CONSIDERING THE FINDABILITY OF GOD Iain McKillop
CONTENTS:
INTRODUCTION
I apologise for using in the clumsy-sounding words ‘findability’ and ‘knowability’ in exploring human relationships with God in this study: Both are relatively ugly terms using unconventional English. Yet ‘knowability of God’ has been used as a technical term in theology when discussing levels of ability or lack of ability to comprehend the divine. To me, ‘findability’ is a more useful, meaningful term, since it includes both the ideas that we might be searching for God, and God’s self-revelation to help human beings in their search. ‘Findability’ is used by the theologian Helen Oppenheimer, in one of my favourite theological quotations about the role of the Church in the world, which will be examined later in this study: “We are not trying to pronounce about what God can or cannot be, but about how God can be found in our world… God’s people have the hopeful responsibility of being the presence, the findability of God upon earth…Our diversity should enable God to be found in all areas of life in the world…The word multi-faceted comes to mind… the church may be a prism breaking up the white light of God’s dazzling majesty.” [Helen Oppenheimer, Theology 93:1990 p133-141].
II can imagine some Christians asking quite understandably: “What possible difficulties can there be over whether God is ‘findable’: The Hebrew and New Testament scriptures are full of stories of people who encountered God and to whom God communicated. Jesus Christ himself claimed that he had made God known. The orthodox traditional Christian belief is that God was revealed in human form in Jesus of Nazareth. God wants a relationship with human beings, and has said ‘those who seek will find me’... So of course God is knowable!” However, if finding God was easy surely the world would be far more full of believers than it is. Christians would not fall away because they encounter doubt and sceptics about faith could be easily given proofs that would convince them.
How far God can be found or known by humankind has been a regular question for theologians and general believers, throughout Christian history. Beliefs in some divine power or powers beyond ourselves and an invisible, personal force or forces controlling the cosmos have been a common feature of most cultures. Peoples have possibly searched to understand appease and communicate with that power since the beginning of human culture. In some beliefs, the gods were so far beyond human beings that they were only able to be acknowledged and appeased, certainly not powers to try to know as friends. Many tribes believed that their specific god or gods were on their side and they developed more direct relationships with them. Certain texts in the Hebrew Scriptures explore how far humanity could know their invisible and un-representable God. So the knowability of YHWH was probably debated through Jewish history, as it has been in philosophy since classical times. Certainly the compilers of the Wisdom Books express such questions.
It is significant for Christians to consider how far believers are able to find and know God, since our faith is based around belief that we are able and indeed intended or called to develop relationships with God and to help others by our ministry and witness to find God themselves. Jesus of Nazareth taught that he “made God known”. He clarified and claimed to improve the interpretations and assumptions about God that Judaism had derived from the Hebrew Scriptures and traditions over previous centuries. In doing so, he revealed more expansive truths about God than had been unveiled before. He taught that he wanted his followers to “know God”, and claimed to be the Way by which we could do so. The Early Christian Church often called themselves “followers of the Way.” So, if many aspects of God are ‘incomprehensible’, as certain passages in both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament recognise, the Christian has to find whatever ways he or she is able to relate to the invisible and mysterious God through the insights, revelations and traditions that are open to us. Christians believe that we do so primarily through the revelation given by Jesus and that we communicate primarily by prayer and reading scripture.
It has been common but fallacious to interpret the evangelical phrase “believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved” as meaning that salvation comes easily, as a blessing and benefit directly from God in reward for believing or professing the right doctrines. This was a mistake particularly at the time of mediaeval crusades against heresies, then during the Reformation and Counter-Reformation, and continues today in certain divisions between Evangelical, Liberal and Traditionalist Christians. Many secessionist groups and certain traditionalists believe that only they are properly saved because only they subscribe to the correct doctrines and practices. I have met several who speak and act as though they believe this. At several times in Church History Christians with varied interpretation of doctrine and strict ideas of God have been tortured or killed in attempts to force them to confess the doctrines or adopt the lifestyles of the dominant Christian group of the time. This seems as hypocritical as American Christians who support the gun lobby, which kills thousands of children yearly, yet oppose abortion on the grounds that it kills the child, or African bishops who incite the murder of homosexuals and others of different lifestyles to the norm to which they subscribe. In none of these cases is their understanding of God’s precepts broad enough to be valid.
Authentic Christianity is far more than knowing, or thinking we know what scripture and doctrine teach about God and how Christians should behave. We are intended to develop a practising relationship with God and actively live fully, truthfully and righteously by the ways that we believe are revealed as God’s ways. Belief and practice are indivisible in true Christianity. One might even argue from Jesus’ practice, and teaching on religious laws that the way we act is more important than the refinement of details of our doctrines, while accepting the general statements of the traditional Creeds. If we are to live well as Christians it is important to be as assured as possible that we are building our life and faith on true foundations. Some interpretations of scripture, ways of relating to God and doctrinal understandings will inevitably differ, as people’s minds work differently. Not all believers share the same backgrounds or spiritual experiences, so we may well hold different expectations of faith and interpret God’s truth and God’s expectations of us according to those backgrounds. Scriptural teaching is not always as clear-cut and precise as some interpreters claim, or would like it to be. Therefore, some will inevitably understand some things differently from other believers.
‘Facts’ that Christians believe they know about God commonly derive from scripture, tradition, reasoning and experience. The Bible is ancient literature, and some consider its contents, and past traditions based on it to be outdated. Nevertheless, the Bible is the foundation of Christian faith, containing descriptions of the ways that God is conceived as having worked through millennia of human history. Its various genres of literature, from legendary stories, histories, poetry, prophetic literature to doctrinal letters etc. build up much imagery of the character, nature and activity of God. The New Testament particularly roots Christian understanding of God in the teaching, and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth. He claimed that he had come to fulfil and not to change the scriptures Rather he showed people how to reinterpret scripture in the light of his teaching on God. Building on this bedrock, theologians have created tomes of doctrines and traditional ways of conceiving of God, which have fed into the liturgies and literature of the Christian Church and built up what are known as Christian ‘traditions’.
Augmenting this philosophers and theologians have applied reason to try to further expand ideas about God over centuries, exploring evidence for God’s existence etc. Inevitably, because human beings vary so much in character, in the ways that our minds develop understanding and in our experiences and backgrounds, not all scholars interpret scripture, tradition and reason in the same ways or come to the same conclusions. This accounts for multiple variations in theological understanding around the churches of the world. Our different personalities will express our response to God in a variety of ways, which will inevitably develop into differences in Christian practices, forms of prayer and worship. We need to find the ways of understanding, relating to God and expressing that relationship in prayer, worship and communal Christian life that are true for the individual Christian in their particular culture and situation and at the same time contribute to the body of Christian believers.
Though scripture, tradition and reason tell us about what God is thought to be, and are foundations upon which Christians build faith and seek to develop relationships with God, the knowledge they give is not actually ‘knowing God’ as a practising relationship with God. The ‘findability of God’ needs to be experienced in a living and active interaction with God, both individually and corporately, since Christians are not meant to be self-contained. We have a calling to spread faith as well as contribute to building up other Christians and witnessing to others wo do not yet believe. For a healthy, stable, human personality, we need to interact with people in human relationships and to interact with God in the less tangible spiritual world. To find and know the invisible God involves an interior practice of prayer as well as corporate worship, intellectual exploration, and relating to what is said about God in scripture. And interpreted in true church teaching. Christianity calls us to live and act in the light of true teaching and to open ourselves to a spiritual relationship with an invisible being.
Even deeper than assenting to the Church’s creeds, is the search to find what is true and live by it. I will expand on this later, but when one studies both the past and present Church, one realises that there has probably been as much deception, dissembling and hypocrisy throughout Church history as there has been in the history of human politics. Christians may make their statements of faith as inclusive and traditionally ‘sound’ as possible, but if we are not living by the ways that Christ taught, he would say that we are “hypocrites” [Matt.23:13ff], even “whitewashed tombs” [Matt.23:27]. St. Paul might label us “a clanging gong or a tinkling symbol” [1Cor.13:1]. The Epistle of James reminds us that “Faith without works is dead” [Jas.2:14-18].
Religious thinkers vary in their interpretation of how we might relate to God. Some claim that God must be knowable to a satisfying degree, since scripture and our psychological make-up suggest that human beings are intended to nourish the spiritual elements of our nature and satisfy our inner longings by relating to a spiritual dimension beyond ourselves. Others claim that God is as unknowable as God is invisible and inscrutable, since God is in a completely different dimension from our own, so we can only contemplate that dimension silently and as a mystery, rather than expecting that we might be communicated with or mightcomprehend. Other believers claim that God reaches beyond the spiritual dimension to communicate with us by special revelation, and did so particularly through Jesus Christ and the canonical scriptures. Some believers claim that in this world human beings alone are able to conceive of and perceive God because only we share aspects of the divine image, and that no other creatures have a sense of God. This is not the idea expressed in several Psalms, which contain the wider view that all things in the created cosmos, even inanimate objects, have awareness of their creator and in their own way praise God. But this may of course be poetic picture-imagery rather than literal, since we consider much material in creation to be insensate. Whatever truths may be in any of these propositions, certainly part of the Christian faith and discipleship encourages believers to find ways of relating to God and to follow life-practices and understandings of God that conform to what is are revealed through scripture.
Theologians often emphasise that anything authentic that we may know of God comes from God’s self-revelation, rather than anything that human beings can perceive or discover. But we have been given minds, so reason and revelation often work together and should complement one another. God is spirit, therefore very different from the essence of human beings, and God as ‘spirit’ inhabits such a different dimension that many claim that God is beyond the potential of any form of human perception or communication. Some suggest that no-one should expect to know or relate to God in any comprehensively meaningful way. Others claim that although God can never be known comprehensively, God has chosen to self-reveal in various ways and forms to deliberately help us develop a relationship. I personally believe that we are given sufficient knowledge to understand God’s care for us, to know how to live righteously, to accept God’s gift of salvation and to personally relate to God. Such revelation, is described as being given by God’s Spirit to the writers, prophets and compilers of scripture and is revealed to us through reading and contemplating the stories, lives and events in Bible history, (and presumably events and spiritual experiences since). Especially, we believe, God sent Jesus of Nazareth and the Holy Spirit after him to continue to teach, guide and inspire human minds and lives.
These forms of revelation are intended to enable us, as God’s creation, to comprehend sufficient spiritual truths and facets of the divine to relate to God personally, in meaningful ways that fulfil the spiritual needs of human beings. Scripture contains promises that such self-revelation will increase in the eternal dimension after death. “Now we see as in a mirror dimly, but then we shall see face to face” [1Cor.13:12]. This promise may again be picture language: we cannot be certain that is it is promising that we will actually “see” God or Christ visibly in the dimension where they are. Yet it promises that in some way believers will share that dimension with them. There are plenty of descriptions of the qualities of the Kingdom of God in scripture but we have little idea of what that spiritual life might be like in the dimension we call ‘heaven’. Spiritual promises are nevertheless tantalising: “Beloved, we are God’s children now, and what we shall be has not yet been revealed. What we do know is this: when he is revealed we will be like him, for we will see him as he is.” [1Jn.3:2].
The idea of the presence of God being visible in future is probably more about spiritual than physical ‘perception’. Of the redeemed in the New Jerusalem the Book of Revelation promises: “the throne of God and the Lamb will be in it and his servants will worship him, and they shall see his face” [Rev. 22:3-4]. Once again, as with the apocalyptic imagery which precedes these verses, such as ‘the River of the Water of Life’ and ‘the Tree of Life’... ‘with fruit in every season’... and ‘leaves for the healing of the nations’, we are reading metaphorical imagery, so we cannot be certain about what is meant by ‘seeing God face to face’. Similar phraseology is repeated elsewhere in scripture. In several passages it is suggested that God ‘spoke’ to certain people “face to face”. Again this does not necessarily imply that they saw or heard physical manifestation, but that they received some form of communication or insight [Gen.32:30; Ex.10:28; Num.12:8; 14:4; Deut.5:4]. Several times when God is described as warning “I will hide my face from them” the implied meaning is that people will be placed outside divine care and protection [Lev.17:10; 20:3-6; Deut.31:17-20]. So ‘seeing face to face’, could be imagery for being close to God’s protection and sensing that we are in God’s presence and under God’s care. Moses is claimed to have met God in more direct physical manifestations and communicated with God as with a friend [Ex.3:6; 33:11; Deut.34:10]. However this is not explained sufficiently to understand thoroughly what Moses experienced, nor are the ways in which prophets received insights from God,
The claims that Jesus made about his knowledge of God imply a very different, more direct and deeper level of communication. He is recorded as speaking as though he had seen his Father and experienced the spiritual world tangibly, both before his incarnation and in his relationship with God in prayer during his time on earth. He claimed: “No one has seen the Father, except the one who is from God; he has seen the Father” [Jn.6:46]. “... the Father knows me and I know the Father” [Jn.10:15]. He told both his disciples and detractors that he only spoke and did what he had heard from his Father and had been commissioned to communicate and do [Jn.5:17, 19-23, 25-31, 36-37; 10:18; 12:49-50; 14:31]. In the context of his claim: “I saw Satan fall from heaven like a flash of lightening” [Lk.10:18], it is not clear whether Jesus was speaking of what has become called ‘the Fall of the Rebel Angels’, or using picture imagery to describe to the seventy disciples who had returned from mission, that their ministry had been successful in thwarting the progress and influence of evil and bringing light to the people to whom they had been ministering. The model of Jesus’ relationship with God differs from ours, yet it sets us examples of ways of prayer and openness to God, since he taught Christians to relate to God more intimately than in previous generations. He encouraged us to understand and relate to God, among other aspects, as ‘Father’, to himself as ‘friend’, and to the Holy Spirit as ‘guide’ and ‘paraclete’ [‘advocate’ working alongside to help us].
Much of the discussion in this study has philosophical elements within it. But the question of the knowability or findability of God is far more important than notional theorising over ideas. It is important for Christians to develop a reasoned apologetic for our faith, which can help us witness more effectively by explaining our understandings of some of the mysteries of faith as clearly as possible. Even more importantly, the primary value of exploring how far God is ‘findable’ is to help believers find the true ways that best help us to understand true aspects of the nature of God and give us the confidence in our faith that can help us relate to God authentically ‘in spirit and in truth’ [Jn.4:23-24].
In much Christian communication we talk rather loosely about ‘having a relationship with God”, “being brought into a relationship with God”, and “loving God”. To help others develop real faith and to be authentic on our own relationships with God and worship, it is useful to consider what such a relationship means and the qualities of such a relationship. Some imagine their connection to God in rather sentimental ways. Several Evangelical songs and choruses about loving God and God’s creation are sung using the words ‘love’ and “the beauty of God” very romantically. Some Victorian hymns and poems also express faith over-sentimentally. How we love the invisible God authentically is an important element of discipleship. When Jesus taught about loving him and loving the Father, his emphasis was not so much about sentiment but far more on the practice of doing God’s will, obeying the ways taught and recorded in scripture and obediently following the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Loving God is therefore more about obedient discipleship than having sentimental feelings towards God. That is not to say that Christians who sing of their love of God and the beauty of God are not feeling sincere emotions. It is easy, particularly in large-scale, corporate praise and worship or in personal responses to emotional music or poetic words to stir inner feelings in ways that are not necessarily spiritually true. But many Christians are sincere in their loving response to the perfection of God. Our gratitude for what God has done for us is enough to stir sensations of love. At many times in my spiritual life I have felt caught up in thankfulness and praise, or been deeply moved in my inner response to God. But, as in mature human relationships, love is much more than surface emotion or even inner feelings emotions. Human relationships may grow to a stage when sentimental or passionate feelings are not necessarily part of our response to the one we love. Mature love expresses itself in deep, selfless, practical commitment, and recognition of the breadth of qualities in the one to whom we are committed. That is the sort of outgoing agapé love expressed in 1Cor.13: love that is ‘patient, kind, not envious...not insisting on its own way... rejoicing in the truth; bearing, believing, hoping and enduring all things.”...etc. Love for God can be similarly practical, certainly not selfishly saying that we love of worshipping with the expectation or pretext that we will be blessed as a result.
Some Psalms talk about “the beauty of God” [Ps.27:4; 50:2] and occasionally Christian songs have taken up this metaphor in a rather sentimental way. The ‘beauty of God’ is not of course a physical beauty that we see with our eyes or inner eye. We may occasionally perceive aspects of beauty in the ways that we believe God’s qualities are reflected within the cosmos and how we sense meaning in beautiful details of the created world. But when scripture talks of God’s beauty it is often principally referring to God’s perfection, having insight into an attractiveness in the truths that have been revealed about God or the perfect ways in which God is conceived as working. In Ezek.33:32 God’s voice communicating to the people is described as ‘beautiful’, which may be interpreted as ‘meaningful’, ‘full of good promises’, ‘truthful’ but Ezekiel claims that God’s people refused to respond to the beauty of God’s love-song to them or follow and obey God’s message.
When we consider ‘love of God’ as active, obedient discipleship and ‘the beauty of God’ as recognising valuable truths about God, the relationship which Christians develop with God can become stronger, authentic and more practical in the ways in which we live out our faith. There will inevitably be emotion in some of our responses to God, because we are emotional beings. The emotion in people’s relationships will of course vary, because many of us feel and express emotions differently. But feeling love towards God and responding to the beauty in God’s truths can be far deeper and more intensely recognised than the shallow emotions or surface sentimentality found in some simplistic Christian songs and poetry.
Jesus prayed that his followers might “know God” and they knew himself [Jn.17:3]. Thomas Aquinas claimed that to ‘know God’ is the main goal of human life. The first answer of the Protestant Westminster Shorter Catechism states (with apologies of the non-inclusive language): “Man’s chief aim (or ‘end’) is to glorify God and enjoy him for ever”. ‘Enjoying God’ implies a certain degree of ‘knowing God’, (though it could be argued that we could glorify God without necessarily knowing God, by living the lives that we have been given - righteously and abundantly fulfilling the gifts and abilities that we have). If it was impossible to know God to any useful degree, surely much of our confidence in the Christian faith would be futile. All Christian ministry is to a significant degree focused on trying to enable people to find a relationship with God that gives them a positive sense of spiritual satisfaction, inner peace and the security of knowing that they are valued, loved and forgiven. We may not be able to know God comprehensively or comprehensibly, but surely we are intended to know enough of what has been revealed about God to find and enjoy the salvation that Jesus claimed to have achieved for us, and to respond to God with appreciation and worship.
Theologians like Karl Barth have written many thousands of words theorising over the philosophical idea of whether we know God, as did Thomas Aquinas centuries before. But our primary need is not to form rational arguments or well-reasoned rhetorical discussions, useful as they may be for justifying the grounds for our faith. We aim to help as many people as possible to find and practise life-enhancing ways of living in God’s presence and understanding God sufficiently to develop a spiritually satisfying, true relationship within the otherwise incomprehensible mystery.
WHAT ‘GOD’ ARE WE SEEKING TO FIND?
If we are seeking to find God or something to believe in, I think we should ask ourselves what might be seeking and why. Are we wanting sincerely to know the truth about what might be behind all things? Are we wanting something to believe in that we can hold onto to fulfil our personal needs or something more comprehensive? Are we just considering an intellectual or philosophical exercise? Do we truly want to find and follow the truth? or are we content just to find out about a religious tradition and perhaps become involved in that traditional culture? Is the tradition of religion that we follow something to which we are willing to give our whole lives because we find it to be true, and will be willing to promote to others as a mission to spread truth? Do we want to be involved in a faith community more for social or cultural involvement? Do we pursue faith to develop inner spiritual feelings, while not necessarily being fully committed to the less comfortable demands of faith? Do we want to remain in control of our own lives or are we willing to submit our lives to the will and purposes of God?
I am writing from a Christian perspective, and the majority of my readers will probably be reading with a similar perspective. But we need to remember that there are multiple ideas of ‘God’ and ‘gods’ in the world. Where does the power we might call the Christian God fit in with the powers within all objects in the thousands of various animist religions and superstitions in the world? Are we looking for a God who is the unifying truth behind the multiple gods or emanations of one spirit in Hinduism and Buddhism? Can the Christian concept of God be in any ways compatible with the perspective on God reflected in the 99 names of Allah in Islam? Do any of these other concepts of God give a broader idea of our Creator than some Christians hold when they just think of God sentimentally as loving, all-powerful friend? Are we seeking to understand God in ways that might be sufficiently logical and acceptable to a physical scientist or philosopher who might need to find a belief that is compatible with their experience of the workings of the cosmos and satisfy the thinking mind?
In this study I do not intend to try to explore what other faiths claim about the findability or comprehensibility of God. I know a little about other religions but have only working knowledge, and no expertise in comparative religion, science or philosophy. I don’t like my Christian faith to be labelled in the way that some Christians prefer to be labelled ‘High-Church’, ‘Evangelical’, ‘Pentecostal’, ‘Roman Catholic’, ‘Protestant’, ‘Anglican’, ‘Quaker’, Orthodox’ etc. I belong to a Church and am ordained as a minster, yet if I am asked to more clearly label myself, I normally just call myself ‘a thinking Christian’. We live in a world where people look at religion and ‘God’ from multiple and often very different perspectives, so the God who Christians seek to teach and evangelise about needs to be convincing to minds that have wider fields of vision and different backgrounds form our own. If, as I believe, the Christian belief in God is true and of universal relevance, we need to have an apologetic that appeals to and is convincing to all who seek truth. As Helen Oppenheimer wrote: “Our diversity should enable God to be found in all areas of life in the world…The word multi-faceted comes to mind… the church may be a prism breaking up the white light of God’s dazzling majesty.” [Theology 93:1990 p133-141].
The many different approaches to understanding and multiple faiths in the world challenge the ways that many Christians think of their faith as exclusively and universally true. However the diversity of faiths and intellectual challenges should not pose threats to the mature Christian mind. It can be useful and strengthening to face questions and consider how other perspectives help us to work out where we believe faith to be true. Christians are not omniscient, so we will never be able to answer all the challenges. We also need to remember that no faith is explicable in totally intellectually convincing ways, since we lack empirical proofs. As Hebrews 11:1 reminds us: “Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things unseen.” Yet not all things in life that are true can be proved. We can never be certain that our understanding of events that have passed is true; we cannot prove that someone loves us. Yet in both cases we trust in their truth and believe that we have certain evidences that affirm our belief.
In his book “All Truth is God’s Truth” the Evangelical philosopher Arthur Holmes employed a useful metaphor of a huge planet to discuss the idea of the truth about God. He described the different religions, philosophies and ways of life in the world, and human minds exploring God and faith, as mines tunnelling into the planet. In their different ways they are delving for truth and uncover ores, precious stones, base metals etc. that may be aspects of the truth of what the whole planet (God) is. Some may find more useful veins than others, which help to positively deepen, strengthen, nourish and nurture human life. (He believes Christianity to be about the fullest of such revelations.) Some tunnels and mines may cross one another and find similar seams and strata. By combining all the most truthful aspects of their discoveries they may be able to expand human knowledge and dispel mistaken ideas, assumptions and theories that have developed in individual sects or through-processes. But they are all still only mining parts of the reality of the planet. The more they mine, the more they may discover, which is why we continue to study and explore faith. If anyone has found anything that it is true, we might be able to add it to our thinking or practice, and gain further enlightenment, even though their way to find, comprehend and respond to aspects of God may not be ours.
It is almost impossible to develop a satisfactory definition or description of God. We are seeking to explain and find an enormous (‘omnipresent’, ‘omniscient’, ‘omnipotent’, ‘immortal’ eternal God of all truth, who is within whatever is true in the world, yet also amazingly, according to the Christian scriptures, cares about all that God has created and wants a covenant relationship with us. The God in whom I have come to believe is involved in whatever is within and behind nature, creation, the whole cosmos, and whatever is true. When I pray I imagine myself sitting in the presence of God as the ‘ultimate Truth’. God is within whatever is true about the forces that formed and sustain the cosmos and whatever encourages true, abundant life. God is in whatever is true in the religions and philosophies of the world... God is in whatever the truth of who Jesus of Nazareth and the Holy Spirit are... God understands the truth of whatever human beings are meant to be and how we are meant to live... We may not ‘find’ God sufficiently to understand God in any comprehensive way, but I believe that whatever is true about God’s Spirit can help people reach towards truth. I believe that it is possible for us to develop our relationship with God when we faithfully open ourselves to truth. If the Church or any religion invents or falsifies experiences or teachings in order to promote itself, it goes against the true God and does not represent true faith.
Amid all the complexity and often apparent diversity in the world, how do we focus on finding truth? Christians are encouraged to judge what is true by whether our conclusions, ways of thinking and living, correspond to the revelations about God given by Jesus of Nazareth. I believe that the ways of living that Jesus taught represent the best, most productive, equitable and enlightening sort of life available to human beings, to abundantly sustain individuals, society and the world environment. His phrase “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life” [Jn.14:6] helps to point us towards the truth of what life is about. Christians believe that Jesus of Nazareth authentically represented God and God’s truth to the world. In mission, if Christians want to bring more abundant life to the world we need to both follow authentically and truthfully represent what we know of God and have learned through Jesus.
We also have a responsibility to keep exploring and living by the truth, in belief that working towards the truth draws us closer to God, and in the hope that we can influence others to also find God’s truth. If we become self-satisfied, which is the impression given by some who feel sure of their faith, we will remain immature in our faith, even if we know a lot about faith and doctrine, because seeking and working towards truth is a constant quest, since God is so enormous a power to relate to, and so far beyond our understanding.
