "doing" actually limits our spiritual growth. I think we as humans seek the easy route to the perfect life, and as Christians we are no different. Give me a checklist of all that I have to do to fix everything. Willard's reminder in the preface is that God wants more from us than obedience. Yes, we have a list of do's and don't's to follow, but these are absolute basics. If we want a true spiritual life, we cannot just DO it, we must learn to also BE it.

I am left with one final question which I technically think is totally unanswerable in this life - why would God choose us as friends?

Developing a Conversational Relationship With God

We (my mom and I) are starting a book study on Dallas Willard's work "Hearing God." The book was originally titled "In Search of Guidance," and it was written to address the following questions:

• How do we hear God's voice?
• How can we be sure that what we think we hear is not our own subconscious?
• What if what God says to us is not clear?

I am particularly excited about studying this book because these are questions I ask myself regularly in my walk. It is confusing to know whether or not we are simply believing something because we want to believe it or because it really is true; and while the Bible is our guideline for truth, the relational part of a walk with God is not always tangibly spelled out in scripture.
Since mom has the book already, she'll probably go ahead and get started on the discussion, which we will have online on this blog over the next few weeks, months, or however long it takes us to get through this piece. If anyone else has read the work or wants to read along and add comments, feel free.