IDEAS OF THE UNKNOWABILITY OF GOD IN SCRIPTURE
In case anyone reading this is concerned that to think of God as ‘unknowable’ is unchristian or antichristian, we need to remember that a significant number of passages in scripture emphasise that human beings can never fully know or understand God. Below is a small selection:
We nevertheless are assured that we have sufficient information to trust God, to be assured of God’s care for us, to be at peace with the promise of salvation, and to be confident that we are able to relate to God through the work of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.
PHILOSOPHICAL DEBATE ABOUT THE UNKNOWABILLITY OF GOD
A Brief selective introduction
The possibility of knowing God has been denied philosophically on various grounds, particularly due to the limits of human cognition. Since the Enlightenment there has been much emphasis on needing to be able to prove something empirically before it should be believed. It has been claimed that our human minds usually only know something to be certain if they physically experience it. Yet many philosophers, even philosophers of science, claim that everything is uncertain and that our present knowledge is at best only temporary. Invisible, intangible and perhaps infinite spiritual things are inevitably beyond being able to be proved empirically by the limited means available to us. The existence of God should not be denied absolutely since, as in science, we assume that much exists, which we do not know and cannot perceive. ‘Atheism’ does not seem to me to be a logical position. A more reasoned-through conclusion based on the limited cognition, knowledge and experience of the human mind should surely be ‘agnosticism’, since reasoning and scientifically-minded minds will never prove the existence of God. Nor should we refuse to believe that incidents which have been ascribed to God could be the result of divine activity. We should not rely on arguments based primarily on silence or lack of evidence. I believe therefore that to claim to be totally atheist is irrational.
Christians, who believe in God and other aspects of Christian doctrine, base their beliefs less on evidence or physical phenomena than on trust in the teaching of scripture, traditions of belief, and through intuitively sensing that there is truth in Christian belief. Certainly the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth offer great potential for fulfilling ways of life. The experiences of Christians worldwide over two millennia suggest that there are sustainable and defensible truths within Christianity, and that we are not totally without evidence for the truth of faith. Many Christians will have had experiences which, though subjective, help to convince them that there is truth behind and within their faith.
Most debate among philosophers and theologians over many centuries has been based on reasoning and abstract theorising rather than from evidence. Despite many attempts it has proved impossible to produce incontrovertible physical proofs of the reality of God. By applying reason to trying to understand the invisible spiritual world many come to the conclusion that God and the spiritual dimension are beyond total human comprehension. But equally many believe that they have reasoned through their faith and understand aspects of God through their spiritual experiences, scripture, Christian tradition, including doctrine and intuition.
The writings ascribed to Dionysus the Areopagite [probably late 5th] conceive of God as a form of “super-existence”. Dionysius’ wrote of God: “God is not intelligible; but above all intellect” [Divine Names iv]... "There is no sense, nor image, nor opinion, nor reason, nor knowledge of Him." [Divine Names i]... “God is known in all things and apart from all things... Therefore everything may be ascribed to him at one and the same time, and yet he is none of these things” [Mystical Theology]. He recognised that people think of God in terms of assumed parallels or similarities to human attributes and aspects of nature, but claimed that none of these could be sufficient: "by the similitudes of the inferior order of things, the superior can in no way be known"... “by the likeness of a body the essence of an incorporeal thing cannot be known. Much less therefore can the essence of God be seen by any created likeness whatever.” [Divine Names i]. Although Dionysius’ writings were greatly influenced by Greek Platonic thinking more than orthodox Christian doctrine, his ideas greatly influenced the development of spiritual thinking of many Christian mystics from Bernard of Clairvaux, the Victorines, and the writer of the C14th Cloud of Unknowing to Thomas Merton.
Early Church teachers described the invisible God variously as ‘unbegotten’, ‘nameless’, ‘eternal’, ‘incomprehensible’, ‘unchangeable’. In some ways this is similar to and borrowed from classical Greek philosophical ideas that the Divine Being must be ‘absolute’ and ‘attributeless’. As the Church developed its theorising about God, these its theologians concluded that God is ‘immortal’, ’omnipresent’, ‘omniscient’ and ‘omnipotent’, but this inevitably led to the belief that God is beyond comprehension and unable to be or apprehended by our limited human senses.
Nevertheless, the Early Church Fathers recognised that it must be possible for believers to relate to and worship God, since God created us for such a relationship and calls for it regularly in both Testaments. John Chrysostom wrote that we can worship God without comprehending God: “No man has seen God at any time... not prophets only, but neither angels nor archangels have seen God. For how can a creature see what is increatable?" [Hom. Xiv]. Commentating on Jn.1:18 he wrote: “Let us evoke him as the inexpressible God, incomprehensible and unknowable. Let us affirm that he surpasses all power of human speech, that he eludes the grasp of every mortal intelligence, that the angels cannot penetrate him, that the cherubim cannot fully understand him. For he is invisible to the principalities and powers, the virtues and all creatures. Only the Son and the Holy Spirit know him.” [John Chrysostom 347-407].
The philosopher David Hume [1711-1776] (who has sometimes been called the ‘father of modern agnosticism’) did not deny the existence of God, but asserted that we can have no knowledge of God’s true attributes. He recognised that all ideas about God, and qualities which scripture ascribes to God, are unprovable and are limited in their scope because they inevitably rely on assumed parallels and anthropomorphic analogies between invisible and our physical world. Spiritual, eternal qualities should not be assumed to be the same as human characteristics and experiences or tangible natural phenomena. None of these parallels can be exact, since they refer to a very different being inhabiting a very different dimension.
David Hume and Emmanuel Kant [1693-1737] believed that all knowledge can only be rooted in experience and reason; in fact Kant believed that we can never entirely know anything in itself. Since the human mind is limited, theoretically we cannot know God. Yet we should not claim that because we do not know something in its entirety it does not exist. The philosopher Rudolf Hermann Lotze [1817-1881] recognised that behind all things, including physical and mental experiences, there may be underlying aspects or truths which we cannot see; so he accepted that the invisible spiritual world is possible. Sir William Hamilton [1788-1856] and Henry Longueville Mansel [1820-1871], though agnostic, recognised that ideas of the Divine, the Absolute and Infinite are so beyond our dimension that they cannot be known, but since they cannot be disproved they should not be denied.
The growth of human knowledge in all fields, throughout history, has been based on finding things that we did not know previously. Faith is involved with conceiving of things that are in many ways beyond our knowledge. We cannot define God, since it is impossible to satisfactorily conceive what a transcendent, perhaps infinite being and power could be like, but it is still possible to believe in God’s existence. “Faith is the assurance of things hoped for the conviction of things as yet unseen” [Heb.11:1].
The theologian Karl Barth [1886-1968] theorised extensively on ideas of how people of faith might know God. He wrote: “(the Book of) Romans is a revelation of the unknown God; God comes to man, not man to God. Even after the revelation man cannot know God, for He is always the unknown God. In manifesting Himself to us He is farther away than ever before”. [Rbr. p. 53 quoted in Zerbe The Karl Barth Theology, p. 82.] Barth stresses that God is the hidden God, who he believed cannot be known for certain from nature, history, or experience, but only by God’s self-revelation in Christ. He claimed that we meet God in Christ when we respond with faith. But even as revealed in Christ, Barth stressed, God is still revealed as a hidden God, because we recognise how far distant God is from human beings. We see God’s qualities taught by and revealed in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, but we do not see God directly. Christ’s teaching and actions open up for us a great amount of useful perspectives onto aspects of God, how God is revealed in divine activity and some ways in which God enters into relationship with those who follow God truly. God is therefore, according to Barth, not ‘unfindable’ but ‘incomprehensible’. He claimed that God acts completely freely, being true to all aspects of God’s nature and character: “On this freedom rests the inconceivability of God, the inadequacy of all knowledge of the revealed God. Even the three-in-oneness of God is revealed to us only in God’s operations. Therefore the three-in-oneness of God is also inconceivable to us. Hence, too, the inadequacy of all our knowledge of the three-in-oneness. The conceivability, with which it has appeared to us, primarily in Scripture, secondarily in the Church doctrine of the Trinity, is a creaturely conceivability. To the conceivability in which God exists for Himself it is not only relative: it is absolutely separate from it. Only upon the free grace of revelation does it depend that the former conceivability, in its absolute separation from its object, is yet not without truth. In this sense the three-in-oneness of God, as we know it from the operation of God, is truth.” [K. Barth The Doctrine of the Word of God p. 426].
SOME POSITIVE VALUES IN RECOGNISING THAT GOD IS INCOMPREHENSIBLE
We can see from this how contorted or complex the theoretical exploration of how human beings might find God can become. By what people of faith believe to be God’s revelation we learn to trust in certain things about God and the way God acts but acquire no real or extensive knowledge of God’s inner being. This is really important as a counter to enthusiastic people who claim to ‘know the mind of God’ or who claim that God’s Spirit has revealed things to them. I have often heard believers saying: ‘God wants you to do this’, ‘God is moving us this way....’ or ‘God is saying to us this...’. We should always test such statements discerningly, since such claims are often based on hunches and biased ideas rather than true revelation or reason. Spiritual guidance is notoriously difficult to confirm and churches and individuals have often followed dead-end paths, been led into unfruitful ways, or made severe mistakes through believing that they know God’s mind far more comprehensively than they actually do.
Some Christians are understandably uncomfortable with the idea that God can be ‘unknowable’, particularly as scripture describes so many people having life-giving relationships with God. But actually the ‘unknowability’ of God is not necessarily an impediment to developing a meaningful and valuable faith. Knowing that God is so far beyond our apprehension can broaden, expand and enliven our faith. If God was comprehensible there would be very little difference between God and human beings; we could predict God’s ideas and actions as some misguided Christians do. But to remember that God is higher than all our thoughts and understandings can evoke awe at God’s greatness, rather as Job experienced awe after God’s revelations in the three penultimate chapters of the story [Job chs.38-41]. Job’s faith was elevated by recognition of so many aspects of God’s incomprehensible greatness: “I know you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours is to be thwarted.... I uttered what I did not understand, things too wonderful for me which I did not know!...” [Job.42:2-3]
The idea of the ‘incomprehensibility’ of God (sometimes called the ‘darkness of God’, ‘negative’ or ‘apophatic’ spirituality’ by theologians and mystics), is at the heart of much valuable spirituality. It is a feature of the Late C5th treatise ‘Mystic Theology’ by Dionysius the Areopagite, the C14th Cloud of Unknowing, and much Dominican teaching on spirituality. Despite its name, it is not negative spirituality: The belief is that the soul can develop a unity with God through passively recognising that God is entirely unknowable and transcends all possible knowledge. Dionysus claimed that in recognising the presence of God we are reduced to ‘complete speechlessness.’ But in that we recognise that we are loved and cared for by this incomprehensible power and a way of mind that is far above ours.
The idea of the unknowability of God does not mean that we cannot relate to God. Dionysus believed that despite God being incomprehensible we can become incorporated into God’s mystery through what became known as the “unitive way”: a progressive process though 1/ ‘purification’ from sin and ignorance, 2/ ‘illumination’ through restoration of a relationship of grace with God, towards 3/ ‘union’ - a restoration of a sort of paradise-like relationship with God. While God remains invisible to us, scripture assures us that God seeks to relate to us. This idea of a ‘unitive way’ had its roots in ancient Greek thinking, influenced by some mystery religions. But it became Christianised through regarding contemplation of scripture, the sacraments and meditation on what has been revealed about God, as ways by which we are opened to God’s presence and divine intentions for us.
It may be advantageous that we do not know sufficiently what God is like or know God’s mind on so many matters. As a result of recognising deficiencies in our understanding, we are likely to approach a concept of God more expansively and creatively, accepting that God is far greater than can possibly be conceived. This may make us more thorough in thinking-through how we might imagine, conceive, comprehend and seek to resolve issues that we could never fully resolve from our limited perspectives. This should expand our human understanding and our appreciation of what God could be like. We recognise that the amount that has been revealed to us about God, particularly through Jesus Christ, may be wonderful and expansive, but it can only be a tiny fraction of all that the reality of God is. Probably what we know is just a shadow of something incomprehensibly greater. Some Dominican and mystical teaching on concepts like ‘the darkness of God’ claims that God is in far more that we do not understand than in what we see or think we comprehend.
To focus on and worship what we know of God can be inspiring and elevating, but it is even more inspirational to worship a transcendent God who is far greater than and far beyond our highest conception. It expands our sense of awe and our possible expectations of God to believe that God is ‘eternal’, ‘infinite’, ‘immortal’, ’omnipresent’, ‘omniscient’ and ‘omnipotent’ etc., since these qualities are completely beyond our apprehension. Although scripture assures us of certain aspects of God like love, power, wisdom, justice, righteousness, etc. we can never know even these qualities completely or exhaustively. Yet these limitations can be positive advantages, since we realise that there is always something more to learn. As the compiler of Ecclesiastes wrote: “I have seen all the activity that God has given to human beings. He has made everything meaningful in its time, and has set the search for eternity in the human heart, yet we cannot fathom God from beginning to end.” [Eccles.3:10-11]. It is impossible for humans to know sufficient of God or any other matter in the cosmos and there is always more to search for or long for. This further encourages the human mind to seek more extensively and expand human knowledge and experience. Ps. 139:17 reminds us that we have been formed in relationship with God and that this can be experienced now and can develop throughout our life. The imagery of the Book of Revelation and Jesus’ promises about heaven suggest that we will have eternity to continue to develop our relationship with and understanding of God and appreciate and enjoy God’s presence.
To worship only what we know may actually be rather heretical or idolatrous, because we are worshipping a limited image of God. After all the experiences and arguments of life in the first 37 chapters of the book, Job was enlightened by the expansive recognition that he had previously been relying on far too limited ideas and concepts of God and God’s involvement in his world. Thomas Merton warned us not to create false imagery but hold in our minds an holistic idea of God, which enabled us to be open to recognising God in any situation: “We should live as if we are seeing God face to face, but we should not conceive an image of God. On the contrary, it is a matter of adoring him as invisible and infinitely beyond our comprehension and realizing him in all.” [Thomas Merton Hidden Ground of Love p.63-64].
This expansive idea of God was also recognised by Helen Oppenheimer, who reminded us that it is impossible to define God, but believed that comprehending God is not the primary aim for believers or the Church. Rather we are intended to be relating to God in the whole diversity of our lives, and moving within the world to helping others realise the presence and enormity of the potential of God in their diverse lives: “We are not trying to pronounce about what God can or cannot be, but about how God can be found in our world… God’s people have the hopeful responsibility of being the presence, the findability of God upon earth…Our diversity should enable God to be found in all areas of life in the world…The word multi-faceted comes to mind… the church may be a prism breaking up the white light of God’s dazzling majesty.”[Helen Oppenheimer, Theology 93:1990 p133-141]
SCRIPTURE PASSAGES ON THE POSSIBILITY OF A MEANINGFUL & FULFILLING RELATIONSHIP WITH THE INVISIBLE, INCOMPREHENSIBLE GOD
While we recognise that a comprehensive understanding of God is impossible for the limited minds of human beings, we are assured many times throughout scripture that God desires a relationship with human beings as particularly-loved treasures of creation. This implies that we should be able to perceive aspects of God in several ways. Although we cannot know God exhaustively, Christians believe we can know things about God that have been revealed as truths. Several scriptural passages reinforce the idea that God will self-reveal to those who seek sincerely; most particularly:
Christians believe that Jesus Christ was sent so that we may come to know the Father. He claimed: “This is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent” [Jn.17:3].
Ultimately ‘knowing God’ is not based on comprehensive theological knowledge, rich spiritual experiences or a reputation for wisdom and spirituality; it is our living daily relationship with the invisible but ever-present source of our “Way, Truth and Life”: "Thus says the LORD: 'Let not the wise man boast in his wisdom, let not the mighty man boast in his might, let not the rich man boast in his riches, but let him who boasts boast in this, that he understands and knows me, that I am the LORD who practices steadfast love, justice, and righteousness in the earth. For in these things I delight, declares the LORD.’ ” [Jer.9:23-24]. Jeremiah’s prophecy is surely not claiming that anyone could totally “understand and know” God, but that the truly wise believer is one who recognises God’s presence and follows the ways which have been revealed that lead to holy life. Later in Jeremiah it is prophesied: “This is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel in those days (ie. ‘the days that are surely coming’ v.31) says the Lord: I will put my law within them and write it in their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. No longer shall they teach one another ‘Know the Lord’, for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, says the Lord, for I will forgive their iniquity and remember their sin no more” [Jer.31:33-34]
Psalmists asked “Make me to know your ways O Lord” [Ps.25:4] and sang “Be still and know that I am God” [Ps.46:10]. It was definitely believed that in the Hebrew biblical laws the will of God was revealed through Moses, other law-givers, prophets and interpreters of the law. God was also thought to be partly revealed and understood by divine actions through history, including events recorded in scripture, God’s self-revelation in Jesus Christ and God’s involvement in the world since. God had ‘made known his Name’ in the events and activities in history.
The biblical concept of ‘knowing the Name of the Lord’ also includes knowing significant things about God. Someone’s ‘name’ was considered to contain or represent all aspects of who they are. So in being given the ‘Name’ of God through Moses, God’s people considered that they had a relationship with all that God is, even though God was unseen and unknowable in so many mysterious ways. The given name ‘YHWH’ was itself mysterious: ‘He who is’ / ‘I am what I am’/ ‘I will be what I will be’ is not a definite name but an assurance of God’s reality and transcendence. In the Hebrew Scriptures, worship was often spoken of as being directed towards ‘the Name of God’, indicating that though God was largely unknowable, God’s people worship all that God is: that into which we believe that we have insight and that which is completely beyond all comprehension.
When Moses was given a name by which God could be identified - ‘YHWH’ - he and the Hebrew tribes who he led had a concept of God to hold onto. “He who is” / “I am who I am” / “I will be what I will be” did not define God, so left the people knowing that God is mysterious and beyond revealing, yet they understood that they could relate God as a personal being and power. A Psalmist wrote “Those who know your name put their trust in you” [Ps.9:10]. Repeatedly Psalmists wrote of knowing certain things about God: “The Lord sets apart people for himself” [Ps.4:3]; “the Lord saves his people” [Ps.20:6]; the Lord knows our sins and failings [Ps.69:5]; the Lord knows our predicaments [Ps.69:19]; the Lord’s judgements are right [Ps.119:75]; the Lord knows all about us, even before we are born [Ps.139]; the Lord knows all our ways [Ps.142:3]. The list of things that the people believed they knew about God in the Hebrew Scriptures is enormous, and became augmented and clarified in the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. Yet none of this understanding is exhaustive or complete, since an infinite God must have an infinite number of qualities and characteristics. God remains the mysterious being or personal power that the word ‘YHWH’ and later the theological mystery “Trinity” imply. For all we know, God may be far more expansive that the term ‘Trinity’ implies. God could be a ‘Multiplicity in Unity’; we are just relating to this transcendent being and power through the revealed concept of three ‘persons’. ‘Persona’ in ancient Greek was the theatrical mask by which showed the character an actor was portraying at any one time. One actor could be performing many ‘personae’
The knowledge of multiple aspects of God unveiled in the scriptures helps believers to develop a personal relationship with God. Such a relationship is more of a privilege than just notionally knowing ‘about’ God, as prophesied in Jer.31:33-34 (quoted above). It is a relationship that develops further through communicating to God in prayer, opening our minds to the truths revealed in scripture, recognising that we are in God’s presence in worship, believing that God indwells us by God’s Spirit and living daily in the belief that God is around and within us.
Jesus’ statement, “And this is life eternal, that they should know you, the only true God, and him who you sent, Jesus Christ” [Jn.17:3], balances the difficulties in comprehending God. He claims that what has been revealed of God is sufficient to bring abundance to our lives. We are reminded that “We know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true, and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.” [1Jn.5:20]. This is an even stronger statement, claiming that we do not just know God through Jesus Christ, but that we are united to God through and in him. St. Paul expands this to claim that through knowing Christ we have come to know the true God, and have been freed from domination by false gods or unhelpful powers. This understanding of God does not derive from our own search for truth, but through God revealing truth to us: “Formerly, when you did not know God you were enslaved to beings that by nature were not God. Now, however, you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God...” [Gal. 4:9]. What Paul meant precisely by being “known by God” in this context is uncertain. It probably points to belief that it is God who reveals to us, not us who discover God by our searching. But is may also contain the meaning that we are no longer distant to God, now that we are followers, friends and family of Christ, and now that we are loved and recognised by God because we are loved and redeemed by Christ, and are part of Christ’s Body.
Traditional orthodox Christianity teaches that the clearest knowledge that we have of God is through the revelation of Jesus Christ. In speaking of God’s self-revelation as ‘the Logos’, both in the beginning of John’s Gospel and in Early Church teaching, Jesus was being identified with the invisible source of all things: the one through whom everything was created and in whom all life is sustained. The orthodox Christian claim is that the invisible, incomprehensible Creator has now been made visible and tangible in the Son. We do not see the whole of God through Jesus; he claimed that “the Father is greater than I” [Jn.14:28] but it is believed that Christ revealed all that we need to know about the incomprehensible God in order to have assurance of salvation and to develop a meaningful relationship with God, leading to abundant and eternal life.
PHILOSPHICAL & THEOLOGICAL IDEAS ABOUT THE COMPREHENSIBILITY OF GOD
A C4th Arian teacher Eunomius went too far in claiming that because God is a simple, unified truth, and human beings are made in God’s image, there is nothing about God that is not able to be known perfectly. He believed that Godcould be fully comprehended by the human intellect open to God and recognising God’s image as reflected through their own nature and understanding. Understandably, in the light of so much mystery that still remains about God, Eunomius’ teaching was rejected by orthodox Church Fathers. But some Christian leaders in Protestant, Evangelical, Catholic, Pentecostal, Liberal and other circles sometimes give the arrogant impression that they or their Church know, or have access to, all that is important about God.
Origen [c185-254] claimed that it is through the scriptures that we gain understanding into the mystery of God. Unlike some early teachers who searched for mystic meanings and secret teachings within scripture, he claimed that reason cannot discover the mysteries of God, Rather, he believed, that God becomes disclosed to us when we approach scripture humbly in prayer and love, desiring to hear God’s Word communicating to us through what has been already revealed. Several Church Fathers taught that if we approach scripture with humility and prayer, and seek to purify our minds and lives, the Holy Spirit will engage with us and enable us to contemplate truths about the Father. Contemplatives speak of two different types of purification - ‘active purification’ where we consciously aim to purify ourselves from sin and ignorance, and ‘passive purification’ where we open ourselves submissively to God’s purification of us. Contemplating the sacraments too is regarded as a form of coming to understand aspects of God and entering into God’s relationship with us. The Eucharist and Baptism particularly were considered as ways in which we participate in the mystery of what Christ achieved through his death and resurrection. Baptism was regarded as a form of union or being reunited with God.
Augustine believed that we can know God through the working of God within us: "When we know God, some likeness of God is made in us." [De Trin. v]. Yet we only know God very partially by analogy: "We see through a glass and in an enigma ('in a dark manner')... "by the terms 'glass' and 'enigma' certain similitudes are signified by him, which are accommodated to the vision of God" [De Trin. xv]. He believed that in the glorified dimension of heaven our vision of God will be very different: "Those eyes" (the vision of the glorified) "will therefore have a greater power of sight, not so much to see more keenly, as some report of the corporeal sight of serpents or of eagles ... but to see even incorporeal things....Now whoever can see incorporeal things, can be raised up to see God. Therefore the glorified eye can see God” [De Civ. Dei xxix, 29]. Yet Augustine believed that such glorified vision will still not be anything like physical vision: "No one has ever seen God either in this life, as He is, nor in the angelic (spiritual) life, as visible things are seen by corporeal vision." [De Vid. Deum, Ep. cxlvii]. He emphasised that spiritual vision is entirely different from physical vision: "That is comprehended which is so seen as a whole, that nothing of it is hidden from the seer. But if God is seen in His essence, He is seen whole, and nothing of Him is hidden from the seer, since God is simple. Therefore whoever sees His essence, comprehends Him." [De Vid. Deum, Ep. cxlvii]
In the 12th and 13th Centuries Scholastics from Peter Abelard to Thomas Aquinas, basing their rationalisation largely on a combination of Aristotle, Platonists and the Early Church Fathers, sought to clarify the ways in which we know God. They recognised a distinction between different sorts of understanding of divine matters. They acknowledged that we do not know what God is in God’s essential Being (the ‘quid’ of God’ - ‘that which God IS’), but maintained that we can know those aspects of God’s nature and activity that concern what God is in relation to us (the ‘qualis’ of God - what God is like to us or what kind of things God is about and what God does), since God has revealed certain divine attributes through Christ and in scripture.
Various philosophers and theologians have developed different ideas about ‘Special Revelation’ (that which is revealed of God in scripture and especially through Jesus) and ‘Natural Revelation’ (that which is uncovered about God through observation of the cosmos and reason. Several Scholastics claimed that Natural Revelation provided sufficient information for human reason to scientifically believe in God as the source and cause of everything in the cosmos. But they recognised that this did not confirm understanding of many mysteries of faith, like belief in the Trinity, the Incarnation of Christ, and the redemption he achieved. Special Revelation was necessary to provide this knowledge, but is not provable by human reason and such beliefs need to be accepted by faith. They claimed, like Aquinas, that ‘belief’ and ‘reason’ need to be united in developing knowledge of God. Scholasticism attempted to increase faith by demonstrating that many of the mysteries of the Christian faith could be rationally believed and were probable.
Thomas Aquinas [c.1225-1274] took a rather different approach. He recognised that it is impossible to prove Special Revelation by any form of logic, unless there are elements of Natural Revelation within the evidence given. He emphasised that to be true, natural truths and supernatural revelation cannot be in conflict. He based faith primarily on Special Revelation rather than Natural Revelation, the evidence for which can be subjective. Thomas Aquinas used his classical training in rhetoric to discuss in detail his conclusions of how people come to a knowledge of God. In 13 Articles in ‘Question 12. How God is known by us’, he quoted the teachings of figures like Augustine, Dionysius and Boethius as well as exploring what natural reasoning could contribute to draw certain conclusions about the findability of God:
It is impossible for God to be seen by the sense of sight, or by any other sense, or faculty of the sensitive power. [Article 3]. It is impossible for any created intellect to see the essence of God by its own natural power. [Article 4]. It is impossible for any created intellect to comprehend God; yet "for the mind to attain to God in some degree is great beatitude," as Augustine says (De Verb. Dim., Serm. xxxvii). [Article 7]. The created intellect, in seeing the divine essence, does not see in it all that God does or can do. [Article 8]. He believed that our reason is able to explore God through grace, which links our reason to Special Revelation: We have a more perfect knowledge of God by grace than by natural reason [Article 13].
Those who see the divine essence see what they see in God not by any likeness, but by the divine essence itself united to their intellect. For each thing is known in so far as its likeness is in the one who knows... Hence, according to the knowledge whereby things are known by those who see the essence of God, they are seen in God Himself not by any other similitudes but by the Divine essence alone present to the intellect; by which also God Himself is seen. [Article 9].
Our natural knowledge begins from sense. Hence our natural knowledge can go as far as it can be led by sensible things. But our mind cannot be led by sense so far as to see the essence of God; because the sensible effects of God do not equal the power of God as their cause. Hence from the knowledge of sensible things the whole power of God cannot be known; nor therefore can His essence be seen. But because they are His effects and depend on their cause, we can be led from them so far as to know of God, "whether He exists," and to know of Him what must necessarily belong to Him, as the first cause of all things, exceeding all things caused by Him. Hence we know that His relationship with creatures so far as to be the cause of them all; also that creatures differ from Him, inasmuch as He is not in any way part of what is caused by Him; and that creatures are not removed from Him by reason of any defect on His part, but because He super-exceeds them all. [Article 12].
Reformers often rejected the possibility that Natural Revelation alone could ever be sufficient evidence of God. They claimed that after sin entered the world, God’s presence in nature became greatly obscured and invisible to the human senses. Human beings, they claimed, became spiritually blinded and unable to recognise what had been present about God in creation. To heal this and allow God’s purposes to be fulfilled, they claimed that God deliberately placed signs in nature that could not be misinterpreted, which would satisfy human needs. God also sent Christ to cure spiritual blindness by redeeming, regenerating and sanctifying us, and providing spiritual illumination through the Holy Spirit. Through this they claimed that we are now able to obtain true knowledge of God and be assured that eternal life is possible.
Protestant Reformers did not accept all the ideas of the Roman Catholic Scholastics that God could be understood by human reason and general revelation. Yet they emphasised the importance of using greater reason to re-evaluate traditions of faith. Calvin wrote of ‘common grace’ as an element of general revelation. Some Reformers emphasised that true knowledge of God can be found primarily through the special revelation of scripture, illuminated by the Holy Spirit. ‘Faith’, they claimed, is at the heart of our understanding of God. Luther wrote about the ‘Deus Absconditus’ (the hidden God) and the ‘Deus Revelatus’ (the revealed God). He recognised that in several ways the revealed God is still a hidden God, since God is beyond being fully known, even where aspects of God have been revealed by special revelation. Calvin claimed that God’s ‘essence’ is ‘incomprehensible’: the depths of who God is remains beyond discovery or perception: “His essence is incomprehensible; so that His divinity wholly escapes all human senses.” Yet several Reformers believed that we can recognise or learn aspects of God’s nature through observing creation. All believed that we have been given sufficient knowledge to be assured of the grounds of our salvation. Richard Hooker claimed that our knowledge of God comes through ‘Scripture’, ‘Reason’ and true Traditions (ie the true doctrines of reformed Christianity). More recent theologians have added ‘Experience’, ‘Intuition’ and ‘Feeling’ to the ways that many believe God communicates and is made known.
Influenced by Hegel and Schleiermacher, theologians began to reflect more on how God might be found within the world. Ideas of God’s ‘immanence’ within what God has made were considered as important as God’s ‘transcendence’. This emphasis on immanence makes the idea of God’s incomprehensibility less prominent, while recognising that God and the spiritual dimension are still full of mysteries. Enlightenment thinking among theologians questioned whether God directly communicates with us by special revelation. It was believed that that we should be able to have sufficient understanding of God without a need for special revelation, since the human mind can discover God in our inner being, in observation and life within the physical cosmos. All these may be physical manifestations of God’s immanence, but not as direct as the revelation though Jesus Christ.
With the rise of the Enlightenment a greater demand for rationalism raised the profile of Natural Revelation over supernatural revelation. The qualities of the human mind were preferred to previously prevalent belief in the authority of scripture and religious tradition and doctrine. Some still believed in the validity of supernatural revelation, while others, including some promoters of Deism, completely rejected it unless reason could be applied. Schleiermacher emphasised the subjective nature of faith over objective proofs. He still talked about “revelation” in religion, but in terms of developing spiritual insight through the diligent search in the human mind.
Some believe that the idea of God is innate within human beings, present in our human consciousness from birth. Locke attacked the belief that anything is innate within us, but many believe that the knowledge of God, or the desire for a relationship with God, is implanted within us.
William Blake reflects the dichotomy of the Age of Enlightenment, though his theology is far from orthodox. Initially he was strongly influenced by the esoteric writings of Emanuel Swedenborg who encouraged people to believe in angelic guidance and recognise spiritual presences in the world, though later Blake moved away from Swedenborg’s ideas. Blake’s early work included the small treatise on ‘There Is No Natural Religion’, but this work was more a criticism of the domination of ‘reason’ and the emphasis on tangible human senses over faith in his time: “Man’s desires are limited by his perceptions; none can desire what he has not perceived”...by contrast, he concludes: “If any could desire what he is incapable of possessing, despair must be his eternal lot. The desire of man, being infinite, the possession is infinite and himself infinite. He who sees the infinite in all things sees God. He who sees the ration (‘rational’) only, sees himself only... God becomes as we are, that we may be as He is.” [There Is No Natural Religion]. In many phrases of his poems, especially Auguries of Innocence, Blake wrote of seeing the nature of the divine and his belief in the influence of the divine on the moral ordering of creation: “A robin redbreast in a cage puts all heaven in a rage” [Auguries of Innocence]. In the Songs of Innocence he recognised spiritual truth in the natural world... “Little Lamb who made thee, dost thou know who made thee? [The Lamb]... “Merry, merry sparrow...” [The Blossom]...” In ‘The Tyger’ and several of his ‘Songs of Experience’, Blake recognised some complex difficulties in reconciling traditional ideas of God natural revelation. He questioned how the loving God, who made the Lamb an image of divine gentleness, could be involved in the “deadly terrors” within the cosmos. In ‘The Garden of Love’ and ‘Earth’s Answer’ he questioned where death, suffering and enslavement could be involved in the plan of a God of love. His poem ‘The Divine Image’ and his treatise ‘All Religions are One’ explored the idea that all human beings have an inner spiritual drive, because we all develop from one cause and creator, who he calls by various names “The Poetic Genius”, “The Infinite” and “The Eternal”, “The True Man” (Jesus), as well as “God”.
Blake had a sincere faith, but the unorthodox approach to Christianity in his writings exemplifies some of the confusion that arises when we put our minds to understanding the dichotomies and confusing apparent contradictions within the complexities of the world. Throughout the Age of Enlightenment, as today, many theologians aimed to justify God by applying reason to tradition and scripture, yet our justifications are never able to be totally satisfactory, since faith is so often based on trust in what we cannot see or prove empirically [Heb.11:1]. Nevertheless applying reason has an important part to play in helping us to develop maturity of faith
Modern theology often softens the distinction between specific revelation and natural signs, believing that reason can bring insights into the divine through several different ways in which we explore truths. Karl Barth denied the possibility of combining the subjective and the objective, claiming that all revelation comes through God’s self-revelation augmented by scripture, preaching and particularly revealed ‘once for all’ through Jesus Christ who he claimed is the revelation of God. Further, he claimed that it is through mediating on these forms of revelation that God’s communication can come to us by the special ‘testimony’ of the Holy Spirit.
Karl Barth believed that the true God can only be found through the special revelation that has been handed down to us through the Bible. He did not believe that the true God can be found in nature, history, or human experiences. Barth believed that there is no way for human beings to work towards knowledge of God by their own power or reasoning. He claimed that the only direction of communication of revelation can be from God to humans. Barth denied the possibility of combining the subjective and the objective. He was clear that faith is based on revelation and did not accept that there is any revelation in nature. He claimed that all revelation comes through God’s statements and actions as revealed in scriptures and particularly in Jesus Christ who he regarded as the primary revelation of God. Only through knowing Jesus Christ through grace can we gain revelation of the divine. Through Jesus’ revelation Barth recognised that we become aware of being sinful and that God’s forgiveness is available through the reconciliation that Christ achieved. God is sovereign, so is free to reveal or conceal. Barth regarded the Bible and preaching as ‘witnesses’ and signs of God’s revelation but did not believe that even scripture should be thought of as God’s direct revelation. When we mediate on scripture or the preached Gospel, God’s communication can come to us by the special ‘testimony’ of the Holy Spirit. Jesus promised that the Spirit would ‘testify to the truth of his teaching [Jn.14 /16]. Barth claimed that God was revealed ‘once for all’ in Jesus Christ. To him this meant not just that Jesus of Nazareth appeared at one time in history, but that what he revealed about God continues to reveal God and communicate to us.
To me, this reasoning seems abstract and limited. It may be rooted in scripture but it is very proscriptive. He admitted that God, being sovereign and free to reveal or conceal as God wishes, so surely God can self-reveal in many ways. Scripture claims that God listens to our prayers, has and does communicate with people, especially when we are listening to God, but sometimes when we least expect it. Barth seems to claim that the spiritual experiences of many people throughout history, are subjective. He seems to questioning the reality of some believers’ sense that they have had spiritual revelations. Such experiences should not be dismissed just because they do not fit narrow philosophical theories. There are probably aspects of truths in many ways of thinking, since we believe that God is both immanent and transcendent, listens to our prayers and wishes to communicate to human beings. Modern theology often softens the distinction between revelation and natural signs, believing that reason can bring insights into the divine through different ways in which we explore truths.
We should test all ways in which we believe God is communicating to us with spiritual discernment, since some misinterpret ‘wishful thinking’ for divine communication. It is easy to misinterpret scripture or make scripture say what one wants it to say, by taking verses or phrases out of context, or selecting only verse that agree with our ideas or wishes. Human reason and careful discernment, for which we seek to be guided by God’s Spirit, help us interpret scripture and experiences. Discernment should also be applied to traditions since the3y have developed over centuries of Church history. Tradition includes doctrines, ways of thinking about God and the world, the phraseology of liturgy etc. There is surely much that is true in tradition, but the Church throughout history has often made mistakes both in the things to which it gives emphasis and in its practices, as the Reformation demonstrated. (Cruel Inquisition practices, Arian heresies, excesses of Mariolatry and the adoration of saints, the adoration of the Host rather than adoration of the Christ who it represents, can be among these.)
God’s Spirit needs to be involved in true discernment. St. Paul wrote: “No one comprehends what is truly God’s except the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world but the Spirit that is from God, so that we may understand the gifts bestowed on us by God. And we speak of these things in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual things to those who are spiritual” [1Cor. 2:11-13]. Most of our knowledge of God is derived from God’s self-revelation in scripture, but St. Paul seems to have believed that God’s Spirit also revealed God in aspects of the world.
We may not be able to entirely comprehend God, since, as Calvin emphasised “the finite cannot contain or understand the infinite’. If you try to satisfactorily define ‘God’ you will find that it is impossible. Every attempt to understand or define God is necessarily only partial. Nevertheless it is possible to build sufficient understanding to enable us to relate to God and find how we are meant to live by ‘the Way, the Truth and the Life’ [Jn.14:6]. Even partial knowledge is enough to help us hold onto God in trust and worship meaningfully.
VISIONARIES
In addition to these various ways of sensing that the presence of God is true, we should not discount the possibility of more direct revelations. Throughout Christian history many have sensed that they have had visions of spiritual realities. Early Hebrew understanding of visions of God was largely based on the verse: “No one can see my face and live” [Ex.33:20]. The idea in Job that he had seen God is probably just figurative language: “I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear, but now my eyes see you” [Job 42:5]. Yet several figures in scripture claimed to have relatively direct experiences of the presence of God, from Moses, Elijah, several of the Major Prophets, St. Paul (Saul of Tarsus) to John on Patmos. After wrestling for a blessing at Peniel, Jacob is reported as saying “I have seen God face to face, yet my life has been preserved” [Ex.33:30]. He obviously believed that he had encountered God in some physical way. Jesus himself promised: “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God” [Matt.5:8]. But it is not clear whether this relates to seeing God in the dimension beyond death or during life or whether we it implies experiencing physical vision or receiving inner insight. Much in mystical experiences seems to be described as ‘an inner eye’ or ‘inner illumination’, as in the teaching and example of Teresa of Avila.
Famous among these are mediaeval figures like Bridget of Sweden, Catherine of Siena, Julian of Norwich, Hildegard of Bingen, St. Francis. Since the 18th Century Enlightenment, not so many modern people claim to be visionaries, but if God was truly in the mediaeval visions, the possibility of God communicating through direct visions should not be discounted.
Visions, like spiritual gifts, cannot be programmed and so often cannot be proved. Visions are not God’s responses to anything we do, though it may be that some ascetics who have deprived their bodies of food or rest are sometimes prone to hallucinations, which could account for some past visionary experiences. It is also possible that certain methods of contemplative prayer encourage a visionary sense of union with God. But sensory hallucinations and contemplative openness to God are rather different from visions, which are regarded as more direct communications from God.
GENERAL AND SPECIAL REVELATION
The Bible suggests that God is revealed in two different ways: General Revelation and Special Revelation, though these terms are not used in scripture. General Revelation implies that God and God’s truths are present and reflected in the whole of the cosmos around us: the details of nature, the workings of the cosmic laws, the way the world works and wisdom in the human consciousness. Consequently, if we open ourselves sensitively to be guided by God in our thoughts, imagination and observation, we will discover important aspects of God. Special Revelation concerns what is revealed about God by Jesus in his teaching, character and life, and what is revealed by and about God in the Bible. Trust that the scriptures were inspired by God’s Spirit encouraged believers to assume that the teachings, laws and information in the Bible books were directly communicated by God, using the scribes and the prophets as God’s amanuensis: “All scripture is inspired by God and I useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work” [2Tim.3:16-17]. This concept of special revelation had often made scripture as revered as the sanctified Eucharistic host, sometimes more revered in Protestant theology and churches. Today we recognise that the various books of the Bible were edited at various times in history, so it is more reasonable to believe that God’s Spirit was influencing the workings of the minds of those who developed the scriptural texts, rather than that God was directly dictating scripture to the writers, as some literalists still claim.
a/ GENERAL REVELATION - GOD REVEALED IN THE COSMOS and NATURAL THEOLOGY
General revelation is based in our interpretation of creation and the interpretation of the world by applying human reason to understanding what we see and experience. We hope to find spiritual as well as physical truths from our observation, as well as having communion with God through appreciation of what has been made. By contrast to Barth’s ideas that we only find God through faith in what we read in scripture, the Bible contains claims that aspects of God can be perceived through the cosmos. But as Barth suggests, many of these aspects of revelation may be regarded by many as subjective, so unreliable:
I find the saying “One is closer to God in the garden than anywhere else on earth” trite. Yet contact with the natural wolr can inspire wonder, awe and a marvelling at details. Many claim that by living close to nature, they feel close to the presence of God and recognise God’s workings through natural phenomena. This is a concept that is found occasionally in scripture:
In several Psalms the writer looks out to nature and in its beauty, arrangement, workings and detail, and recognises the wisdom of the Creator as forming and sustaining all. Psalm 19 imagines that all of the cosmos and the life within it are silently communicating the existence and truths of God: “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament proclaims God’s handiwork. Day to day pours forth speech, and night to night declares knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words, their voice is not heard; yet their voice goes out through all the earth and their words to the ends of the world. [Ps. 19:1-4]
Viewing the powerful expanse of nature a Psalmist recognised aspects of the vulnerability and fragility of human beings yet also their high value in context within the created cosmos: “When I look at the heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and stars that you have set in place; what are human beings that you are mindful of them, mortals that you care for them. Yet you have made them a little lower than heavenly beings and crowned them with glory and honour. You have given them dominion over the works of your hands...” [Ps.8:3-6].
The bounty of nature’s provision towards us and our world was also considered as evidence for to the existence of God who provides what was needed in the right times and seasons for fruitfulness, nourishment and generous provision. In justifying true faith to a superstitious audience in Lystra, St. Paul asked them to turn to “the living God who made the heavens, the sea and all that is in them. In past generations he allowed all nations to follow their own ways, yet he has not left himself without a witness in doing good - giving you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, filling you with food and your hearts with gladness.” [Acts 14:17].
St. Paul was convinced that he world gives abundant evidence that God’s exists and teaches us aspects of God’s nature and ethical expectations: “What can be known of God is plain to them; for God has shown it to them. For ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things that have been made.” [Rom. 1:19, 20]. This passage has been assumed to be claiming that ethical rules are also interpretable from issues in the natural world. But some specifics in Paul’s argument, especially his claims about sexuality, are challenged today.
Since the ‘Enlightenment’ a philosophical and theological argument over whether God’s existence, attributes or nature might be apprehended through the cosmos. The theories of ‘ Natural Theology’ attempted to demonstrate evidence that God and divine qualities could be proved through applying human reason to observation of the natural world. Proponents claimed that we do not need to rely on special revelation from God, though what might be observed is added to what is revealed in scripture. Based on some of Thomas Aquinas’ ideas, Paul Tillich developed a form of natural theology by applying reason to philosophical and theological thinking, though they both had a strong belief in divine revelation. Aquinas believed, as do many Christians, that the universe and all within it has God as its cause. As believers study nature in detail, many come to the conclusion that there is a purposeful design within it and a purposeful designer as its source. We seem to have a propensity for seeking the source and meaning of things, yet the overall meaning of life evades us. There seems to be a common aim in cultures to discover, imagine or form myths to explain how all was set in motion. The beauty and finesse of detail in nature might be interpreted as being formed as a result of God’s love and a divine desire to create.
Evidence for a creative mind being behind the development of the cosmos has been pointed to through many examples: the complexity of the development of the human eye and brain; the ways that cells divide to form and develop a foetus, that can develop into a perfect child, the rhythm and ordering of the scientific laws that keep all in motion, the apparent specialness of the Earth among so many apparently inhospitable planets in the Universe. Critics of Christian belief find ways of trying to explain many of these examples away, as in Richard Dawkins’ ‘Climbing Mount Impossible’ [1996], but this does not negate the possibility of divine involvement. Recognition that nature has developed through evolution and natural selection is not antithetical to the idea that a creator God is working through the process. To me, it seems more likely that nature developed and continues to develop though the direction of a creative mind than by accident. For many people the beauty and variety within the world is considered sufficient evidence that a power that we know as God is behind all. Much in nature seems to point to things having developed by design rather than just being products of millennia chemical, physical or biological accidents and natural selection. Again, none of these examples are sufficient to be ‘proofs’, but they seem to be ‘evidence’ that intelligent design is at work. Such a possibility is rejected by many scientists but accepted by many other scientists, suggesting that it is impossible to agree on the matter. But to totally reject even the possibility that God could be the intelligent force at work within the process of natural development is not scientifically reasonable. A scientific claim of agnosticism is reasonable; a claim of atheism seems to me not to be a reasonable scientific conclusion, as it is usually based on personal bias rather than the weight of evidence.
The ideas of natural theology were rejected by many Reformed theologians who believed that God’s revelation comes mostly or wholly through the revelations in scripture (the idea of ‘Sola Scriptura’). Some argue further that because humankind is in bondage to sin, it would be impossible for us to know anything of God unless God reveals it to us. Karl Barth believed that God can only be known through God’s ‘special revelation, whereas those who believe in natural theology sense that we can develop a certain understanding of God through observation, reason and experience.
One difficulty in believing that God can be sensed through nature and reason could be that such proofs can never be empirical or even testable. We can never ‘prove’ the existence of the God about whom Jesus taught, by either observation of the cosmos or philosophical / theological reasoning. We need to add an understanding of the Hebrew and New Testament scriptures to come close to believing in the Christian God.
Although a plethora of scriptures suggest that God is to be found or perceived in the world, other passages suggest that reason and observation are insufficient: In the Wisdom Books we are told: "Trust in the LORD with all your heart and do not lean on your own understanding." [Prov.3:5]
St. Paul’s suggestion that the things of God can be perceived in the world and that a natural morality is embedded within us as a result, seems contradicted by Ps.147:19, 20, which implies that our actions and thoughts should be regulated by scripture’s teachings, particularly those revealed to Israel. "He declares his words to Jacob, his statutes and his ordinances to Israel. He has not dealt in this way with any other nation; And as for his ordinances, they have not known them. Praise the LORD!" This may seem, if read literally, to contradict Calvin’s idea of ‘Common Grace’, like natural revelation being open to all, but it is poetic rhetoric and political propaganda being used to emphasise the uniqueness of Israel.
Many believers still feel that they can sense the presence of God with them is many situations. But unorthodox attempts have also been used to assess the probability of God’s existence: One scientist, Dr. Stephen Unwin in ‘The Probability of God’ 2022, came to the conclusion that statistics show that there is a 67% chance that God exists. He started from the assumption that God has a 50/50 chance of existing, then focused down his calculation to taking into account factors like natural goodness and the possibility of unusual workings like miracles, natural evil physical disasters like cancer or earthquakes. Dr. Unwin claimed that his research convinced him personally by c.95% that God exists. [cf. article: ‘Stewart Maclean, Catherine Bolsover and Polly Curtis ‘Odds On That God Exists, Says Scientist’ Guardian - Mon 8 Mar 2004]. Despite this, however there is no ultimate proof of the existence of God that we could use to convince all others. Faith is based primarily on trust, not on sight or proof.
Some Details I Observe In The World And Experience That Convince Me Personally That God Is True:
I realise that the evidences that help to convince me personally of the truth of God could be denied by sceptics. Yet I include the following list of objective and subjective examples that help to reassure me of the probable reality of the spiritual realm and the workings of a power I call God. Some of these suggest that God is revealed within the cosmos, particularly nature and human life. Others are, to me, otherwise inexplicable events unless there was intervention of a caring supernatural power.
I am fortunate to spend part of my life in an area of countryside where on a clear night one can see an expanse of stars in the sky. The enormity of the universe, yet the complexity of physics which describes its natural motion, convinces me that there is a metaphysical power at work within it. The beauty and variety of form in pollen grains viewed under an electron-microscope convince me that this power has a quality that creates beauty. There must be billions of other refined, complex and beautiful details in nature that reflect this. The ability of the human body to heal itself and combat disease (despite the many as-yet incurable diseases and tragedies in life), convinces me that there is a caring purpose within this power.
I recognise that the rhythm of the seasons is due to the angled rotation of the earth on its axis and other physical factors. But the response of creatures to that rhythm seems to me to be more than just developed by natural selection. How can physics or biology sufficiently account for the instinct that causes the migration of birds and Monarch butterflies, and return to nesting or wintering sites, sometimes thousands of miles away? What causes the spark of life that brings new buds into leaf and flower after winter? As far as we know, plants are not sentient creatures, yet they have an inner process of change. There seems to be a conscious design behind so many similar details of our world
In reproduction cells divide repeatedly to form a perfect embryo then foetus, that develops into a child then an adult. They do not divide randomly to create amorphous masses, which seems to suggest the involvement of a process that has been designed. Of course, in nature sometimes problems in development occur, leading to occasional malformation, disability or disease. But in the vast majority of cases cells continue to divide correctly. Science may explain how this process works, but it does not explain why, or what causes the growth of life.
I recognise that development in the world has come about by a process of evolution. But surely evolution cannot just be the result of millions of incidents of the survival of the fittest. I find it hard to believe that the evolution of the brain, the human intellect, the emotion of love and other senses and emotions in human beings, and whatever are the equivalents in the minds of animals like their commitment to a mate in the natural world, can have developed purely by physical or chemical processes. I cannot imagine how our senses, our emotions and our spirituality can have evolved other than by being formed within human minds by a sensitive power. Our recognition of what is good and our appreciation of what is beautiful, similarly cannot just be put down to random chance in evolution, or to what proves to be for the social good of individuals and the community. Can the ability to make informed or emotional choices just have developed in the mind by a random division of cells and the working of chemicals to create a brain?
Is spirituality just another mental power that has developed randomly? The huge number of Christians in the world who claim to have had a wide variety of spiritual experiences that have transformed their lives, convinces me that there is truth within Christianity. There are many other religions and life-styles in which people find truths by which to live. I believe that following Jesus’ teaching and the way of life that he encouraged authentically can lead people, communities and nations to greater fulfilment, abundance and peaceful advancement. I have become convinced that Jesus’ way offers us “The Way, the Truth and the Life” [Jn.14:6]. I believe that there is a natural propensity developed in the human mind to find fulfilment if they live by the best ways. I recognise that believers are far from perfect; in fact significant hypocrisies and failures to follow Christ authentically, in churches over two millennia have caused many tragedies that have scarred the world. But Jesus’ precepts make sense, and if followed with integrity and truth could transform the world for good towards the best sort of life, which Christians call ‘The Kingdom of God’.
I am not convinced that the argument is rational that God must exist because so many peoples throughout the world develop religions. It does not prove that God is true. Without other evidence, it would be possible that ALL religions might be following irrational superstitions and mistaken interpretations. But the concept of God makes sense of so much mystery that we do not otherwise understand. Within religions I believe that the reality of many people’s varied spiritual experiences suggests that God is responding to them. If those interpretations are true and were not just the result of psychological wishful-thinking, there seems to be evidence that God’s existence should be regarded as true.
There is plenty of convincing evidence that Jesus of Nazareth was a real, historical person. If there is any truth in the records of the miracles attributed to him, he was an unusual figure. If he performed miracles which could not be attributed to natural phenomena, perhaps his teachings about God being the source of his powers could be true. If that is the case, and God was truly behind Jesus’ life and ministry we should be able to trust God.
I have had a number of experiences myself, in which I am convinced that the power which I call God was involved. I admit that none of these are convincing empirical proofs; they are subjective. Nevertheless I am personally certain that they were not everyday occurrences.
Then eventually a few years later, at university, I was in a very different environment, and met people of faith who exemplified and were able to teach me the sort of Christian faith that could nourish me. At the moment I prayed in trust to God (apologies if that sounds an exclusively Evangelical a phrase, it is not meant to be) my mind flashed back to that prayer as a teenager in the pew, and I felt an inner voice telling me: “Now I can answer your prayer!” I had a wonderful, committed, rather scatty godmother, Cilla, for whom I cared. I wrote to tell her about my renewed commitment to faith, and she responded delightedly that she had been praying for this for years. I believe that God had been at work, developing me progressively through time and in various situations, to a position, place and among people where I could benefit and begin to practically learn what an authentic faith should be. I am still nowhere near being a good enough Christian, but I recognise that God’s Spirit has been involved in my slow progressive development and continues to be.
When working on an image about faith I often feel a huge sense of spiritual responsibility in the presence of God. This is particularly the case when I am working for a commission and longing to create a work that will continue to speak to people over a long period of time. When creating Stations of the Cross for churches like St. Mary’s, Ewell and St. John’s, Bury St Edmunds, or a series of paintings for a touring exhibition, I constantly try to make the works convey spiritual meaning to me as I am painting. But I am not working primarily for myself. Far more important are my responsibilities to convey something of the spiritual truth of the subject to those who will use them, and to create images that can communicate and encourage faith in others. So during the long painting process I have to keep praying about and thinking-through the context in which the work is to be used and how others might respond.
I felt this responsibility especially when working on the commission-of-a life-time: my altarpiece for Gloucester Cathedral Lady Chapel. These three, seven-foot-high panels - a crucifixion, pieta and resurrection – took 3 years to complete. It felt as though my studio, which they dominated due to their size, became a chapel while I was working on them. I approached the figure of Christ with awe, longing for the three images to communicate the meaning of salvation. I kept a diary of my thoughts throughout the process, recording how my ideas on faith in Christ’s Passion and Resurrection changed and deepened as I worked on the images. A very similar atmosphere grew in my studio more recently painting my first set of Stations of the Resurrection and studying, praying and writing down my developing thoughts about the meaning and implications of those themes. (The meditations on the Resurrection can be found on my website.) I feel God to be close when I am praying and considering the responsibilities I have to convey the spiritual meaning of my subjects. The process of painting is not the same as honing the words of a sermon: a work of art especially should be allusive not didactic, but it is carries similar responsibilities.
These things aren’t miracles in any sense of the word, but coincidences that seem to happen too often to be merely chance. I know that I am not good enough as a Christian to be being given special treatment. These are just blessings that might have their equivalents in anyone’s life. But they do make me recognise that things happen in our daily lives that seem to be guided towards the good. I am a natural sceptic; I am certainly not credulous or simplistic in my thinking, but so many events and circumstances in my own experiences have come to convince me that the spiritual dimension is real and has an active influence upon our own world.
More important than any of these apparent confirmations of my faith, is my sense that God is here, surrounding me and within me at all times. I feel that I am in the presence of truth and therefore should be living by the truth. A sceptic might claim that my faith could just be wishful-thinking or that I have attuned myself to thinking that I am in the presence of God. But after over 50 years of carefully exploring the grounds of my faith I am convinced that there is truth in my beliefs and spiritual experiences.
b/ SPECIAL REVELATION
The Christian scriptures claim that God revealed aspects of the divine nature and correct ways of following God’s will through more precise guidance than interpreting nature. In a biblical metaphor the legend of the ‘Fall’ of humanity implied that people were more capable of a direct relationship before divided from God by sin. The implication of the Hebrew covenants is that those who follow God’s ways and resist sin can still develop a relationship with God, though less intimately than before sin entered the world. The covenant relationship with humanity had been made first in legend with Adam and Eve, then Noah, then applied to the Hebrew tribes through Abraham, Jacob, Moses and reaffirmed after the Assyrian and Babylonian Exiles in the religious and social covenant reforms of Josiah and after the rebuilding of the Temple in Ezra and Nehemiah. The promises made by the people included keeping to the social and religious laws and practices laid down by the laws of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, then interpreted and expanded by generations of priests, prophets, scribes, Pharisees and other teachers.
It must be remembered that the Jews up to the time of Jesus did not have their own scriptural texts in the form that we read the Hebrew Scripture in the Bible today. The books of the Hebrew Bible were not compiled and brought together as a canon until fairly late in the history of Israel. Most Jewish people developed their relationship with God by being taught the stories of events and people in their history and following the stories and themes of life around which the regular Jewish festivals were based. God was thought to have revealed himself in these events and relationships.
At the centre of Jewish society was the great sign of God’s covenant relationship with the Jewish tribes – the Tabernacle in the Tent of Meeting in the desert, then in the Temple at the heart of Jerusalem. Their God was invisible, yet the Tabernacle was their physical, visible sign of God’s presence , especially as it contained objects that related to their covenants, Moses’ tablets of the Law, the ‘bread of the presence’. Though Jews might live far distances away from Jerusalem, particularly after the diaspora, to know that the Temple was there, and to expected to be able to return for significant festivals made it a key part of their relationship with God. When they prayed many would face Jerusalem, as Muslims face Mecca, even though both recognise that God is present everywhere. Later the dispersed Jews began to meet, worship and be taught about faith in synagogues. These grew in importance after the Temple was destroyed in 70C.E, but the symbols of the Covenant promises remained in their memories.
Throughout their history, Jews believed that God communicated with them as a people through leaders and prophets. “He made known his ways to Moses, his acts to the children of Israel,” [Ps.103:7]... “God warned Israel, and to Judah, by every prophet, and every seer, saying, ‘Turn from your evil ways, and keep my commandments and my statutes, in accordance with all the law that I commanded your ancestors, and that I sent to you by my servants the prophets...’” [2 Kings 17:13].
Later prophets like Joel Isaiah and Jeremiah began to teach that ordinary individual believers would come to know God more personally themselves: “This is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel in those days (the days that are surely coming v.31), says the Lord: I will put my law within them and write it in their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. No longer shall they teach one another ‘Know the Lord’, for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, says the Lord, for I will forgive their iniquity and remember their sin no more” [Jer.31:33-34]
Yet a large divide remained between human beings and their God. That difference between us and God remains in Christianity, yet orthodox faith believes that Jesus Christ made a substantial bridge that narrows that divide: “Long ago God spoke to our ancestors in many and various ways by the prophets, but in these days he has spoken to us by a Son...” [Heb. 1:1, 2]... “No-one has ever seen God; it is God the only begotten Son, who is close to the Father’s heart, who has made him known.” [John 1:18].
The idea of Special Revelation, particularly the revelation brought by Jesus of Nazareth, recognises that God communicates to us out of forgiving grace, even though we all fail to reach the perfection that God’s purity requires, so do not deserve a close relationship with a perfect creator.
SOME THINGS WE BELIEVE OF GOD ACCORDING TO THE SPECIAL REVELATION OF SCRIPTURE:
Although God cannot be known completely, we are assured by scripture that certain things about God are true. These cannot be interpreted from nature and reason. For example:
God is love [1Jn.4:8],
God is spirit [Jn.4:24],
God is just and righteous [Rom.3:26],
God is all-seeking and all-knowing [Ps.139],
God is in light and truth, and in God is no darkness or untruth [1Jn.1:5],
God is Creator [Gen.1:1ff],
God is a loving Father of all creation. [Rom. 8:15],
God desires a trusting covenant relationship with people and God is faithful to covenant promises towards creation, particularly God’s people [Deut.7:9],
God is forgiving as a result of Jesus Christ’s activity [Eph.1:7; Col.1:14]
Jesus lives in us by God’s Spirit [Eph. 317; Phil 3:8, 10; Col. 1:27; Jn.14:23],
God’s Spirit is with us to guide us into all truth [Jn.16:13]
God has eternal expectations and promises for us [Jer.44:25; Mk.14:11; Jn.24:49; Heb.9:15; Jas.1:12; 1Jn.2:25].
A comprehensive list of the scriptural promises about the character, nature and activities of God would be enormous. In addition there nearly 1,000 metaphors in scripture used to describe God, like ‘rock of salvation’, ‘stronghold/fortress’, ‘husband/lover’, ‘shepherd’, ‘shield’, ‘healer’. If one unravelled their meaning the list would be even more expansive.
Although we do not actually see God, or see these qualities directly, when we consider these aspects of God, it could be said that, in some ways we ‘find God’ when we believe and trust in them. When we pray for God’s love, forgiveness, protection, healing, guidance, companionship in need, etc. we trust or hope that God will be true to those qualities of nature expressed in scripture. When we read of such qualities in scripture, meditate on them, believe them to be at work, or worship God for them, I believe that we are partially ‘finding’ God. As in a relationship with any human being, or any creature, the more we find out about them and experience being around them, the more we get to know them. It is similar with God: the more we consider the aspects of God that are revealed within scripture, reason, tradition and experience, the more we are able to develop an understanding of what is believed about the invisible God. This enables us to develop an inner relationship with God. Of course a sceptic could say that this is not actually ‘knowing God’ or proof of the reality of God, but increasing understanding of what scripture says about God enables us to develop trust and grow in insight. In addition, when we respond in trust and are faithful to the teachings and expectations of God, as revealed in scripture, we often find that experiences appear to confirm that there is a reality in what we believe.
The Bible does not primarily aim to present evidence for the existence of God. Rather, from the first verse in Genesis: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” onwards, the various writers assume that God exists and build their teaching upon this. Throughout the Bible it is implied that we are not just being told about God; people are assured that it is possible to relate to God personally. The expressions of faith in the Psalms especially describe a relationship with God as a source of joy, security and companionship, as well as a guide to our conscience and a power to be worried about is we are living wrongly. In a significant passage from the Gospel of John, Jesus is described as praying: "Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent." [Jn.17:3]. The Epistle attributed to John claims that we know God: "I write to you, children, because you know the Father" [1Jn.2:13]. These passages claim that God can be known meaningfully, despite being invisible and intangible. Such knowledge of God is described as a source of joy because we have the opportunity to communicate with God and rely on God’s power always being present.
THE FINDABILITY OF GOD THROUGH JESUS OF NAZARETH
The key Special Revelation of God is considered by Christians to be Jesus Christ himself. If Jesus of Nazareth was divine, as orthodox Trinitarian Christian doctrine claims, those who met him had actually known God manifested in human form [1Jn.1:13]. If this is true, and if the Gospel writings about Jesus are basically reliable, then in exploring the character, activities and teaching of Jesus in the Gospels we may come close to knowing what God is like. I believe that the many claims in John’s Gospel that Jesus has “made God known” were especially emphasised to clarify how Jesus’ revelation went so much further than any other revelation, even the Hebrew Scriptures and Jewish traditions of the time. Verses in the Bible make it clear that God is beyond comprehension, yet many times we are told in the New Testament that we now ‘know’ God through Jesus Christ [Jn.1:18; 15:15; 16:14-15; 17:26; Acts 8:10; Rom.3:21;Eph.1:9; 3:3-10; 1Jn.2:13]. “No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son who is close to the Father’s heart, who has made him known” [Jn.1:18].
It seems amazing that belief in divine aspects of Jesus’ developed so quickly after his death, while the early Church communities were still primarily comprised of Jews. For any Jew committed to monotheism, as was Saul of Tarsus, the idea that Jesus could be God would have been heretical and unthinkable. So it must have taken significant events and experiences to convince them to alter their sincere belief that there could be no God but YHWH and incorporate Jesus into their concept of God. In some elements of the Judaism of the Greco-Roman world there was a special reverence for unique figures like Moses, Enoch, the Messiah, or angels such as Michael, some of whom were given the title ‘sons of God’. Rarely, enigmatic figures were even referred to as associated with a divine title: Yahoel and Melchizedek were designated with the title ‘elohim’; Metatron was called “yahweh hakaton” [cf. L.W. Hurtado ‘How on Earth did Jesus become a God?’ Eerdmans 2005 p.128]. But the Rabbinic lists prohibited any worship of angels or men, and all these figures were regarded in very different ways to the form of devotion that early Jewish Christians developed towards Jesus. They gave worship to him alongside God the Father, while insisting that there was ‘one God’. It used to be assumed by many recent theologians that ideas of Jesus’ divinity and nature as ‘Son of God’ developed from the influence of pagan beliefs in the Greco-Roman world, where humans becoming divine, human heroes assuming divine status or being the sons of gods, apotheoses, and gods manifesting themselves in human form were relatively common concepts. Gentile Christians and Hellenistic Gentile converts to Judaism were thought to have assimilated pagan ideas into their understanding of Jesus’ nature. There may have been tendencies towards such assimilation of ideas and pagan superstitions among some believers. But such was the commitment to monotheism of the New Testament writers and early Church theologians that we cannot attribute the belief that Jesus was the divine Son of God who could be worshipped alongside the Father to this.
The early Christian belief that Jesus was God, and was raised to share the divine throne with the Father, is very different from the ideas of heroic sons of god in other religions. Among many theologians L.W. Hurtado has shown that the development of belief in Jesus’ divinity cannot be primarily attributed to pagan influences. He demonstrated that the belief grew first in Jewish Christian groups, where converts like the committed Pharisee Saul of Tarsus, would have adamantly countered anything that seemed to contradict the concept of a monotheistic God. St. Paul admitted to having had been an assiduous persecutor and destroyer of those who spread heresy [Gal.1:13-14; Phil.3:6; 1Cor.15:9; Acts 8:1-3; 9:1-2]. It must have taken significant events and experiences to build the convictions of Jews like Paul that led him to write of Jesus as God’s Son, Christ (Messiah / Kristos), “Lord” (’Kyrios’). Saul’s conversion is dramatically described in scripture [Acts 9:1-19; 1Cor.15:8-10]. With his Pharisaic background, it is astounding that St. Paul could write between 20 or 30 years of Jesus’ death, that Jesus “was in the form of God”... and shared “equality with God” [Phil.2:6]... and had “the name that is above every name” (probably a reference to the name of God) [Phil.2:9] or that the world could have been created through him “through whom are all things and through whom we exist” [1Cor.8:6]. Such belief was SO heretical for a strict Jew, that Paul must have had strong evidence to convince him.
As well their own spiritual experiences (most of which would not have been anything as dramatic as that of Saul), converts to Christianity would have heard reports of miracles, teachings and events during Jesus’ lifetime and experiences after his death that led eventually to the conviction that Jesus was to be worshipped as “Lord” [2Cor.3:4, 12-18]. Ideas would eventually develop into the concept of a Trinity over the next few centuries – ‘three persons in one God’ as believers sought to rationalise their beliefs and experiences. But if Phil.2:6-11 is quoting a Christian liturgy or hymn, which Paul’s contemporaries would have recognised, it seems clear that by about 30 years after Jesus’ death beliefs in his divinity were already commonly accepted in Christian communities. Certainly by the time that John’s Gospel was written (c80-90CE) the conviction was widespread.
John’s Gospel includes Jesus’ claim: “I and the Father are one” [Jn.10:30]. When Jesus debated with the Jewish authorities over the nature of his authority and whether he would admit to their accusation that he was heretically claiming to be divine, he is reported to have responded cryptically that in what he was doing they were seeing the work of his Father: “If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me, But if I do them, even if you do not believe me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father” [Jn.10:37-38]. The theologian L.W. Hurtado described the traditional orthodox belief in a useful phrase: “Jesus of Nazareth is the personal, human embodiment of the second person of the Trinity” [How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God? Eerdmans 2005, p.1]. For those who find it difficult to believe that Jesus of Nazareth could have been God manifested in human form, perhaps it might help to initially use a phrase like ‘Jesus of Nazareth provided God’s self-revelation through a human life’. Jesus is recorded as saying of himself “No-one knows who the Son is except the Father” [Matt.11:27; Lk.10:22] and “... the Son can do nothing on his own, but only what he sees the Father doing, for whatever the Father does the Son does likewise...” [Jn.5:19]. Jesus seemed to be claiming that he and his Father God were interdependent and worked in coordination, though Jesus maintained that he was subservient to the Father [Jn.14:28]. In Jesus teaching as recorded in John 14 and16, he included the Holy Spirit in this interdependence and unified activity.
The closeness of Jesus to God in revealing God’s ways and nature to us is reiterated by the writer of the First Epistle of John: “God’s love was revealed among us in this way: God sent his only Son into the world so that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the atoning sacrifice for us.” [1Jn.4:9-10]. The concept of Jesus’ death being required by his Father to act as a sacrifice is uncomfortable for some thinking people, who understandably believe that the idea of God sacrificing his Son seems cruel. Many contemporary believers prefer to consider Jesus’ death as an example of love offering itself on behalf of others and demonstrating to us an example of faithful self-giving. Nevertheless, it is clear in several books of the New Testament that Jesus’ death was regarded as a propitiatory sacrifice by the early Church and by the majority of believers over the centuries. Through Jesus’ death God is believed to have revealed not just divine love through the self-giving of Jesus, but God’s desire to restore a way whereby human beings can have the most direct possible relationship with God.
Orthodox Christian belief claims that Jesus Christ was sent so that people might come to know the Father in and through him, and by his teaching and his actions. [John 17:3; I John 5:20, I John 2:13; also Gal. 4:9; Phil 3:10; I John 2:3, 4:8]. He claimed “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No-one comes to the Father except thorough me. If you know me you will know the Father also. From now on you do now him and have seen him... Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say “show us the Father”? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not say on my own: but the Father who dwells in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, but if you do not, believe in the works themselves. Very truly I tell you, the one who believes in me will also do the works that I do, and in fact will do greater works than these because I am going to the Father... I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son....” [Jn.14:6-14]
We should not, however, weaken our concept of the uniqueness and enormity of the power of God as Creator of the cosmos by simply imagining God as the gentle image of a loving, wise, righteous, just man exemplified in Jesus. Our concept of God needs to be far broader than imagining God as a caring, loving ‘Father’, or the intimacy of friendship and advocacy of the Holy Spirit indwelling us. As well as Jesus claiming: I and the Father are one”, he also said: “the Father is greater than I” [Jn.14:28]. This again is a mystery, that there could be a sense of hierarchy with in the Trinity, despite oneness and interdependence, but it emphasises that we should think of God first and foremost as ‘one supreme God’ and the Son and the Spirit as dependent on and obedient to the Father’s will. St. Paul wrote of Jesus “not regarding equality with God as something to be exploited” [Phil.2:6]. Yet he was adamant in emphasising monotheism. ‘There is one God and one Lord, Jesus Christ” [1Cor.8:6; Eph.4:6; 1Tim.2:5]. Paul seems here to be making a clear distinction between the terms “God” and “Lord”. An understanding when St. Paul or the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews were writing, appears to have been that God raised Jesus to high, exalted status [Phil.2:8-9; Rom.1:3-4; Heb.1:3-4; Acts2:29-36]. This concept seems to have developed through interpretations of Ps.110:1: “The Lord said to my lord, come and sit at my right hand...”
If Jesus’ teaching and activity on earth is God’s self-revelation, there are many things that he exemplified and taught, by which we might know God: God is ‘loving’, ‘forgiving’, ‘creative’, ‘just’ and ‘demanding of justice’, ‘righteous’, ‘all-seeing’, ‘all-knowing’, ‘all-understanding’, ‘spirit’, ‘life-giving’. Even if Jesus was just a good, wise man, not, as the Christian Church concluded, the personal, human embodiment of the second person of the Trinity, his teachings about how to live are still the truest, most universal way to live abundantly, lovingly, at peace and righteously in community. So one could say that he was teaching truth. And if we are in the presence of truth and living by truth we can be assured that God is there, involved with us.
For a peasant child of a craftsman’s family, living in an undistinguished area of Palestine, Jesus spoke with prodigious wisdom and developed a deep knowledge of people as well as faith. It is possible that he could have developed in such a way, just as a clever, sensitive young man assimilating learning through the teaching of the local synagogue. However there were many aspects of Jesus’ teaching and actions that went far beyond the normal rabbinical teaching that he would have received. The Gospels refer to people being astonished at the level of his wisdom and biblical and spiritual understanding for a carpenter from Nazareth. The crowds appear to have flocked to him because they recognised a unique charisma within in his words and actions. If there is only a small percentage of truth within the stories of his healings and other miracles, it would still suggest that there was a power in Jesus that was more than in normal human beings. Whatever is the truth of who Jesus was – whether he was human, divine or both, his teachings remain eminently worth following. And if he was divine, he gives us a more intimate way to relate to God than in any other form of religion in the world, and more direct ways to understand and develop a relationship with God. If Jesus was the means by which God ‘self-revealed’ to humanity, that is an important reason for all Christians to seek to develop a working knowledge of the Gospels and find how to apply the knowledge of Jesus Christ’s life and teaching to our daily lives.
FINDING GOD THROUGH TRUST WITHOUT NECESSARILY FEELING GOD’S PRESENCE
Many, perhaps the majority of Christians believe in God and follow Jesus’ teaching without necessarily having the sublime experiences or the physical confirmations of trust with which some biblical characters and a few Christians over time and today have been blessed. Not all Christians have significant physical or spiritual experiences. In practice, unlike St Thomas, the majority of us ‘believe without having seen’ [Jn.20:29].
Christian belief is primarily based on trust that our beliefs are true. In the Bible the words ‘faith’ and ‘trust’ are used almost synonymously. In the Gospel of John they are translations of the same Greek word: ‘pistis’, which can also be translated ‘trustworthy’, ‘faithful’, ‘absolute certainty’, ‘reliability’. By trust we come to believe that God is the true Creator ordering the cosmos. We trust that God has many of the qualities described in scripture and demonstrated by Jesus; we trust that God lives in us by God’s Spirit [Eph. 317; Phil 3:8, 10; Col. 1:27; John 14:23], and so much more. When we trust in these unprovable yet meaningful things we can act with confidence in faith, whether we see them at work or not. This is the sort of trusting faith that is commended in Heb.11, where the writer lists many figures in biblical stories of characters who stepped out into the unknown in faith, discovered God to be true and achieved significant things.
I am certain that it is possible to have found God without feeling any sense that God is present with or in us. I sense from pastoral conversations that this is probably the state and experience of a huge number of believers’ relationships with God. It is possibly also the nature of God’s relationship with many who do not believe or find belief difficult, yet have appealed notionally to God or sought the truth at some time in their lives. “I sought the Lord and he answered me” [Ps.34:4] is not always the experience of those of us who search. If Jesus’ promise is true that if any truthfully seek they will find [Lk.11:9], God must be in some way findable to any who seek authentically. At baptism Christians start a journey towards understanding. Their godparents, family and sponsors and the church community make promises to nurture them in faith. Adult baptism and confirmation candidates should have been mentored in preparation, but they are largely entering upon a relationship where more is unknown about God than is known. This is especially true in child baptism, where, dependent upon age and background, a child may have no knowledge of Christ or faith whatsoever, so the relationship with God may be building on no initial experiences or mental knowledge. The Church baptises in faith that God will carry out the divine part of the covenant promises. But it is largely the role of believers to nurture and train new Christians towards a mature faith. We must admit that in most cases this post-baptism nurture and training is sadly lacking in today’s Church worldwide.
There are several promises in the Bible which assure us that God responds to those who seek and ask:
The writer of John’s Gospel claimed of Jesus’ contemporaries: ‘”We beheld his glory” [Jn.1:14] but most believers live in trust that God exists; that what scripture teaches about Jesus is largely true; and that the promises and other teachings offered in the Bible contain truth, without us having yet seen or experienced many or any of them. That is the nature of faith, as claimed by the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews: “Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things as yet unseen.” [Heb.11:1].
It is a tragedy when any enthusiastic but erroneous church teaching implies that all should have some physical or tangible experience of God, since this is evidently not true. Pentecostal preaching has sometimes caused sincere believers to lose faith when they have failed to reach the level of experience that others claim to have and believe or claim that all should have. The agnostic husband of a Christian friend of mine attended several Alpha Courses, sincerely seeking to be able to believe, so that he could share faith with his partner. He prayed repeatedly for a tangible experience of the Holy Spirit which the unwise leaders of the groups insisted he should be having when they prayed over him. When apparently nothing out of the ordinary occurred in response to his repeated, sincere prayers and the prayers of others over him, he concluded that the rest of their teaching must also be hokum. The deep disappointment set back his sincere search for faith. He had truly wanted to believe. Sadly, the tension of the experience gradually built a barrier in what had been a loving relationship with his wife, and the marriage fell apart. This damaged not just the couple, but their two young children and their shared relationship with friends. I regarded this man as very close to God’s heart. I am certain that if the church leadership had been wiser in their teaching and guidance, if they had been more able to support someone with questions and doubts, his relationship could have been saved. He should have been taught honestly that few believers actually have physical proof of spirituality yet can still believe and have God’s Spirit within them. Like the young ruler who came to seek truth from Jesus [Matt.19:16-22], he was very close to the Kingdom of God without knowing it! In living spirituality we are searching for what is true even if our physical senses do not tangibly apprehend that we have found it. Living authentically by Christ’s way, with true spiritual integrity is often sufficiently satisfying.
How then can we be assured that God is with us if we do not have physical proof? Much of the time we need to hold on to the promises of scripture, like those above. We recognise that scripture contains editorial changes, so is not simply ‘the direct word of God’, as some fundamentalists still believe. But all of the Bible can still contain life-enhancing truths. In the Bible’s various books we are dealing with different genres and different ways of describing and expressing faith from a wide spectrum of generations. Some books of the Bible contain legend, poetry, political and religious propaganda and biased opinions, so it cannot be all regarded literally as historic facts that can be corroborated. Yet the whole of scripture contains enough truth to live by and to find a relationship with God within, as long as we interpret it correctly. Faith in scripture is not just based on wishful thinking, outdated traditions and superstitions. The scriptures have stood the test of time and much enlightened critique to show that the bases of faith contained within them are sound for practical living. Jesus’ teaching is still, two thousand years later, “the Way, the Truth and the Life” [Jn.14:6], it can help us towards abundant life and physical, emotional and spiritual fulfilment and abundance [Jn.10:10]. Interpreting and applying the Bible wisely in the circumstances of everyday life can bring us close to understanding about God and the ways to live rightly, The scriptures are ancient literature, with the cultural attitudes that were prevalent at the time of writing, in the culture in which it was written. So many interpretations will inevitably be different today. For scripture to be true it needs to be interpreted with sensitivity to the present context. Understandings of human society and psychology have changed drastically since biblical times. We are better educated, and comprehend more broadly and in more detail, though our knowledge is never complete and is recognised as being provisional. We have different comprehension and attitudes towards gender roles, sexuality, foreigners, other belief systems, cleanliness, food, worship, the sanctity of human life, human rights, etc. So it is inevitable that we need to be careful not to simplistically apply scripture verses directly, out of context, to today’s world. If we are living with love and integrity according to the amount of knowledge that we have, I believe that we will be in the presence of the true God.
The Christian scriptures can never be sufficient in themselves to assure us that we have found God. Other experiences can act as assurances. Sometimes in prayer we sense that we are communicating with a mind that understands and cares for us. This may be wishful-thinking, but I do believe that my prayers, intercessions, thanks and praises are heard. In worship we may sense that we are declaring truths that we believe to be real about the spiritual dimension. In situations where we feel awe, truth and beauty we may sense that we are recognising qualities that God formed in creation.
Key aspects of our experience may assure us that we are living by truth. The fruitfulness of our human lives can enable us to sense that we are living by truth, including whether we are developing the qualities that St. Paul mentions as ‘the fruit of the Spirit’. Our lives growing in ‘love’, ‘joy’, ‘peace’, ‘patience’, ‘kindness’, goodness’, ‘faithfulness’, ‘gentleness’, self-control’ [Gal.5:22-23]. We know that life is hard and a struggle for many: we all struggle at times and are not promised that things will be easier for Christians than for any who do not follow God, though we pray for protection. Yet it is possible to find a peace in difficult situations and to feel that God is with us. Though we may not see or feel God’s presence we may be assured of it by an inner warmth of conviction.
It could and has been argued that psychologically it does not matter whether God is real or not: that it is enough if believing in God is a useful psychological prop for those who have faith. St. Paul considered this issue, and also admitted that if Christ has not been raised from the dead we are most to be pitied, because we are giving our lives for a falsehood. [1Cor.15:14, 19]. However, on the other hand, if the grounds of the Christian faith DO prove to be real, as Paul was convinced, and as I believe, we can only benefit. If faith works to help people, then surely it is useful, whether it is founded on truth or not. Yet this is a sad argument: if it was true, those of us who believe would be reliant on false premises and foundations. I am not ashamed to admit that my belief in God is a ‘prop’, for it a support that works to make my life fulfilling. It is a prop, but I am convinced that my faith is also true. We pray into silence to God when we have needs, or when we intercede for others and for situations beyond our sphere of influence or help. We may not experience answers to those prayers, but it is useful to feel that we are not alone in carrying burdens and concerns. Sharing problems and thoughts can often go a long way towards lightening their pressure on our minds. We are not losing out if we are sharing those concerns and alleviating their pressure upon us. But if we are sharing them with a power that truly has the ability to intervene in the situations that concern us, we have a double advantage.
DOES HUMANITY HAVE AN INNER SENSE OF GOD?
Although there are many forms of belief in the world, many Christian believers have chosen their faith because they believe that Christianity provides the fullest true understanding of God. They also consider Jesus’ teaching as the most authentic way to live with integrity. For centuries Christians have tried to gather evidence to prove the existence of God for evangelistic purposes and to consolidate belief. Although universally convincing empirical evidence is not possible, this does not make belief invalid. Nor, unfortunately, is it proof of the truth of our faith in God.
It has been suggested that all human beings are formed with an inner sense that God exists. Rom. 1:21 and 1:19 seem to affirm this. John Calvin [1509-1564] claimed that a ‘sensus divinitatis’ (‘a sense or awareness of the divine’) was built into all people, giving us an awareness that God exists. René Descartes [1596-1650] claimed that our senses only have meaning if a beneficent God is behind creation. The fact that nearly all societies in human history have developed religious faiths and superstitions does not necessarily confirm the truth of God’s existence, as some claim. Yet as it appears that so many peoples have an inner spiritual drive, it certainly seems possible that we may be intended to gain spiritual fulfilment through a relationship with something beyond ourselves, not just other human beings. As I will discuss later, the gatherer of wise thoughts or ‘Qoheleth’ who compiled the Book of Ecclesiastes described the frustration of having an inner drive to understand God and discover new knowledge, yet never to be able to fully understand [Eccles.3:10-11]. St. Paul claimed that the movement of God’s Spirit within us gives us an assurance of the reality of our faith and that the Holy Spirit in our lives bears witness that we are God’s children [Rom. 8:16]. St. Paul similarly claimed that human beings have an inner sense of right and wrong, ideas of morality and a fear of resultant judgment if we go against such inbuilt ethical drives [Rom. 1:18 -20 and 1:23, 25, 28, 32]. Does this inner sense just derive from socialising with others and develop as a result of sensing responsibility towards the community, or may God have formed such inner senses within us?
Sceptics would deny that there is no proof of God in people having an inner sense of the existence of God or an instinctive drive for spiritual fulfilment [Ps. 14:1, 53:1, 10:3-4]. To counter scepticism, some Christians follow St. Paul’s claim that sin has brought doubt and denial of God’s existence and denial of people’s inner knowledge of God. But that can be too patronising and easy a way to counter criticism. Much in the world religions and popular beliefs has derived from superstition, so it is understandable that thinking people question our beliefs. As a thinking person myself, I often question my beliefs too, and reason through them. I may have had a few experiences that convince me that God exists and that what I have found is true, but I recognise that they could be mostly labelled as subjective. I sense that God is with me and I sense when I have God’s disapproval. (I am as sure as I can be that the latter is not just my conscience at work.) Very occasionally there may be something that I sense confirms God’s presence. But normally, like most Christians in the world, I am living with faith as “the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things unseen.” [Heb.11:1]. That was sufficient for many of the great heroes of the Bible and throughout Church History.
CAN TRADITIONAL ‘PROOFS’ FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD HELP US FIND GOD?
Traditionally several evidences have been given for God’s existence, though these have often been challenged by both Christian and non-Christian thinkers. Such evidences are not necessarily ways to know God, or ways of developing a relationship with God, but if any of them are convincing, they may give someone confidence that the grounds of their faith are not illogical.
In ‘Summa Theologica’ Thomas Aquinas [1225-1274] proposed five arguments as evidence of God’s existence, which might be summarised as:
These philosophical arguments were the basis of Church understanding for centuries, but they do not stand up to detailed modern philosophical, logical or scientific scrutiny. However, some of them developed into some of the evidences that are offered today:
1. The cosmological argument – claims that everything in the universe has a cause. Nothing begins to exist without a something causing it to happen. God is claimed to be that cause.
2. The teleological argument – partly related to the cosmological argument, claims that evidence of harmony, order, and complexity of design in the cosmos is evidence of an intelligent mind or purpose behind all, which is attributed to God. [The Greek word ‘telos’ means “end”, “goal”, ‘aim’ or “purpose”]. Plato and Aristotle proposed this argument, as did Thomas Aquinas and William Paley in ‘Natural Theology, or Evidences for the Existence and Attributes of the Deity’ [1802]. David Hume and Chares Darwin questioned the logic of the argument, but I personally find this argument the most convincing of all evidences for God’s existence.
3. The ontological argument – proposed by St. Anselm of Canterbury [c1033-1109]. In his ‘Prosiogion’ / ‘Prosiogium’ [1078] he claimed that there must be something “greater than which nothing can be imagined.” It argues that some such entity or being must exist and claims that God is this being, so must be real. [The stem ont- in “ontological” derived from the Greek word for “being”]. It seems rather contrived reasoning to claim that because the idea of God exists, God must be real, since God is the logical answer to the concept of a being or power beyond all else.
4. The moral argument – claims that human beings have an inbuilt sense of right, wrong, the need for justice and fear of future judgement, which must be instilled in our consciousness by God as our righteous source. It is claimed that we also have, in ourselves, a recognition that we are impotent to help ourselves, and that only something outside ourselves, which is God, can overcome sin and forgive us. Further to this, it claims that only God’s Spirit can open our minds to convince us of the evidence of God’s existence, convict us of our spiritual need and enable us to turn to God and relate to God [2 Cor. 4:4, 1 Cor. 1:21, 1 Cor. 2:5]
5. The argument from beauty – similar to the moral argument, this supposes that our recognition of beauty, goodness and meaningfulness in things shows that we have inbuilt connections to a spiritual dimension that is full of beauty, goodness and meaning. These qualities are in the world, it is claimed, because God is perfect and God’s creation is the result of a universally perfect creative power at work. It has been spoiled by what is bad and sinful, but we still recognise and long for what is perfect. This argument is based in part on Plato’s idea that there is a dimension beyond ours which holds more perfect forms than ours, and towards which we have an inner relationship and a longing to be reunited.
6. The argument from consciousness – suggests that our human minds and awareness or consciousness cannot have been developed simply by accident or by purely physical processes. It is claimed that our consciousness must have been developed by a power beyond our own conscious abilities. i.e. We exist and are aware that we exist as spiritual beings with souls, because the mind of God is involved with our formation.
7. The argument that there is ‘a Rational Warrant for Belief’ – promoted by the philosophers Stephen Toulmin and Joseph Hinman claims that though much religion is based on traditions and myths, many people have significant spiritual and physical life-changing experiences that cannot be denied or merely attributed to mental weaknesses or hallucinations. Faith in God seems to work and be true for believers, so this evidence that spirituality can truly help to transform people’s lives is taken as evidence that a spiritual world and God exists. This, I personally consider to be the second most convincing argument.
8. Other arguments from reason – suggest that there are many indications in the cosmos, in the human mind and in spiritual experiences that point to the truth of God. Inductive reasoning claims that though each piece of evidence on its own might not be sufficient to convince, taken together they build up to be convincing as evidence.
9. More subjective arguments include the idea that credible witnesses throughout history have had personal spiritual experiences, felt that God has communicated with them, had spiritual truths revealed to them, witnessed miracles and particular events that have convinced them of God’s involvement and God’s reality. Being subjective, it could be argued that one person’s feeling that they have had a spiritual experience could be interpreted differently by others, and is not empirical proof that it is true. But the numbers of spiritual experiences that people have in the world are surely not all misinterpretations of events. It seems probable that there is truth behind and within spirituality.
Numerous other evidences are given for the existence of God by theorists, philosophers and theologians, but as I have written earlier, none actually enable us to ‘find’ God. They merely help to develop confidence in the possibilities that faith is true and that belief in God could possibly be reliable. These give a foundation for making the leap of faith to begin to reach out and attempt to relate to God.
THE FINDABILITY OF GOD WITHIN OURSELVES
If Christian theorists and apologists are right in believing that we are formed with an inner need and capacity to relate to God and the spiritual realm, then it should be possible for all to find ways of fulfilling this. A perfect God would not form creatures with the intention of developing relationships with them, and instil in them the capacity and longing to relate spiritually, yet make it impossible to form such a relationship. St. Augustine recognised this when he wrote: “Almighty God, you have made us for yourself and our hearts are restless until they find their rest in you”. [Confessions 1:1:1].
Thomas Aquinas believed that we reach out to the divine when we allow love to develop within us towards God and towards others. Our final union with God, he believed, will be essentially a union of our minds or souls through love with what he called “the First Truth”. He believed that our minds ascend to God through contemplation. Our union with God involves a combination of the human intellect, metaphysics enlightened by revelation and the work of the Holy Spirit within us. Thus, he believed, all aspects of our nature, body, soul/mind and spirit, work together in relating us to God. Based on Jn.17:3, he claimed that to ‘know God’ is the main goal of human life. (This has similarities to the declaration of “Man’s chief aim” in the Protestant Westminster Shorter Confession, which is described as being “to glorify God and enjoy God for ever”. (The phrasing of the Confession reflects 1Cor.10:31; Eccles.12:13 and Ps.73:24-26 as well as the meaning within Jn.17:3.)
For a relationship in which we ‘know’ or understand aspects of God, Aquinas claimed that we need to develop more than simple contemplation of God. Love motivates the human mind to search for and approach God, but Aquinas claimed that our love of God alone is insufficient to bring about our union with God. He regarded curiosity as an essential element of human nature, which encourages us to develop and builds our understanding and broaden our experience in our search to ‘know God’. He encouraged Christians let our curiosity motivate us to actively seek to become closer in our knowledge of God. Contemplation, prayer and worship are valuable elements in this process. But Aquinas insisted that we also need to nourish our minds by intellectual reasoning, diligent searching and thoroughly studying to try to understand God’s truth and recognise where God is at work. While also emphasising the incomprehensibility of God, and that God is the source of all revelation, Aquinas promoted the importance of committed intellectual search to seek to understand as much as can possibly be known of God. Spiritual contemplation, intellectual search and reasoning combine to help believers encounter the mystery of God.
Intellectual reasoning and study cannot usually resolve mysteries. We may not always, if ever, become satisfied with the extent of our relationship with God, since so much about God is mystery and thus incomprehensible to all human minds. The wise compiler of Ecclesiastes claimed that frustration is inevitable due to the limitations of our capabilities. The passage in question is variously translated, but perhaps the clearest translation is: “I have seen all the activity that God has given to human beings. He has made everything meaningful in its time, and has set the search for eternity in the human heart, yet we cannot fathom God from beginning to end.” [Eccles.3:10-11]. The constant search for further and deeper understanding of most things in creation, including spiritual things, has been the source of human progress through millennia in the sciences, arts, social development, technology, philosophy sociology, history, religion and all other areas of enlightenment. Within our human psychology seems to be a drive to search into things we do not sufficiently comprehend and advance our minds and skills. It leads us to think further and explore more deeply many issues that have led to the advance humankind. Yet despite our yearnings to find out truths, in relating to God, God will always remain largely unfathomable in so many ways. Nevertheless we still seem to have an inner urge to search to comprehend more about our God, as part of our aim to advance knowledge, and to fulfil our inner spiritual longings.
Many things other than the limitations of the human mind hinder or get in the way of such spiritual fulfilment:
If the idea that we are made “in the image and likeness of God” is true, and not just visual imagery in the legendary language of Genesis, it may be that whatever is common in our two such different natures could be a place of contact between us and God. I have heard several believers talking of the concept of ‘finding the God within ourselves’, but this could be interpreted wrongly. A Christian should not interpret this in a ‘New Age’ transcendental way. Rather the Christian aim is to find how we can faithfully be examples of the true image of God that we are meant to represent and share. We are assured by Christ and St. Paul that God lives in us by the Holy Spirit [Jn.16:13; 1Cor.3:16; 6:19; 2Tim. 1:14]. Genesis 1:26-27 and 9:6 implies that there is part of us that is ‘in God’s likeness’. Despite the arrogance of some people, it is obvious to most of us that we are not ‘gods’ in the conventional use of the term as ‘divine beings”. We fail far too much to “be perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect”. So anything of the divine reflected in us must be less direct than metaphorical.
Jesus did use the term ‘gods’ of human beings when quoting scripture back to the religious leaders who were condemning him for supposedly claiming to be the ‘Son of God’. In Jn.10:33-36 he justified what they were saying of him by pointing to scriptures in which human beings are described in god-like terms: A Psalmist wrote in Ps.8:4-6 says: “What are human beings that you should consider them? Yet you have made them little lower than the ‘heavenly beings’ (or ‘gods’ in some translations) and crowned them with glory and honour. You have given them dominion over the works of your hands; and have put all things under their feet.” An old translation of the Psalm, probably a mistranslation, interprets this to being a prophecy about Christ: “What is man that you are mindful of him, the Son of Man that you should look on him. You have made him little lower than God and crowned him with glory and honour, and have given him dominion over all things.” Although commentators in the past often related this directly to Jesus, in the context of the whole psalm it seems clear that the words are talking about us as human beings in relation to God’s Creation and that this is not reference to the Messiah. In the context of this Psalm the word ‘gods’ (‘elohim’ in Hebrew; ‘theoi’ in the Greek Septuagint translation) seems to mean ‘heavenly beings’ rather that anything like the One God. (‘Elohim’ can also be translated elsewhere as ‘heavenly beings’ or even ‘angels’). The verse seems to be suggesting that we have a high spiritual calling and elevated possibilities as human beings, rather than that we are supernatural or have elements of the divine.
The statement ascribed to God in Genesis 1 relates us to the nature or image of our Creator: “Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness”... So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.” [Gen.1:26-27]. This is a verse in an ancient legendary story, so it may not have as literal a meaning as many believers in the past, as well as some in the present, have interpreted it. We may just be reading a form of picture language or metaphorical imagery suggesting our important place in the spiritual and physical world. It seems to imply that we share some aspect of the characteristics or nature of our creator. We may never know what being ‘in God’s image’ was actually initially intended to mean but I am fascinated by the variety of ways that people of faith through history attempted to define what it might mean for us to be ‘in the image and likeness of God’ [Gen.1:26; 9:6]. Some of the many and varied speculations and guesses at interpretation are listed below:
Our understanding of personality has thankfully expanded hugely since the Early Church and St. Augustine, but perhaps Augustine’s instinct was true that we reflect our Creator in our wholeness and complexity. Other theologians through time have continued to speculate, and still do.
The passage in the Genesis legend on which all this speculation about the nature of human beings is based, ascribes these words to God: “Let us create humankind in our image, according to our likeness” [Gen.1:26]. The verse uses two distinct Hebrew words ‘tzelem’ and ‘demus’ translated differently as ‘image’ and ‘likeness’. These Hebrew words, though used in the parallelism of Hebrew poetry and dialectic, are not synonymous, although they both carry the sense of either ‘similarity’ or ‘correspondence’ between God and humankind. ‘Image’ has its roots in the idea of a ‘shadow’-‘tzel’. ‘Likeness’ is derived from ‘domeh’ meaning ‘similar’. Together they imply that we do not physically ‘resemble’ God so much as reflect or mirror God in the way that the ‘shadow’ of a person relates to its original. But exactly in what ways we embody God’s image and likeness are not specified in the Bible. I think that this enigma could be deliberate and useful. We find out how to live, act and think in God-like ways by living. Each of us has to discover how this applies to our lives for ourselves in the light of Scripture, revelation and experience. Being told that we are ‘in the image of God’ gives us a high aim to grow towards, and is a profound guiding principle by which to measure our actions. Jesus’ command: “Be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect” gives us a similar broadly focused aim without precision of interpretation [Matt.5:48].
I personally think that it doesn’t matter that we are not able to understand this mystery of how we reflect God. What truly matters, I believe, is that we should keep in mind Jesus’ teaching that we are meant to resemble and represent our God, in whatever ways may be true, and in whatever ways we are able. This can expand our expectations of ourselves, as God’s mystery expands our conception of God. It gives us aims and ambitions, individually and corporately, to live up to God’s holiness and activity. We are meant to live, work and use our gifts and our stewardship of the earth, keeping true to this high understanding that to be fully human we should live in righteous, perfect, god-like ways.
As reflectors of God’s image, Christians must be careful to ensure that we are humbly emulating the God about whom Jesus taught and who he reflected in his whole life. It is tempting and far too easy for us to create a limited God in our own image, with our own ideas and prejudices, or to become arrogant that we know more than we do. This has led to mistakes throughout Christian history. By our faithfulness to the true ways shown by Christ, we may not reflect God as perfectly as Jesus revealed him, but our Christian lives are intended to show consistently that the God in our lives is real and as available to all others as to us. It is also useful to remember that somehow the image of God may be in all people, whether followers of God or others, so we should treat all with equal dignity and respect. It may be hard to consider that God’s image is still present in people who we regard as acting particularly sinfully. We know that we ourselves sin, but often our intentions remain good. Some seem more intentionally evil. Yet if we can try to love all, as though they contain aspects of the image of God, we will act more consistently according to the model and example represented by Christ.
Jesus called his followers to be faithful to his teachings: “You are my friends if you do what I command you...“I do not call you servants any longer, because the servant does not know what the master is doing, but I have called you friends because I have made known to you everything that I have heard from my Father... You did not choose me, but I chose you... I appointed you to go and bear fruit, fruit that will last.” [Jn.15:14-16] This is not just a description of us being disciples of a teacher, but particularly a way of representing our oneness with our leader, since this passage is preceded with Jesus’ words about us being part of him in the imagery of ‘the Vine’: “Abide in me as I abide in you... abide in me and (let) my words abide in you...” [Jn.15:4, 7]. In his prayer in Gethsemane before his arrest Jesus is recorded as asking for his followers: “As you Father are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us... I in them and you in me, that they may become completely one.” [Jn17:21-23]. We talk of a similar oneness when we use the imagery of the Christian community as the “Body of Christ” [1Cor.12:12-27]. In some ways, therefore, when we are united and working together for good, we may be manifesting God more directly than we see.
We must always be careful to keep a broad holistic concept of the God represented in the whole of scripture in our mind, so that we protect ourselves from making, relying upon, or promoting a God in our own image, or with our own biases. Yet in several ways, God is what we want or need God to be at different times of life or in various situations. At specific times we need God to be loving and caring, forgiving, supporting and affirming in situations of desperation; to be a God of purity, judgement and discernment in times of temptation or when combatting sinful situations; a God of wisdom in times when we need to make significant decisions. A strong God is needed when we feel weak and in need of support, loving and accepting when we feel lonely or deserted; God’s justice is important to remember when we have done wrong, or when others have sinned against us. Because our minds are finite we can only deal with a limited number of issues at one time, so it is inevitable that we may only recognise a narrow perceptive on God in certain situations. We call certain qualities of activities of God to mind in the areas of life to which they apply. It is important to focus on certain aspects of God when we need to recognise God as meeting our needs in that area or the needs of someone who we may be helping, or praying for at any particular moment. Limited perspectives only become unhealthy or unhelpful views of God if we hold onto severely limited ideas of God all the time. Recognising that we live constantly in the presence of God requires us to hold a broad understanding that God is all the qualities, nature and character that are represented in scripture, and probably infinitely more than these.
Even the greatest Christians will probably never adequately represent God, just as we can never fully understand God, and as St. Paul reminds us: “All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” [Rom.3:23]. None of us are ‘perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect’ [Matt.5:48] as Jesus encouraged us to aim to be. We often limp forward, following God as perfectly as we can, and when we have failed, repenting and finding and accepting forgiveness through Christ. Many people carry false images of themselves, either feeling too inadequate and sinful, or less frequently too arrogant and self-assured. Part of our mission as Christians is to help others as well as ourselves to find and be the righteous people that we and they are created to be.
The Christian idea of being the person that God formed you to be, and fulfilling the gifts that you have to the best of your abilities, can be very different from the modern preoccupation with people ‘finding themselves’ and ‘being true to themselves’. Such a humanistic preoccupation could, and often does, become very self-centred. Whether it is manifested in sexual or gender liberation, racial liberation, self-assertion, freedom to behave as you want, liberation of one’s personality or even attaining ‘mindfulness’, such self-preoccupation can sometimes lead to people asserting themselves over-dominantly above others. This does not reflect Christ’s idea of working selflessly, for the good and up-building of others, considering others better than yourself and being a servant to others, loving them with Christ-like ‘agapé’ (‘selfless, outgoing love’). Too often over recent years, individuals and groups have started over-asserting their rights and dominate others rather than working for equality, equity and the advancement of all. (Sadly, too often we experience unrighteous self-centredness and self-promotion among church members and leaders as well as in secular society.) It is right to rebalance the bias of the status quo that has persisted in society and in churches for too long in areas of gender, sexuality, class or financial privilege, disabilities etc. We need to demonstrate that all are equal and all should be treated equitably, but we should not overbalance in the other direction and over-promote minorities or those who in the past have been marginalised or discriminated against. The Bible does not talk about the assertion of our rights; it tries to make us all recognise that we are equal in sharing the love and care of God. We have responsibility towards all others, valuing and responding to all equally. It is wrong for any party to over-assert their distinctions or distinctiveness at the expense of the value of others. This is not even the way that God. as supreme Lord, acts towards subjects.
Being content within ourselves or our situations and not standing on our rights is another quality in which we can reflect God. Regularly throughout the Hebrew Scriptures God promised to justly deal with those who sinned or fell short of his precepts and requirements. But almost as frequently God did not stand on divine rights and is described as forgiving and reuniting with those who have failed, not insisting on divine prerogative. Jesus reflected this image: “Let the same mind be in you as was in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.” [Phil.2:5-8].
Sadly self-assertion rather than Christ-like humility occurs too much in Church circles. In my former diocese I encountered a number of leaders in the diocesan hierarchy who arrogantly insisted on putting themselves and their rights at the forefront and put down or disregarded others. Many Christians initially come to God because they recognise their inadequacy and their need of God. But when, through their faith in God, their confidence in themselves or their growing position of influence in church, some start to ‘lord-it’ over others. Some become arrogant, over-assured that their faith is strong and their doctrinal beliefs are ‘sound’ (our faith is NEVER strong or complete enough). Christians should never feel themselves to be of supreme importance in their church community. Jesus was totally against hierarchic arrogance: Think of his teaching about the value of the little child [Matt.18:4; 19:14], the way he deflated the ambitions of the twin disciples who wanted to reign on his right and left [Matt.20:20-27; Mk.10:35-45], and his ‘woes’ to the Pharisees [Matt.23:13-35]. Or model of humility in our relationship with God should follow the model of Christ: “who did not take equality with God as something to be exploited”...”emptied himself, taking the form of a servant”... “humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death.” [Phil.2:6-8]. How many religious leaders in the Church today do we see reflecting God in their personalities and actions, with that extent of humility? Perhaps that is why it is increasingly hard to find God through some churches and religious institutions. Humble recognition of one’s own weaknesses, as well as valuing one’s position with gratitude, is part of developing our relationship with God.
When Jesus taught: “Those would lose their life for my sake will gain it” [Matt.10:39; 16:26; Mk.8:5-36; Lk.9:24-5] he seems to have been encouraging us to find God’s priorities and follow them more than our own. He was not encouraging us to become martyrs... A BIG mistake throughout Church-history has been people’s neglect of themselves. Jesus said: “I have come that they may have life in all its abundance” [Jn.10:10]. Abundant life is NOT an over-full life or ministry, over-neglectful of one’s self, one’s health, one’s rest and one’s responsibilities to family and others. A true Christian work ethic gives time to find God in our lives while making time for self, family, other people, rest, relaxation and enjoyment as well as developing our relationship with God and being involved in God’s mission. Too many people today, even Christians, over-work or are not wise stewards of their time, lives and families. An abundant Christian life, in which we find God, is not one that is focused abnormally on work, ministry or Church. We will not enjoy God if neglect the other pleasures that are given to us to fulfil life. Perhaps recognising beauty, enjoyment, entertainment and socialising with others are areas where we might find glimpses of God in others and in the environment. Jesus made time for social relationships: the marriage at Cana [Jn.2:1], close friendship with the family of Lazarus [Jn.11; 12:1-2], feasting with a leader of the Pharisees [Lk.7:36-37; 11:37]. He was criticised for being a friend of tax-collectors and sinners, feasting and drinking with them [Matt.11:19; Mk.2:16; Lk.7:34], but that was how his ministry of love and the offering of forgiveness worked and where he fulfilled his mission. His interaction with others persuaded them that in him really was “the Way, the Truth, and the Life” [Jn.14:6]. He wasn’t ramming sinfulness down people’s throats all the time; he was showing the way of living righteously and abundantly in relationship with people and with God. The energy and direction for living our lives to the full needs to come through being connected effectively to our spiritual source, actively connected to our place in God, as an electrical device needs to be connected to its source of energy. In all these things it is possible to find God.
We are frequently drawn closer to God and find God when we turn for divine support or guidance in times of struggle and need. Jesus claimed that ‘the road is hard that leads to life” [Matt.7:14]. Christ did not promise that life for his followers would be easy, and neither did he promise that knowing God would come easily. Too often some Christians think or are badly taught that our lives should be continually blessed, and perhaps that we should have a permanent sense that God is close to us in all situations. Jesus claimed that “If any want to become my followers they should deny themselves, take up their cross and follow me. For those who find their life will lose it and those who lose their life for my sake will find it. For what will it profit them if they gain the whole world but forfeit their life? Or what will they give in return for their life...” [Jn.16:24-26]. Finding and knowing God amid the struggles of many human lives, and following and trusting Christ authentically may always be challenging and a struggle for many. Aquinas’ teaching of the importance of seeking, searching and studying to develop our knowledge and relationship with God is key to developing stability that can help particularly when troubles rise. In certain circumstances God may seem far away and only our previous experiences or working though why we believe that God is with us, may assure us that God is nearer than we perceive at the present time. But to gain that security, we often need to have worked at our relationship, as we need to work at human relationships that are struggling in hard times.
It is important to find the forms of communication with God that most suit our individual personalities or those of the church communities of which we are a part. Christians need to find what will help to satisfy and nourish their spiritual needs in us at different stages in our development. No one method of prayer suits all, and most of us will use a combination of different forms of prayer, study and worship. Meditation, contemplation, prayerful study, Lectio Divina, regular intercession for others, corporate prayer and worship, liturgical and extemporary prayer, etc. are all available to draw upon. Often we neglect simply sitting in God’s presence and listening for God’s prompting in silence which may be where we most intimately commune with the God within ourselves. I was shocked when listening to a relatively well-known Evangelical preacher teaching about communication with God recently. He concluded his rambling talk by asking his congregation to spend time with him in silence, listening to what God might be saying to them. Yet he paused for a maximum of five seconds, then immediately went on to address God in a long, declamatory prayer, asking God to speak to them all, but leaving no time for silence or divine communication at all. It reminded me that too often we primarily want God to agree to what we want, rather than ourselves trying to comply with what God might want.
True ‘Christian meditation’ relies on God’s Spirit’s guidance. Sitting in silence may appear passive, but it is actually an active way of focusing our minds in silent thought. This differs from the eastern practice of meditation in which people often seek to empty their minds rather than focus them on God. The life of Christian prayer is rarely passive. Meditation strengthens us by a combination of thinking, reasoning, waiting and listening to perceive what truth may come to mind. ‘Hearing God’s voice’ is a phrase often found in scripture and used by Christians who believe they have received guidance. But this is rarely a physical sound; more often we sense that something is true, or an idea appears in our thoughts that we might not have been considering previously. Sometimes a verse of scripture or line from a hymn or liturgy might come to mind that speaks into our situation. This might just be a feeling or intuition, but who is to say that intuition might not be guided by an exterior force? We should always test such apparent insights by what we already know, particularly by whether they conform to the sort of ideas that were taught by Christ. It is very easy to be led down unhelpful or even heretical paths by stray ideas, and Christian history is littered with the victims of mistakes. Meditation and study encourage us to think-through the true meanings, implications and instructions of scripture and consider their application thoroughly, to be able to put them into practice in our daily life and enhance God’s Kingdom. In all righteous activities truths about God and God’s presence may be glimpsed, especially as we are dependent on the Holy Spirit to guide us.
God’s Spirit came at Pentecost and lives within us. In some cases we do not have to wait for God’s infilling or in many cases, for God’s specific instructions. Often enough about God and enough about the requirements from Christians have been revealed already, sufficient to know who we are serving and glean insights into what we should be doing. But we do need to listen more intently than many contemporary Christians often do, to find what the God within us might be saying in particular situations. I have attended many Church committee meetings which start with a short prayer for God’s guidance then undertake business with little regard to God, ending the meeting with a prayer asking God to rubber-stamp and bless ready-made decisions.
Evangelical and Charismatic leaders particularly are often very good at saying “God told me or us this... God has revealed that we should go in this direction”... sometimes without actually spending more than a few moments listening to God in thoughtful and extensive prayer. Many Christians automatically believe that their own ideas must be God’s ideas. Many of the great people of prayer in the Bible and in Church history spent long periods in prayer and wrestled to be sure of their ways forward. Surely it should be similar for us, who are not anywhere near being as great as them. We need the Spirit’s wisdom to work effectively for God in this complex and often difficult world. I am sure that we all need to strengthen much further our reliance upon the God living within us, who can help to direct us. We might find our ministry to be more practical and effective if we wait sincerely and patiently for guidance, listening and thinking with minds open to God’s direction.
THE FINDABILITY OF GOD THROUGH FELLOW CHRISTIANS AND FELLOW HUMAN BEINGS
If we are living in accord with what scripture teaches are the ways of God, we are more likely to feel close to God. We are not on our own in our search for God; we are meant to find and share our relationship with God corporately. Christians automatically belong to the community of all believers living and dead (the ‘Church Militant’ and the ‘Church Triumphant’). The experiences of others can encourage us, ignite our own spiritual thoughts and support us. All members of the Church as the ‘Body of Christ’ are meant to be working together to help both its members and those outside to find and develop their relationship with God. Too often church members, even evangelistic ones, are content with church services and devotional practices that merely satisfy their own spiritual needs rather than encouraging, witnessing and supporting others. I have frequently asked congregations to share about their spiritual experiences and challenges and encourage one another in faith during after-service coffee. Most often I then arrive from the vestry to find all discussing media entertainment, the weather, local gossip and useful things like family problems and ill-health. Seldom will church-members share what is happening in their spiritual lives. Are we afraid of opening up our spiritual selves to others, afraid perhaps that our faith might be seen as not spiritually mature enough or that weaknesses in our spiritual lives may be shown up? That shouldn’t matter: if we are honest with one another we can encourage each other in growth. One of the functions of being part of Christ’s body is to encourage and stir up one another and build up each other in faith and Christian action [1Thess.5:11-15].
The writer of the First Epistle of John implies that we will know God if we live lives of love and grow together in love: “Beloved, let us love one another, because love is from God; everyone who loves God is born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love, does not know God, for God is love... No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God lives in us, and his love is perfected in us.” [1Jn.4:7-8, 12]. It is certainly more holistic to develop a relationship with God through belonging to a Christian community where we worship and learn about faith together. However, it is also my experience that dishonest or insensitive members of the Christian community can damage the spiritual development of others. The selfless, out-giving ‘agapé’ love that Jesus taught and exemplified is what supports, nourishes and helps the whole community grow physically and spiritually. Self-centred Christianity just builds up the ego of individuals, and is not following Jesus’ teaching: in fact, it is not true ‘Christianity’.
I have heard many people say that they ‘see God’ in certain good people. Quaker friends have spoken particularly of the idea that they seek to find God through others. An aim of any community of Christians should certainly be to live in such ways that we exemplify the qualities of perfection that are expected of those who follow God’s ways. Christian churches should be microcosms of the Kingdom of God, modelling the perfect way of life to the world. Would that we were! By helping others and sharing truths that we have found in faith we can be messengers of spiritual truth to others. There have been many good people in various periods of my life, who I recognise as having brought help, hope and love, and communicated spiritual truth to me. Scripture describes prophets and ‘angels’ as ‘messengers of God’ (‘angelos’ literally means ‘messenger’). Most of my supportive friends had enough humility and human failings to assure me that they were not heavenly ‘angels’. But they reached out with the care, truths and loving, practical actions that made me sense that they had been sent into my life. They still seem to have been messengers of God. In many respects, when a Christian community is working together properly, as the Body of Christ described in 1Cor.12, we can be God’s messengers to one another, and they may find aspects of God communicating to them through us.
Occasionally I wonder if, in humble ways, we can sometimes ‘be as God’ to another person in their times of need, when circumstances leave them feeling that God is either distant or not with them at all. I have often found myself carrying faith’ for particular people when they feel that they have lost their faith, or cannot believe. When people are in particularly difficult situations, in which they feel they have lost hope and have no sense that faith in God could be true, I sincerely believe that Christian friends can carry faith in God for them, cocooning them in the love of God through their time of vulnerability. It may seem a strange concept to believers who emphasise the need for having a ‘personal faith’. For a satisfying spiritual life it is important for all of us to develop our personal faith. But in some people’s lives there may be many times when God’s love and care seem distant. In loneliness, depression, grief, confusion, serious illness, mental or physical trauma, etc. it is often very hard to develop positive emotions, feel hope, believe that we are valuable and are valued, or believe that a divine power could love or be caring for us. At such times the love, care, friendship and faithful support of another can be the firm anchor that keeps us from being swept away by despair. I know from my own experience that in some circumstances Christian friends desert you because they misinterpret or cannot understand or cope with the situation. Think of the mess that Job’s religious friends made in trying to help him, by their dire misinterpretations of the spiritual situation! Sometimes the struggles of those one supports may even make one doubt the sustainability of one’s own faith. But supporting people by offering continued friendship is essential, even if we feel inadequate to do so, and do not have answers to their predicament Through God’s common grace, supporters do not necessarily need to be Christians. I have found by experience that some who I believed to be close Christian friends proved far less adequate during hard times of greatest need than some without Christian faith, or who found faith difficult yet who kept me alive and gave most sustained support. I think particularly of a local builder who recognised that I had been seriously ill and regularly phoned or sent messages asking if there was anything I needed or any way in which he could help. During that time not one church friend, nor church minister nor the bishop responsible for my ministry bothered to make any contact whatsoever. If our supporters do have faith, I believe that we can hold onto faith for the one we are supporting. To use a simile for this, carrying faith for another person can be like giving artificial respiration and breathing the kiss of life or into someone who has stopped breathing. We use our own breath to sustain them when their own body is temporarily unable to breathe.
I have personal experience of this. At the lowest point depression and loneliness in my life, when I felt abandoned by the Christian friends who I held most dear, a beautiful Christian couple took me into their home and nurtured me back to spiritual health. I had not lost my faith; I was clinging onto God for survival at the time. But this couple’s love and faith helped set me back on my feet physically and emotionally. They gave me security and I felt spiritually part of their family. I know that they continued to pray for me daily for decades afterwards and I still feel a really deep spiritual connection to with them, even though our lives moved in different directions years ago. I feel far more than a sense of gratitude to them; I feel part of them. Their faithfulness in prayer, united with faithfulness in action was more than an image and reminder of God’s faithfulness to me: I am certain that through their love God was being faithful to me through people who are part of Christ’s body. I sincerely believe, like St. Teresa of Avila, that we can be the hands, feet and eyes by which God loves and cares for others. Even when someone is in trouble or has temporarily lost faith we can faithfully carry faith for them, while waiting and praying for them to regain their trusting relationship with God.
If it is true that human beings are made in the ‘image’ and ‘likeness’ of God, and that aspects of God are perceivable in all that God has created, then we might expect to find glimpses of the qualities of God within the community as within the natural world. Human lives are powerfully damaged by our sin, selfishness and greed, so we often focus on the bad in people and situations more strongly than we recognise the good. The social media tend to concentrate on bad people and events because they are often more sensational. Too frequently we focus on the failings and sins of others far more intensely than we see signs of good within them. But in a society that works together well there is much beauty, physically and morally in many people and in the ways that they help and respond to others. This often appears at times of crisis like the Covid pandemic, which brought many communities together. Neighbours supported each other during times of lock-down and isolation. There were many instances of bad people exploiting the situation, using the world’s vulnerability for fraudulent financial gain and exploiting others. But in more situations people’s care and support of the vulnerable or the lonely was positive. Could this inner goodness be regarded as finding aspects of a good Creator within others as God worked through them? Our conclusion depends partly on the mind-set with which we consider human beings and whether we believe in what Calvin called ‘general grace’ – a quality in all created things that reflect their Creator.
We can sometimes confuse matters if we speak over-romantically or sentimentally about “seeing God in other people.” What we are perceiving may be general grace. Or if the person is particularly good we may be sensing the fruit of the Holy Spirit at work in their lives, such as their ‘love’ , ‘joy’, ‘peace’, ‘patience’, ‘kindness’, ‘goodness’, faithfulness’, ‘gentleness’, ‘self-control’ etc. [Gal.5:22-23]. The workings of God’s power, inspiration and guidance in people can make some shine with these qualities. This is not necessarily divine nature in them; it may simply be their upbringing that makes some people particularly good, sensitive and caring. Yet scripture does imply that we in part share aspects of the image of God. The exact meaning of this has been widely debated, and has many possible variations, as I discussed earlier, and in greater length in another article on my website. Yet if we are actually living by God’s ways, and displaying the fruit of God’s Spirit in our lives, there may be ways through which God’s Spirit is communicating to others through us. Jesus did promise that the Father would work through us as God did through the Son [Jn.14:12, 20-21; 17:21-23].
In Jesus’ prayer for his followers in Jn.17:20-26 he asked that we may be united with each other, but also that we might be united with God as Jesus was himself united to God. He also prayed that as he knew God and had made God known, we might share that love [Jn.17:25-26]. It is not exactly clear what Jesus, or the writer of John’s Gospel, interpreting his teaching about oneness with God, intended this to mean. The words and other promises in 1Jn.4:12, 1Cor.12-13 and other passages seem to suggest that somehow when we are in harmony with one another and with God, something of God is manifested among or within us. Living by the truth we are also claimed to be manifesting something of the Kingdom of God. Many phrases in the Eucharistic liturgy emphasise our participation in the nature and activity of God, particularly when we share together as part of the Body of Christ.
Similar to the place of the Eucharist in the life of the Church, the Tabernacle in the wilderness, placed at the centre of the tribal encampment, was a sign that God was with God’s people and central to their society. The Temple in Jerusalem performed the same function for the Jewish nation as well as the Jews of the diaspora who could look back at the Temple and be sure that God was really present for them. Both the Tent of Meeting and the Temple were physical reminders of God’s presence, God’s availability and God’s ethical and religious requirements of followers. In many ways the presence of the Christian Church today in its parish should perform the same function. Any church building in the midst of the community should be a welcoming reminder that God is available to all. More actively, the Church community and each individual Christian, if we are living by Christ’s ways and active in our missional responsibilities, should be physical reminders of the reality of God and the availability of God to all around. Too often churches tend to appear to those on the outside to be exclusive clubs for certain sorts of people rather than inclusive places of welcome to all, whatever their condition or need. Sometimes individual Christians are too busy with their church activities to be truly reflecting God’s love and care to the world around them.
This is where Helen Oppenheimer’s vision is so appropriate: “We are not trying to pronounce about what God can or cannot be, but about how God can be found in our world… God’s people have the hopeful responsibility of being the presence, the findability of God upon earth…Our diversity should enable God to be found in all areas of life in the world…The word multi-faceted comes to mind… the church may be a prism breaking up the white light of God’s dazzling majesty.”[Helen Oppenheimer, Theology 93:1990 p133-141]
THE FINDABILITY OF GOD THROUGH THE WAYS WE LIVE
Those places in scripture where it is claimed that God has ‘hidden his face’ from people, are most commonly situations where others have disobeyed the righteous ways in which we are intended to be living [e.g. Deut.31:17]. In the early chapters of Isaiah the people and their rulers are called out for disobeying the laws of justice, neglecting care for the needy [Isa.1:23], indulging social inequity and failing in many more ways to fulfil their covenant commitments with God. Many of the details that First Isaiah mentions could be equally relevant to many societies today including modern Britain: Bribery for power and influence among the rich; offering backhanders was common [Isa.1:23]; attempts to corrupt and influence judges [1:26]; worship had become corrupted by superstitions and false ideas from other faiths [2:6]; false international alliances brought dirty money and warfare into the nation [2:7]; leaders dissembled using false rhetoric [2:22]; the poor and needy, widows and orphans were insufficiently supported, foreign visitors within society were despised and unwelcomed. The religious nation made sacrifices and followed the religious rites and festivals assiduously, but these were regarded by God as empty when social injustice is dominant [Isa.1:11-15]: “bringing offerings is futile; incense is an abomination to me. I cannot endure assemblies with iniquity... your appointed festivals... I am weary of hearing them. When you stretch out your hands I will hide my eyes from you; even though you make many prayers, I will not listen, your hands are full of blood.” [Isa.1:13-15]. How relevant this seems to the Church in the contemporary world, which has too often become an institution rather than the caring body of a holy, committed family!
Sometimes political or social leaders use religion and make claims about their own faith to promote themselves or justify their actions. It has to be admitted that false political or religious rhetoric is also found among religious leaders. I was once warned by a wise and experienced clergyman: “Never fully trust your archdeacon or bishop... today they so often see their role as political and administrative positions more than pastoral ones... If they see troubles, they will almost always support the status quo and protect the institution and hierarchy of the Church, rather than necessarily following Christ’s holy ways.” That was a very uncomfortable claim, as it is SO far from what biblical church-leadership should be, but I have experienced it to be true in practice in several situations. That is not to say that corruption and neglect are as rife in the Church as they are in politics and big business, There are no doubt many righteous church-leaders and politicians and business-leaders. But to some the Church institution is less a family or the ‘corporate Body of Christ’ than an institution to protect and maintain, and a business to finance. Positions of business or administrative responsibility often lead people to neglect their greater priorities of righteousness and their responsibilities towards individuals entrusted to their care. In politics, society and the Church, the best ways are to follow the principles of God’s righteous ways. Leaders, like all Christians should act with loving sensitivity, and demonstrate Christ-like responsibility towards the needy, not prioritise self-protection, self-advancement, insist on maintaining their authority and dominate by authoritarian behaviour. Isaiah condemned the arrogance of all types of leadership which neglected responsibilities and overlooked righteousness. One should be able to look at a Christian leader and at the Church and recognise God’s qualities through them. Sadly this is rarely the case.
I must admit that I feel far closer to God at times when I feel that I have been acting rightly than at those times when I am aware that have disobeyed and acted wrongly. A psychologist might say that is just my conscience clicking into motion and has nothing to do with belief in God, but I am not sure. Jesus told us that the Holy Spirit would remind and teach us about what is true and convict us with regard to sin [Jn.16:8-9]. It has been my experience in pastoral situations, that people sense that God is closer to them when they have been living good lives. Others find that God feels closest when they hold onto God’s care in times of need. But as I discussed earlier intensely needy situations may leave some feeling spiritually bereft, sometimes even wondering falsely that God may be punishing them for something that they have done. Although some prophetic writing in the Hebrew Scriptures might suggest that God punishes sin by vengeful retribution, Jesus countered this popular superstition [Lk.13:4].
We may feel aware of God when we recognise that God can be anywhere and in anything that is good and true. Walking in the countryside we may find ourselves in awe of the power and detailed design within nature. Experiencing illness, the healing of the human body, the complications of operations and medicine may cause us to recognise the complexity, intricacy and interconnectedness within our design. Working actively may make us aware of the interconnectedness of human beings and how people’s physical or mental gifts work together to support and develop society as God intended the Christian community to work together as a body. [1Cor.12:12-31].
In daily life we may often be too absorbed in what we are doing to recognise the presence or activity of God within it. In fact, if any of us thought we should be praising or praying to God every moment of the day, as some Christian teaching suggests, we would probably be distracted and make mistakes in our work, or be seriously inefficient. When Thomas Merton talked of “realizing God in all things” [Thomas Merton Hidden Ground of Love p.63-64], I think he was implying that we live with an inner awareness that we are living in the presence and power of God, not that we recognise God in everything we do and everywhere we go.
THE FINDABILITY OF GOD IN WORSHIP, THANKSGIVING AND PRAISE
Although we live constantly in God’s presence, there are certain points in the daily and weekly life of the believer where we specifically focus our thoughts on God. We do so in times of personal private prayer, perhaps also at times of rest, when we just sit, lie down, or just ‘be’. On top of our study of our faith, the most focused time of concentrating on God and the meaning of our faith is often during times of worship, praise, thanksgiving and petition, particularly when we concentrate on the meaning of the words we say or which are read in liturgy and during corporate prayer.
Relationships between human beings usually develop by meeting someone, getting to know things about them, experiencing being with them, watching and listening to them, developing appreciation of them, perhaps developing love for them, then expressing your appreciation of them. Developing a relationship with God goes through similar processes. When new believers become involved in a Christian Church, we often expect them to immediately be able to express appreciation of God in praise and worship of aspects of God that they and perhaps we ourselves, have not yet experienced. Newcomers may be asked to worship God before they feel they have actually met God or learned to trust and appreciate the qualities for which they are expected to praise and thank God. I sometimes wonder if by doing this we are encouraging worship that is truly “in spirit and in truth”, which is the type of worship Jesus wanted to bring and promised would develop [Jn.4:23-24].
Christian churches have been relatively good at giving people materials to use in worship: liturgies with words that are meaningful doctrinally, music with words that express the grounds for our faith, prayers that enable us to focus our thoughts on expressing faith, need, gratitude and praise. The content of some Christian songs, preaching or liturgy is not always as meaningful as God deserves. Many trite modern songs and shallow liturgies are not as carefully thought through and expressed as some more traditional liturgies were. Some Victorian hymnody was also dire sentimentally and several old liturgies need updating though not watering-down in theological meaning. It is possible to overcome and surpass weaknesses, to form truly meaningful modern liturgies that are not saccharine of simplistic. Two of our priorities in designing and encouraging worship are to be spiritually true and help people grow in their beliefs through what we say and sing.
Some churches are good stewards in the ways that they catechise believers, so that they are firmer in understanding for what they are worshipping God. But not all do this. I sometimes wonder whether the simplistic teaching given by some ministers is not laziness in the preparation of sermons, but a deliberate intention to keep their congregation knowing less about God than themselves. This was certainly the case in the mediaeval pre-Reformation Church, which did not want believers to have Bibles in their own language, and kept many in subservience to the Church by ignorant superstitions. Some other churches are very prescriptive about what worshippers should believe. Considering what I have written earlier about the infinite nature of God and the enormity of the qualities ascribed to God, it is sad that many church-goers have been given limited teaching about God, while other churches or traditions put over-narrow confines around the sort of God that they promote. The restrictive lives of some strict Presbyterians make their concept of God seem dour, negative, judgemental and condemnatory of human beings enjoying the life and developed gifts with which humanity has been nourished and enlivened. From the enormous tome of the Roman Catholic Catechism and volumes of Protestant Systematic Theology to the expectations of belief promoted by the Evangelical Alpha Course, and a plethora of Bible study material of various qualities, church members are encouraged to believe certain things, then praise and worship God for them. But these too can limit our understanding of God to one way of thinking.
In some churches it can sometimes seem as though you are not a sufficient Christian unless you believe in and comply with every detail of your particular church’s restrictive doctrines and catechisms. Your resulting responses may not feel like authentic worship if you feel guilty that you do not feel or believe certain things that you are expected to say or sing in liturgy. Yet there are details in most of these systematic teachings that may be difficult for some to accept. Examples may be found in certain comments about sexuality and family life in the Catholic Catechism: some uncomfortable old phrases have been reintroduced into recent Roman Catholic liturgies that are very awkward to say with conviction. (Recently on consecutive Sundays I was privileged to attend baptisms in a Roman Catholic church, an Anglican church and a Methodist chapel. Each were presided over by sincere ministers and the children being baptised in each case were from committed Christian families, but some of the phrases in the new Catholic baptism liturgy especially made me cringe and the Anglican rite seemed coldly recited by rote. The Methodist liturgy was as challenging as the others in its theological content and in its call to sincere, righteous discipleship, expecting Christian training and church commitment, but it seemed more meaningful than either of the others because its phraseology was less forced and felt closer to contemporary theological understanding.)
Sometimes the language of faith that convinced ancient, mediaeval and pre-Enlightenment believers of the nature and expectations of God, is insufficient for contemporary understanding, or can seem uncomfortable or even cruel today. The emphasis on penal substitution or simplistic descriptions of the sacrificial aspect of Christ’s death being expiatory and a ransom for sin in Evangelical Protestant theology, Eucharistic liturgies or depicted in graphic detail in Mel Gibson’s film ‘The Passion of the Christ’, is questioned by some eminent theologians today. It is not surprising that some believers find such teaching uncomfortable, when we stress the love of God yet cannot sufficiently explain how it squares with the horrific torture of Jesus. We need to explain more carefully how love can be expressed in self-giving, rather than using words that imply that God could be cruel and vindictive, when Jesus taught that his Father is perfect.
Another misinterpretation of God is given where church teaching is over-rigid or prescriptive in the ways its members expect the Holy Spirit to work in people’s lives. Some Alpha-course and Pentecostal teaching and praise can be dangerous if all members of congregations are expected to speak or sing in tongues and have Pentecostal experiences. That is definitely against St. Paul’s teaching about the Spirit [1Cor.12:30; 14:1-19] and not the way of the Spirit introduced by Jesus in chapters 14 and 16 of John’s Gospel. I described earlier how a true seeker of faith became alienated from faith by a church’s over-prescriptive false teaching about the working of the Holy Spirit.
Some Christians, who find difficulties in believing e particular things or may not have had the same experiences as some others, may find it hard to use the words of certain songs or liturgical words. I personally find it uncomfortable to sing the phrase “till on the cross as Jesus died the wrath of God was satisfied”, as I regard Jesus’ self-giving as more of an act of love - both his own and his Father love - rather than expiating God’s wrath. In all other verses I find the song inspiring, and use it in worship, but I believe the phrase in the song encourages a mistaken interpretation of the theology of the atonement. I always replace the word ‘wrath’ with ‘love’ when I sing it, though I know that the writer of the song has insisted on his original wording. “On the cross as Jesus died, the love of God was satisfied” seems far truer to a holistic understanding of Christ’s self-giving.
Others find difficulties in calling God ‘Father’ or imagining God as male; I certainly try to avoid the term ‘he’ as much as possible when devising liturgies or preaching about God. We should not make people feel that they have to say things in worship that they find difficult or are uncomfortable with saying. For example, when I attend Roman Catholic or some High Church Anglican services, I find I cannot say the ‘Hail Mary’ prayer or intercession through the saints, even though I have a very meaningful understanding of the value of Mary in the Christian story and am in awe at the examples that many saints have given us. When I am worshipping, I can imagine myself among the company of saints, living and dead (the Church Militant and the Church Triumphant). But I personally feel that we are given the privilege of praying directly in God’s presence (‘before the throne of God’, to use traditional biblical metaphorical imagery).
The imagery of Christ as High Priest in Hebrews chapters 5, 7 and 8, and as both sacrifice and the one offering the sacrifice in Hebrews chapters 9 and 10 calls us to rely on his priestly activities on our behalf. We are intended to feel that we are able to approach God with confidence as well as appropriate awe. We are part of ‘the priesthood of all believers’, and do not necessarily need any mediators except Christ and the Holy Spirit. I would not, however, have the arrogance to claim that those who ask the saints to intercede for them are wrong, because we recognise that believers who have gone before us are still alive in another dimension, are part of our family and probably care about us. If there is an awareness among our friends and family in heaven of what is going on among people on earth, perhaps they do interceded for us. But surely in the dimension of God’s Kingdom, they have better things to do that watch out for us all the time, when they know that the Trinity are in charge.
If we are trying to help people worship God “in spirit and in truth” we need to help them worship and praise God for what they truly believe. Yet at the same time as we want to encourage corporate worship, we know that those in our congregations have different levels of experience and understanding and are of different ages in faith. So the content of our liturgies needs to be able to nourish the whole spectrum of those who are mature in faith to those who are new or just learning belief. We should avoid the individualism of thought, which in certain cases has led individuals and groups into heresies and false worship. Our Creeds and basic statements of belief liturgies need to be as clear as they can be. We should take into account a recognition that many of the tenets of the Christian faith have mysterious elements with are inexplicable and may be interpreted in different ways. The great quality of the Nicene Creed is that its statement of faith is clear but general, leaving the imagination to flesh it out. For example, it maintains that Jesus is God’s Son and that he gave his life for us, but does not try to explain what this means, Many traditional liturgies contain teaching about the tenets of the Christian faith in similar general phraseology, without attempting to interpret them too specifically. One aim in devising corporate worship, is to engage all and allow them to focus their own particular understanding of spiritually significant aspects of faith in worship and praise of God
In some ways we may be able to find God through praise and worship by expressing ideas about the nature of God that we have not yet experienced. We certainly will all find ourselves worshipping and praising God for things that we cannot hope to understand fully. In a church service, we hope that a newly committed Christian may encounter a wide range of theological details and beliefs. The richness of meaning in the content of liturgy is one way by which we learn what we believe. This one reason why we need to be so careful to be theologically nourishing and inclusive in the liturgical content and all the words and music that we use. We are designing liturgies that intend to help to teach people and develop a growing faith that will sustain them and help them to hold onto the God who they have found, amid the challenges of daily life.
We may find ourselves saying or listening to words and ideas in liturgy and teaching in a service that are new or challenging, or which open us up to new perspectives of understanding, and thus we develop to believe these things progressively. Similarly we sing so often that God loves us, sometimes well before many of us feel the sensation that we are loved by God. By believing that “God loved the world so much that God gave God’s only begotten Son Jesus Christ, so that whoever believe in him should not perish but have everlasting life” [Jn.3:16] we are already recognising that God loves humanity and loves us by extension. As in everything we do with faith, we need to accept that our understanding of God’s love, our experience of God and our feelings of trust can never be as complete as we might like them to be.
By meditating on Jesus’ death in the Eucharistic liturgy and by taking the Communion elements we are involving ourselves in whatever truth is within the Eucharistic meal and our union with Christ, as well as remembering, with our admittedly limited comprehension, the reasons and meanings behind his self-giving. So, as with other mysteries of faith, although we may not fully understand or yet be certain that we believe in certain things for which our liturgies and hymns praise God, we are in effect truthfully worshipping in the sense that “faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things unseen.” [Heb.11:1].
Jesus said to the Samaritan woman at the well: “You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know... The hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshippers will worship the Father is Spirit and in Truth. For the Father seeks such as these to worship him. God is spirit and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” [Jn.4:22-24]. He certainly believed that his followers would be led to know enough about God and have sufficient insight into God’s mysteries to be equipped for truthful worship. For this it is important to concentrate on the content of liturgies and sermons, not just let it wash over us, and study to develop our faith, so that we worship with meaning and truth, as well as allowing God’s Spirit inside us to guide, inspire and strengthen us in worship.
Worship does not always come easily, nor should it be something that we do half-heartedly. The Eucharistic liturgy calls worship, among other things a “sacrifice of praise”. St. Paul encouraged us to give ourselves wholeheartedly and humbly in praise, This included living our lives to God’s glory: “I appeal to you therefore, brothers and sisters, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship (or ‘reasonable service’). Do not be conformed to the world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds, so that you may discern what is the will of God – what is good and acceptable and perfect.” [Rom.12:1-2]
In finding the God who we worship, it is also important to try to recognise who we ourselves are in worshipping before God. Christians have a high calling. Although there is a lot of correct emphasis in scripture about being humble before God, scripture also calls believers ‘priests’, which demonstrates the importance of our role and function. Worship is not just the calling of an ordained priest. God’s people are ‘the priesthood of all believers’, intended to represent God before the world, and be able to approach God with the humble yet bold assurance that we are called to serve before God. The whole community of God’s people were intended to fulfil this calling: “You shall be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation, serving your God.’ [Ex.19:6; (Deut.14:21; 26:19); Rev.1:6; 5:10]. This role was then expanded to include all members of Christ’s Church: “You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people, in order that you may proclaim the mighty acts of him who has called you out of darkness into his marvellous light.” [1Pet.2:5, 9]. “Therefore, my friends, since we have confidence to enter the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain (that is, through his flesh), and since we have a great high-priest over the house of God, let us approach with a true heart and full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold fast to the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who is promised is faithful.” [Heb.10:19-22]. The writer of the epistle is using the imagery of priests purifying themselves before worship, then entering the presence of God with awe yet boldness, because they have been called to serve in worship. This now is the high calling of all Christians when we worship or intercede. If we keep this in mind, we are more likely to recognise the majesty and awe-inspiring aspects of God and respond with appropriate humility and responsibility.
The Hebrew prophets regularly criticised their contemporaries for hypocrisy and failings to fulfil the requirements of their religion. Some claimed that sacrifices and Temple worship were worthless when the priests’ and worshippers’ behaviour did not match the faith that they professed. Malachi especially stressed that even the most elaborate and generous sacrifices were futile if the priests’ and the people’s hearts and souls weren’t in them. Jesus attempted to reform the religious institutions and practices of his day by demonstrating that what was of primary importance in religion was not the sacrifices, paying Temple taxes, keeping the letter of religious Laws, or even elaborate liturgical practices, beautiful words and music. Far more than that was a truthful, obedient and righteous relationship with God and an approach to God that was “in Spirit and in Truth” [Jn.4:23]. A prophet speaking into the situations in our churches today might give a very similar message, criticising how far our practices are from God’s intentions. If we are worshipping wrongly, mistakenly or not ‘in Spirit and in Truth’, our image of God must also be in some ways incorrect.
When Jesus said ‘Tear down this Temple and I will rebuild it in three days” [Matt.26:21; 27:40; Mk.14:58; 15:29] I don’t think that he may have been just prophesying about his bodily resurrection, as has been the main interpretation of this incident since the Gospels were written. Jesus could also have been encouraging the Temple practices and the authoritarian religious leaders to lose the idea that they should dominate society in wrong ways. God should always be the main focus, not a religious leader, be they Pope, archbishop, bishop, archdeacon, parish priest, elder, famous evangelist, preacher, healer, worship-leader, choir-member, religious artist, musician or any member of a congregation. It is easy for those leading worship to forget that they are humbly coming before the greatness of God to help the congregation find their place in God, rather than the presider feeling that they themselves are a central focus. A dominant leader, famed preacher, or elaborately mannered presiding minister or musician can draw worshippers’ attention away from the main emphasis of divine worship, which should always be on God, the Holy Trinity. All our worship, prayer, lives, ministries and actions are intended to bring people individually and corporately into the more intimate relationship with God as caring ‘Father’ and awe-inspiring power. A major role of the Church is to allow its members to worship God freely and to develop in their relationship with God, not to subjugate any the way that Hebrew religion had developed to do during Jesus’ time. It is part of the role of all priests to enable all in the priesthood of all believers to fulfil their priestly callings in worship, ministry and mission.
There are many different ways to focus worship and to find God in that worship. Like prayer we need to find the combinations of different forms of worship that nourish us and enable our communication with God to be ‘in Spirit and in Truth’. They include adoration, penitence and confession, a sense of humble obligation, dependency on God, praise, thanksgiving, silent recognition of God’s presence and actively working for God. The ways we worship change according to our character or circumstances, but worship should never be primarily about our feelings towards God, or what we get out of it, it is about what we do for God. Liturgy literally means “the work of the people”. As well as personally worshiping, we worship on behalf of the community in which we live, recognising our unity with other believers, but also being responsible to bring our world and lift our community in prayer before God, recognising that all are included in God’s provision. We are meant to be longing for, praying and working towards the establishment of God’s Kingdom. I sometimes wonder how many of our church-goers are committed to this.
Approaching God in a spirit of praise and thanksgiving can make worship especially positive and attractive. St. Paul used thanksgiving as an encouragement to Christian lives. He encouraged those for whom he felt pastoral responsibility to give thanks at all times and in all situations: [Phil.4:6; Col.3:8; 1Thess.5:16; 2Thess.2:3]. He often began his correspondence, (and claimed that he prayed regularly for his correspondents,) by giving thanks [Rom.1:8; 1Cor.1:4; Phil.1:3; Col.1:3; 1Thess.1:2; 2Thess.1:13]. We may remind ourselves of aspects of God when we praise and thank God for specific things, but praise can also be overall expressions of gratitude and excitement for all that God is, does and has done. We ‘adore’ all the meaning and mystery that is contained within the concept of “the Name of God”. Many churches attempt to encourage praise by stirring music, but our praise and thanksgiving need to be rooted in inner thanksgiving, awe and wonder, which we are able to express as much in silence and personal devotion as in extrovert, corporate praise.
Mystics have written that the centre of worship and prayer is ‘adoration’, a form of dedicated an absorbed prayer that is offered to God alone. Adoration, like praise and thanksgiving may be acknowledging aspects of what God is and has done but it is primarily a holistic acknowledgement of the absoluteness of all that God is, both what we believe we know about God and the vast amount that remains unknown to us. Thus a mystic might say that we do not adore God particularly for divine characteristics, power or goodness, but for the fact that God is supreme, infinite, holy and is the numinous mystery that surpasses all things. Adoration recognises that God is sublime: the mystery who makes all recognise our smallness and inadequacy by comparison. Yet it is amazing to still be able to believe that God can still regard us with grace and love as of high value, and wants a relationship with us. Kant defined the sublime as “that which is above all (or beyond comparison) great.” Kant believed that human beings have an inner need to reach towards, adore and relate to something that is absolute and incomparable. Schleiermacher believed that God’s absoluteness reminds human beings of their need of ‘absolute dependence’ and the need to respond with an appropriate absolute response of adoration. The response of adoration in scripture was often described as ‘to fall down before God and worship’ [‘proskuneo’Matt.28:17]. Later mystics like Teresa of Avila expanded the idea of this response to giving oneself in absolute self-surrender to the one who we adore, and to lose oneself in wonder and love and contemplation. It is claimed by some that when we do so, we come closer to God and reflect in small ways the image and glory of God. Perhaps that could be an interpretation of the mountain-top experience of Moses [Ex.24:15- 18; 34:29-35] Mystics believe that spending time in adoration helps Christian growth, as in it we draw close to the mystery of God.
Several Hebrew and Greek words in the Bible with varied connotations are translated as ‘worship’: ‘Leitourgeo’, from which our word ‘liturgy’ derives, literally means ‘the work of the people’. It was not menial, servile service but important high service for a supremely important master, as was the Hebrew word ‘šārat’ / ‘to minister’. ‘Ergazomai’ suggested that worship is ‘appropriate work for God.’ The Hebrew term ‘ābad’ or ‘āboȏdȃ’ and the Greek translation ‘douleuō’ was originally the service of a ‘slave’ or ‘servant’ [‘ebed’] for their master, suggesting that we share commitment as servants to the Lord. There is a significant difference from the relationship of slaves of servants of a human master: Through our covenant relationship with God we choose to serve freely and are no longer slaves [Gal.4:7; Philem.:16]. Other common Hebrew words for ‘worship’ imply reverence and awe. ‘Hāwȃ’, ‘Shachah’, ‘sāgad’ or the Aramaic ‘sĕgĭd’ all imply ‘falling or bowing down’, ‘submission’, ‘kissing the feet’, recognising their master’s, high position and acting accordingly. ‘Yārē‘’ suggests ‘fear’ of God’s power and judgement though also ‘awe’ and ‘trust’ in God’s strength power, nature and covenant promises. The origin of the Anglo Saxon term ‘weorthscrp’ which transmuted into our word ‘worship’ is not just about recognising or praising God’s ‘worth’. It more particularly related to God being ‘worthy’, and responding to God with ‘dignity’, ‘respect’ and ‘honour’.
The most common Greek term for ‘worship’ - ‘latreia’ - meant ‘service’ for the good of another. Rom.12:1 calls us to offer ourselves in worship as ‘living sacrifices, holy and acceptable to God’... which is our reasonable service’. It came to also represent the ‘adoration’ that was given only to God, as it was due to God for all that God is. The term was used of the priests’ service of God in the Temple, as well as the human ‘duty’ of creatures to their Creator. Scripture describes believers as ‘a kingdom of priests to our God’ a ‘chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people... called out of darkness into his marvellous light...” [1Pet.2:9] So the role of all of us is a high privilege of coming into God’s presence in worship [Heb.10:19].
Recognising ourselves in the context and presence of God, the ‘sublime’ and the ‘absolute’ also leads to confession of our failings to live up to the absolute’s expectations of us. Confession has always been an important part of worship and liturgy. Confession may also help us on the path towards finding God, since it reminds us of our dependence on the qualities of love, grace and forgiveness in God. Similarly in our intercessions for others and our more personally-directed prayers of petition we recognise ours and the world’s dependence on God’s powers and interventions. We remember God’s care for all creation, asking for God’s love and power to especially reach out towards those for whom we care and ask. Theoretically intercession and petition should not seek to change God’s will, nor are we reminding an omniscient God of divine responsibilities: Such prayers seek to better understand God’s will and align our wills with God’s will. But our human wills are strong, and inevitably we often wish for what we feel is best, without seeing all with the infinite breadth of God’s perspective. Surely an omniscient God must understand our wishes fully already. However Jesus did remind his followers that much more than us will “our Father in heaven give good things to those who ask him” [Matt.7:11]. Finding God includes remembering that our omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent God knows already what we need and what is best for us. Scripture assures us that God also wants us to be involved in the divine work in the world by our relationship though prayer. We try to trust God to answer prayer in the ways that are best, and seek to align our wills to the will of God, not attempt to get God to follow our will.
The most common New Testament term for worship is ‘proskunéō’ (literally ‘to kiss towards’), This could mean both physical ‘kissing of the ground’ and ‘inner adoration’, ‘obeisance’, ‘reverence’, homage’ [Matt.4:10; Jn.4:21-24; 1Cor.14:25; Rev.4:10]. True worship therefore includes directing towards God our ‘love’, ‘respect’ and ‘reverently valuing one we love,’
Holistically the many different aspects of worship show that true worship involves:
Hypocrisy develops when our lives and actions fail to reflect God, or fail to follow the claims we make in our worship and the requirements of our faith. For Jesus, as for the Hebrew prophets, service needed to include love and obedience. We cannot say we love God yet fail to live according to divine principles. If we live hypocritically, our love is false and our public and private worship is invalid. Faithfulness in worship therefore entails keeping true to the principles of faith and giving appropriate and true responses to God. The faithful worshipper needs to be worthy of a holy God. Worship is not a substitute for inadequate lifestyle: “What does the Lord require but to love mercy, do justice, and walk humbly with your God.” [Mic.6:8; Deut.10:12 Prov.21:3; Isa.56:1; Hos.6:6; Zech.7:9]. Worship and spirituality are meaningless if the truth of our life and lifestyle do not match our faith. “Faith without works is dead” [Jas.2:14-26]. To worship faithfully one should come before God worthily and openly, with clean hands and a pure heart [Ps.24:4], which is why confession and acceptance of forgiveness are such important parts of liturgy. The worship of none of us seems sufficient to glorify so great a God, yet the mercy of God regards us as worthy for such a relationship.
The early Christian community were exhorted to be ordered and disciplined in their worship [1Cor.14:40]. They were warned against self-imposed and self-promoting piety [Col.2:23], disorder, the wrong use of freedom and inappropriate actions [cf. 1 Cor.11:27, 33-4; 14:9-12, 26-30]. Paul wanted congregations to enjoy spiritual freedom but to be moderate, discerning and disciplined, giving a truthful witness to God. “All must be done for the strengthening of the Church.” [1Cor.14:26].
Worshippers come with a wide variety of spiritual, emotional and physical needs. In designing worship, we aim for their encounter with God to be as real as possible; that they will not be distracted nor feel alienated or isolated, but feel included in God’s mercy. Worship should not be narrow or exclusive; it should represent the breadth of God, be spiritually truthful, enhance faith, focus many towards God and help disciples live the authentic Christian life. In worship we should feel joined in unity as God’s people; if we are dis-unified our worship may be less valid. The Church is the gathered people of God, brought together not just for a ‘social’ or ‘aesthetic’ event or ‘entertainment’ but with a purpose to meet God and acknowledge God’s nature and activities.
Worship should not be escapist; it is not to satisfy ourselves. It is not true worship if we stir up worshippers inauthentically, sentimentally, or create false feelings. Worship should be true. To be truthful and encourage hope and trust in God it needs to be meaningful and realistic. Worship is not about feeling fulfilled and elevated ourselves, though this might come as a consequence of worship. It should help us adore, articulate our personal feelings towards and about God and should help us feel that God is close in whatever situation we find ourselves, good or bad. We come to worship, recognising that we are in God’s presence. Faithful worship is directed towards God, perhaps with a desire to meet God, but not necessarily expecting to do so. Worship involves ‘work’ because God deserves putting our minds and bodily selves wholeheartedly into whatever we are doing. Jesus’ summary of the law included loving God “with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength” [Mk.12:30].
Most worship entails an element of ‘sacrifice’ (Gk. ‘thusia’). In Rom.12:1-2 Paul encouraged believers to put their whole lives and energies into their worship and discipleship: “I appeal to you therefore, brothers and sisters, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship (or ‘reasonable service’). Do not be conformed to the world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds, so that you may discern what is the will of God – what is good and acceptable and perfect.” Christian sacrifice and the sacrifice of worship do not mean (as is sometimes suggested) ‘appeasing God’ or ‘giving up our personal life’. Christ achieved freedom through his self-giving in a way that achieved redemption “once and for all” [Rom.6:10; 1Pet.3:115; Heb.9:28]. Our sacrificial acts do not help bring about our salvation, but are expressions of our feelings about God. The term ‘sacrifice’/‘thusia’ in Rom.12:1 in the context of worship is more concerned with ‘offering’ ourselves in the ways that we concentrate on God. Paul called worship a ‘duty’, ‘our reasonable sacrifice’. That word ‘reasonable’ (Gk. ‘logikos’) implies that worship is a rational response to our duty of ‘service’ and ‘adoration’ (‘latreia’) towards God for all the truth that God represents (known and unknown). We put our reasoning faculties, thought and intelligence into it. Faithful Christian worship is not superstitious or irrational ritual. We mentally and socially consider what is true about God and offer ourselves, our thoughts and our praise to God in love. It is our ‘duty’ as thinking human beings to be concerned with the truth.
Truthful worship raises the profile of God in the world by expressing the qualities of God: “God is enthroned on the praises of his people” [Ps.22:3]. The picture language of some psalmists and prophets [Ps. 65, 89, 93, 98, Isa.44:23; 55:12; Hab. 3:10] implies that all life glorifies God by living and fulfilling its role in the universe. By living our human life rightly and flourishing we glorify the one who created life. This itself is a form of worship: All that we do in good, righteous living demonstrates God’s ‘worth’ in creating us, so a holy life is itself ‘worship’ of our Creator. Keith Ward wrote: “Worshipping God is not telling some very powerful invisible person how good he is, in the hope that he will pat you on the head and give you eternal life. It is the reverent awareness of the Being of God, as God truly is.” [Images of Eternity p.3] None of us actually ‘understand God as God truly is’ but worship and contemplative prayer do not try to ‘understand’ those aspects of God’s mystery that have been revealed. Our worship is a response to the amount of truth we perceive and the realm of mysteries beyond what we do not understand. Worship will always entail an element of mystery since our understanding of God is limited and provisional [1Tim.6:15-16]. We do not understand the God we worship, nor have we seen God, yet we worship with a certain understanding that there are truths within what has been revealed of God, particularly by Christ [1Tim.3:16].
The most appropriate human music, eloquent words, elaborate liturgy or beautiful setting are surely pale reflections of what we believe to be the worship of heaven. Our role is to give of our best as our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving. Faithful communal or individual worship is not easily achieved, it entails expenditure of energy, thought and giving. It is the sincerity of our worship in our hearts and minds that matters, not its length, beauty or correctness of form. How each of us worships most meaningfully will vary for all, since our characters and spiritualities differ. We need to find the forms of worship which help us draw closest to God “in Spirit and in Truth”. But we should not necessarily remain stuck to one form or just follow what is comfortable. The Church is formed of a rich diversity of people and we can flourish, develop and grow through exploring varieties if understandings of God. There is room for many styles of worship in the Church: we broaden our spirituality and response to God more holistically if we open ourselves to different traditions. Not all of these may be helpful to us but we build on those that expand our minds and worship. If we just read favourite scripture verses, repeat favourite hymns or always follow the same form of worship, our appreciation of God’s immensity and richness won’t grow. Expanding our perspective widens faith, extends our understanding of mission and discipleship, and broadens our ability to communicate faith. Faithful worship calls us to focus our thoughts on the huge expanse of God and recognise the breadth of God’s qualities, truths, love and provision.
THE FINDABILITY OF GOD THROUGH THE SACRAMENTS
I intend to explore this issue in greater detail in a further study, as it has been a point of contention between the Orthodox Church, Roman Catholics and Protestants of various types for centuries. The very idea of what a ‘sacrament’ is has been defined, re-defined and argued over. Some churches have over-extended their veneration of certain sacraments, as in the elaborate, richly ornamented monstrances designed for adoration of the Eucharistic bread. The Roman Catholic service of ‘Exposition of the Holy Sacrament’ can sometimes make the Eucharist seem like an idolatrous activity. Raphael’s fresco in the Vatican Stanze shows symbolically a glorious crowd of saints in heaven surrounding an altar displaying a monstrance. Christ is represented enthroned above the altar and the host of heaven are glorifying him for the salvation Christ achieved through his self-offering. But the fresco is also a propaganda image to emphasise the doctrine of ‘transubstantiation’ or the concept of the ‘real presence’ of Christ in the Eucharistic elements. It is right to recognise in the bread and wine the spiritual reality of Christ being present among us as we share Communion. It is more than a symbolic memorial meal: in some mysterious way we believe that we are specially joined together as Christ’s body when we share in the Eucharist. Otherwise, why would St. Paul need to warn participants about failing to discern Christ when sharing Communion together? “Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord. Examine yourselves and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For all who eat and drink without discerning the body eat and drink judgement against themselves.” [1Cor.11:27-29]. Paul does not clarify exactly what he means by this, so we should not try to explain the mystery of Christ’s presence too precisely as some Catholic theologians have been tempted to do. The quotation ascribed to Elizabeth I is significant: “”. We need to be careful not to over-state the role of the Mass/Eucharist/Communion in any ways that might make it an idolatrous pursuit. To the other extreme, neglect of the Eucharistic meal and the emphasis of some Protestant churches on the elements of Communion being just a symbolic sharing of fellowship, do not do justice to the significant meaning of sharing the elements. Christ’s words “Wherever two or three are gathered in my name, I am there in the midst of them” [Matt.18:20], then his institution of the Last Supper as a sign of his continued presence with them in the bread and wine [Matt.26:26-29; Mk.14:22-25; Lk.22:15-20] demonstrate that he intended the sharing of this meal to be a corporate spiritual and physical demonstration of our union with him. We are intended to know that Christ is especially present when we share in the Eucharistic rite, but we should not over-define how he is present, since it remains a spiritual mystery.
The meaning of the sacrament Baptism has been watered down in many churches. Christening in the Anglican Church particularly is often regarded by families as a social event with very little or no regard to its spiritual function and intention. I have attempted to prepare non-church-attendant parents beforehand to consider the meaning of the vows that they are making, and found they have no interest in God or don’t believe, but they still want their child baptised. Godparents, though they need to have been baptised themselves, similarly rarely want to attend preparation sessions and are often chosen because they are friends of the family or have social influence that might help the child in future years, rather than having any intention to spiritually influence the child’s nurture. Where this happens it makes a mockery of some of the most significant vows that any believer can make in decisively committing to aligning themselves with God and following God’s ways. Churches might often be accused of adding to this hypocrisy, since congregations are asked to make vows of commitment to support the child or adult being baptised, but do nothing after the initial service to support and nurture the person in fulfilling the vows that have been made.
There can be a similar desecration of the sacramental act when couples go into marriage unprepared and with little commitment to the spiritual union that they are undertaking. Again, I have met many couples who have no wish to prepare for the ceremony by exploring its meaning. Many just want the social event and the number of broken marriage vows and splits between couples demonstrates how little their spiritual union means to some people. Of course we can expect some marriages to break up, particularly amid the pressures and dangers of contemporary life. But I don’t think that the divorce level would be so high if the sacramental commitment and human commitment of a couple to one another was entered into more seriously. The idea of them being joined together in indissoluble ways by God is not taken seriously enough. It is possible that couple might ‘find God’ in the truth of their relationship with one another in marriage.
One problem is that in today’s society, and in the Church itself, the spiritual meaning of sacraments has often become diluted. The idea that they are “an outward and visible sign of an inner spiritual reality” should make us approach them with awe, not just as a regular, relatively insignificant event. The same should be our approach to God in prayer. Both prayer and the sacraments are huge privileges, in which we draw closer to God and are intended to find God through what we are doing. Though I belong to a Protestant church, I must admit that when Protestant churches reduced their idea of what is sacramental to the Eucharist and Baptism they partly added to this decline in the meaningfulness of sacraments. The Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches have a wider sacramental tradition, regarding Confirmation, Marriage, Confession, Absolution, Ordination and Extreme Unction as sacraments. I can understand that Protestantism differentiated the Eucharist and Baptism from the others as they are notionally the acts that most clearly unite us to God. But one could say that each of the other traditional sacraments are actions which promise union with God. In Confirmation and Ordination deeper commitments to God and to following God’s ways and mission than may have been made at baptism are being confirmed. We are praying for the Holy Spirit to particularly empower those who are being confirmed or ordained, so this is an intended definite encounter with God. In Confession, Absolution and Extreme Unction we are praying for divine forgiveness to remove the barriers that life and sin form between us and God, opening us up to a renewed fellowship with the spiritual realm. As this forgiveness can only come through the action of God, not ourselves, in our prayers we are again spiritually encountering God, so these too are definitely sacramental activities. Marriage in church, as already mentioned, is not just the commitment of two people to one another: In the service we are praying for God to unite and bless them; for God to be active in their home, their lives and in deepening and nourishing their relationship together, and for God to be active in blessing and nurturing their family, should they have children. We call a priestly calling ‘sacred’ and a marriage relationship ‘secular’. But in spiritual terms there is not much difference between ordaining a priest to fulfil their spiritual duties in the church and in the world, and in marriage ordaining a couple to fulfil their spiritual commitments to one another and their duties to the world in which they are to live. There is a sacramental element to all these activities, and in them we are meant to be able to find God. We certainly paying in trust that God is present and active, asking God to be involved in all of these traditional sacraments.
THE FINDABILITY OF GOD THROUGH PRAYER
Similarly when we place ourselves before God in prayer, either corporately of individually we can come to recognise that we are in the presence of whatever the truth of God is. Personally, when I pray or contemplate I rest in the assurance that I wish to communicate with whatever the truth of God is. I don’t imagine God as ‘Father’, ‘enthroned emperor of all’, ‘loving shepherd’, or any of the multiple metaphors for God mentioned in scripture to help us reach towards aspects of God. I simply feel that I am here, opening myself up to, speaking to, or in silence with whatever is spiritual truth.
Often we do not need words. I personally do not usually find difficulty in articulating prayer or devising prayers and intercessions to be used in liturgy. I don’t know this for sure, but suspect that this may be one reason why I have never been blessed with, or apparently needed, the gift of spiritual tongues, though I am open to receiving anything that God offers. Often when I pray I open myself to God in silence, trusting and believing that God knows my needs, knows my thoughts, is aware of what is on my mind and understands my wishes and longings. There is no need to bombard God with words. However, we also need to remember that Jesus used the parable of the persistent widow and the judge [] to remind us of the importance of sincere intercession. In that teaching he reminded us that God wants us to be involved in the process of answered prayer.
It is through our prayer-life that we come to trust that God is involved in the world and in our personal lives. We don’t see God and often we don’t recognise precise answers to our prayers. In fact, sometimes events happen which may seem contrary to what we asked for: family and friends may not be healed or reconciled, dictators may not be overthrown, peace may not come to places of conflict, and those in need may not be satisfied. But our persistence in prayer may help to remind us, or confirm that a power is at work which understands the world far more than we do, and we can trust God for doing right. This in itself can be a way by which we come to recognise a little more of aspects of truth about God.
If the God who orthodox Christian doctrine espouses is true, as I believe, we can trust that we are guided by the truth, in a relationship with what is true, and that following the ways that Christ teaches can bring us the best life possible. We do not need to know every aspect of truth in order to believe certain things, just as scientists know that they do not need to know everything before they follow certain tested principles and aims. Philosophy of science accepts that there is often much more that we do not know than what we know at present. Yet scientists believe certain things are true. It is similar in theology, worship and in prayer: we believe that there is far more to God and the invisible spiritual dimension than we perceive or understand, yet we still trust that what has been revealed in Christianity is rooted in truth and can be followed practically, for the benefit of all. We pray to our invisible God in trust of this.
Prayer, of course, includes many different forms and approaches, though its common feature is that we believe that prayer is a point of connection to God. This spiritual connection is a practical way of maintaining our spiritual health. We recognise ourselves in the context of something far greater and more constant than ourselves and can feel linked to the source of life that can sustain all needs.
There are multiple forms of prayer and worship, and it is important to find the forms or combinations of types of worship that suit our spirituality, personalities and are available to us. A busy business-person, carer, or someone bringing up a demanding family cannot spend the same time in prayer and contemplation of their faith that may be available to a monk. Just because a group may share a particular religious calling does not mean that the ways of prayer that satisfy our personal spirituality will be the same. We need to find and develop the forms of personal prayer and worship that are most meaningful to us, connecting us to God ‘in spirit and in truth’. As an ordained minister I made commitments to regular daily worship and prayer. I felt guilty at first that I found reciting a daily Anglican office from the book of Common Worship spiritually unsatisfying. It seemed as though I was just reciting words that, though admittedly theologically rich and full of meaning, yet were not engaging my spirit as much as when I am involved in corporate worship. The daily practice did not yet feel as though I was worshipping “in spirit and in truth”. I needed to augment this by finding other ways of daily engaging with God that were most truthful to my mind, spirituality and character. I found that nourishment in my daily theological writing, contemplation and drawing or painting about my faith. This often led into studies like this present one, preparing sermons or talks, poetry or just working through thoughts in the presence of God.
As well as spending time in intercession for those for whom you have committed yourself to pray, many find useful a ‘Quiet Time’ with scripture, as I learned in my Evangelical youth. The catholic practice of Lectio Divina is a similar discipline. We are nourished by reading a passage of scripture daily, often reading through a book consecutively, thinking through the meaning and relevance of a passage and turning that into prayer. That was my practice for years and I am grateful for its discipline, since it grounded me in my knowledge of the Bible, which is so important for the thinking Christian. Gradually my ‘quiet time’ morphed into ‘Lectio Divina’ which is a slightly less prescriptive form of meditation and contemplation of scripture, often leading my thoughts in broader, less determined directions. While the meditation element of Lectio Divina involves study, thinking and challenge, the contemplation element reflects less cerebrally, seeking the guidance of God’s Spirit to peacefully settle the meaning of the passage into our spirits. By silently asking God to open up to us the application of what we are is reading, we may be more open to discovering or receiving new insights which more rational, focused thought might miss.
Both active and more passive forms of studying scripture are of course important, as is disciplined formal worship. But these are no substitute for also being able to just sit in God’s presence in silence, seeking to make oneself aware and open to the Spirit. Sitting in silence may move or guide us in ways that we could not imagine, or may just supply a needed, refreshing rest. The importance of any form of prayer and study is primarily to know that we belong to God and God is there with us, caring about us and about our needs. We may be sitting in adoration, interceding in trust, thinking and reasoning. But at times of exhaustion, pain or difficulties, it may just be a time to rest in a secure place, which in itself can be refreshing and build strength. Very often when problems are on our minds we churn them over and over, rather than trying to relieve the tension by resting and finding peace. It is often in rest that we resolve problems and find that we are able to trust in God’s presence with us. Praying regularly and committedly for a person, situation or subject spiritually unites us with them as part of the Body of Christ. It also links and unites us with God’s care for them.
Prayer is a direct form of communication with our source of life. I have heard several religious people say that all life is prayer in this sense: By living, acting, thinking, we are living out the lives that our Source of Life has created and relating to God. This is no doubt true, but its meaning can be very vague. To pray is to more directly aim to address God and acknowledge God’s place in our individual and corporate lives.
There are some situations that we pray for where we are asking for specific requests, but very often we do not know what to ask in prayer, since we do not know the best solution to a problem or issue. In such cases it is often best just to rest the situation in God’s hands, trusting that the divine solution is the right one. For example, this can sometimes be the case when someone has been diagnosed with a terminal illness... Of course we pray for healing, but at the same time, realistically we entrust the future into the care and wisdom of God. Some pray in difficult situations with understandable scepticism or doubt, not expecting the answer they want, or perhaps any answer at all. We should be careful not to mistrust, since faith is about trusting God and having hope. We are encouraged to pray without doubt [Matt.14:31; 21:21; Mk.11:23; Lk.24:28]. Jas.1:6 especially expects us to “ask in faith and not doubt, for how can the doubter expect to receive anything from the Lord.” But doubt is natural to any thinking mind in our enlightened world. God will understand our questioning and hesitancy to believe. Doubt is only disabling if it prevents us from trusting and alienates us from God..
We sometimes talk of ‘wrestling in prayer’. This is rarely so much struggling like Jacob for a blessing [Gen.32:22-32] but more usually working through personal uncertainty. We can importune God in our desperation, but the truth of what is right is in the wisdom of God. Prayer may involve experimenting in our mind with our ideas and wishes before God. We rarely know exactly what is right, what God wants or the exact direction to follow. Sometimes it is useful to experiment with different potential answers, as when Gideon laid down his fleeces [Judg.6:32-40], or trying a variety of doors, asking God to just unlock the right way for us. I have often lain prostrate on the floor, not knowing what to pray for, but asking for God’s truth to come about and for God’s Spirit to intercede through me.
Contemplative prayer or transcendence does not try to understand God but to sit in awareness that a mysterious reality exists and appreciate and adore God for who God is. One of the contemplative practices in Hinduism is to achieve a state of inactive bliss, reflecting that of Brahman (god). You renounce all goals of action in order to achieve a ‘cave within the heart’ where one might apprehend the inactive, blissful calm and unchanging consciousness that is at the deepest level of your self, bringing you to oneness with the root of all things. Such bliss is considered in Hinduism to be the state of god, (Brahman). Christian prayer seeks peace and the satisfaction of God’s Kingdom, but is not so inactive or disassociated from the world. In Hinduism the world is regarded as only part reality; greater reality is at the heart of the Brahman, and it is believed that one can only get close to this condition by detachment. Christianity has a stronger attachment to reality, since it is considered that creation is part of the active will of God and we are living towards the establishment of God’s Kingdom within reality. So when we contemplate silently in Christian prayer, we are not seeking a state of disconnected bliss in God’s presence; we are asking God to help form the divine Kingdom through the relationship which God is building up in us and with the world.
Different personalities with varying experiences will have very different expectations when they approach God in prayer. It is too simplistic to just quote Jesus’ saying that “if we had faith the size of a grain of mustard seed” we would see miracles as a result of our prayer [Matt.17:20; Mk.4:31], or that if a group of believers agree on something and pray, God will make it happen [Matt.18:19]. Some have become disillusioned with faith as a result of not seeing the answers that they wanted. I feel sure that Jesus’ teaching on prayer intended us to increase our expectancy, trust, belief and dependency on God, but not to make us naïve. He was realistic: In Gethsemane he prayed that he might be spared suffering yet concluded: “Father, not my will but yours be done!” [Matt.26:39, 42; Lk.22:42], recognising that God would know the best holistic solutions.
We should not be superstitious in our attitude to prayer. When Jesus asked us to pray “in his Name” [Jn14:13], I don’t think he intended us to ‘evoke’ his Name or pray “in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit” as a spiritualist or magician might recite magical words considered to have supernatural power in themselves. Rather praying ‘in God’s Name’ suggests that we trust all that God truly is to be active, and we trust God to respond to our prayer in the ways that supreme wisdom knows is best for all Creation and all concerned in the context of eternity. Prayer should be an attempt to align our thoughts and wills to accept and follow God’s aims, not a desire to twist God’s arm for God to act in the ways that we wish. Praying ‘in Jesus’ name’ was a way that the early Church linked Jesus with the Father’s divinity: previously Jews would only pray ‘in the name of God’. Praying ‘in God’s name’ or ‘in Jesus’ name’ is largely for Christians asking “may all that you are act as you know to be right.”
Richard Hooker taught that we come to comprehend God through Scripture, Reason and Christian Tradition. These and other ways by which we understand God can also apply to prayer. If we sensitise and make ourselves open to God’s Spirit living in us and interacting with our life-experiences we can align our thoughts towards God’s aims. Multiple prayer traditions and teachings of different faiths may help broaden our approach and openness to God. Prayer can also include reasoning with our thinking minds and interpreting life events and belief. God communicates with us as much in our thinking, reasoning and creative imagining, as in the openness of our senses in prayer. ‘Listening’ to God includes using all our faculties, senses and reasoning. Intuition and imagination, the creative parts of our minds, can reach far beyond what we see and reason, and open us further to being guided by God’s Spirit.
Intuitive prayer can sometimes feel more spontaneous and heart-felt, but a traditional or carefully formed, theologically deep liturgical prayer, or silence before God, can be just as truthful. To be faithful in prayer, what matters most is not its form, not the beauty and eloquence in our approach to God, or the time spent in prayer but the spirit and truth in our minds as we relate to God as we pray. That is the true “prayer of faith” as Jesus and St. Paul taught.
THE IDEA OF UNION WITH GOD IN CHRISTIAN TRADITION
Within mystic contemplation the idea of union or oneness with God and harmony with God’s will is sometimes regarded as a goal. Teaching about mystic union with God is included in writings and practices of several mystical writers including Dionysius the Areopagite, Catherine of Siena, Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross. When asked what he would like to have as a reward for his work Thomas Aquinas is claimed to have responded to God,: “No reward but you yourself, Lord.”
In the Hebrew Scriptures God’s people are described as joined ot God in a covenant relationship. They had consequent responsibilities to remain in allegiance to God, worship and follow God’s ways. But the difference and distance between God and God’s people was significant, as seen in those passages about the incomprehensibility of God discussed early in this study. New Testament Scripture speaks more frequently about believers being united to God. We have God as ‘our Father’, we are part of God’ ‘family’, united as the ‘body of Christ’. With Christ as our friend and brother we are no longer just servants [Jn15:14-15]. Christ has reunited humanity with God and united people who were once strangers to God and strangers to each other within his body the Church.
Varieties of concepts about union with God or gods or the spiritual world may have developed as responses to a common psychological need in human beings to develop a relationship with what we consider is beyond our own dimension. Several Christian mystics explored ideas of making a spiritual journey towards spiritual union with God through progressive stages. This seems in several ways a step further than the union described in scripture. There are similarities and differences between Christian ideas of union with God and Eastern religious concepts of journeying towards spiritual union. Some Christian mystics regard ‘union’ as the final stage (sometimes the third stage), of a spiritual journey sometimes called ‘the unitive way’. The initial ‘purgative way’ seeks to help one release oneself from attachment to worldly things and appetites that are not useful. One recognises of one’s spiritual and physical inadequacy and weaknesses, adopting self-discipline and sometimes mortification of the senses in order to prepare oneself for a relationship with one who is perfect. The second stage of the journey is the ‘illuminative way’. This encourages contemplation and the development of inner knowledge of God. This illumination is different from the process of building up of knowledge of God through study, as Aquinas encouraged. It perhaps takes for granted that the Christian has a mental knowledge, but involves reducing the domination of one’s intellect, one’s orientation to oneself, the domination of our wills, desires and self-consciousness. One focuses on God by quiet contemplation, recognising oneself as being in God’s presence and making oneself open to God. The third step on the mystical journey is achieved by fewer who follow the way. In the final ‘unitive way’, mystics talk of the human soul finding itself in an ecstatic union with God. This is not regarded as being achieved by one’s will, reason or intellect, but by the soul being transformed by God’s grace alone. The believer is said to become linked to the unknown ‘darkness’ or mystery of the wholeness of who God is. The ‘unitive’ way reminds us that God is so much more than those aspects of God that are encountered through the scriptures and is a mystery so much greater than our comprehension. John of the Cross described the progress through the purgative, illuminative and unitive way in “The Dark Night of the Soul”, where he beomes caught up in the mystery of God.
Similar to the unitive way, some mystics describe a way of union called ‘apatheia’ (‘absence of passions’) in which it is believed that the soul aims to regain its original state as intended by God before the Fall, and enters into communication with God in pure prayer. Apatheia seeks to relax and impassively open ourselves to God, mastering one’s passions. Not all passions may be considered bad, but they are regarded as distractions. By neutralising our passions, proponents of apatheia believe that one can become closer to the peace of a loved relationship with God.
While ideas of union with God through the unitive way and apatheia attract some, the concept of union with God may not attract a number of Christian believers. Some of the language of union may seem a step or more too far towards Eastern or New Age ideas and not what Jesus meant by his prayer that we may be ‘one’ with himself and the Father [Jn.17:21-24]. The traditional Christian interpretation of being at one with God seems to be more about being reunited in covenant fellowship by the salvation achieved by Christ, moving away from self-centredness and sin, following the path that God intends for us, and being united in will and action to God. Such union with God is not conceived as either being caught up in God’s mystery or being absorbed into God’s being, in the Eastern religion sense.
The biblical idea of union with God in most of the passages about unity and union in the New Testament is describing believers being brought into God’s family and being part of the community of Christ’s followers as the corporate Body of Christ, rather than about some transcendental or mystical experience. The Epistles talk of being united with Christ [Rom.6:5; 1 Cor.6:17; Phil.2:1Eph.1:10] and in union with the Spirit [Eph.4:3; 1Pet.3:8]. But in most cases the idea is that we should regain a loved relationship with God and act in unity of purpose with the one who has reconciled us to God. Very few experiences that might be called ‘transcendental’ are described in scripture. The two mysterious disappearances of Enoch and Elijah [Gen.5:24; 2Ki.2:11] are not explained sufficiently to be conclusive. St. Paul’s describes being caught up into the third heaven [2Cor.12:2], and the writer of the Apocalypse describes many visions of heaven. In most experiences of visions of God or heaven described in scripture, the one who is united with God remains earthbound. It is not imagined that even those great figures of the Hebrew Bible, Moses, Elijah and the prophets were caught up in mystical union with God during their visionary experiences, though MOsews is described as talking with God as one might talk to a friend. In the great visions of God in Isa.6; Ezek.1; Dan.7; Ex.24:9ff; 33:18ff and the book of Revelation the person having the vision appears to look on from earth, rather than having an apotheosis or being transcendentally transformed or transfigured. So the descriptions of union with God as described by mystics seem rather different from the idea of unity described in scripture.
We all have different personalities and backgrounds, different needs, varied spiritualities which nourish our varied characters, so will have various ways of encountering and relating to God. Transcendental experiences may be true for some. Rationalisation and study may be how others are nourished. Emotionalism in faith and other passions may be positive for some and negative for others. Occasionally stirring up emotionalism in believers through preaching, prayer or praise can encourage false senses of spirituality. Yet our emotions are also often the medium through which we experience or express truths about God. Some relate to God primarily through the intellect, some through emotion, some through traditional liturgies etc. Most of us deepen our relationship with God through a combination of many several forms of worship, prayer, study, contemplation and varied responses to the changing experiences of life.
All true forms of relating to God are intended to lead, not to a selfish self-fulfilment but to build in us a sense of love, awe, friendship and stewardship towards our Lord and Source, as well as a multitude of other responsibilities which we have towards God and God’s people as mentioned in scripture. Jesus said of the disciples “I no longer call you servants, but I call you friends because I have made known to you all that I have heard from my Father” [Jn15:15]. This friendship is not just an emotional relationship; it includes obedient action “You are my friends if you do what I command you.” [Jn.15:14] If one seeks a closer walk with God one needs to develop love and trust through a combination of faithful, active obedience to God’s will, working for God’s Kingdom, and a unitive life of prayer, meditation on scripture and the life and teachings of Christ, and contemplatively resting in the peace of that relationship with God that Christ achieved for us. Union with God is both active and passive, missional and contemplative, having faith and actively practising it.
It is through practising our faith in the many ways described that we develop a sense of certainty of the love of God for us and recognise God in the world and in God’s actions towards us. God is found through praxis, not so much through just sitting and trying to think about faith. If one has been following God’s way one senses that one is following God’s will, one may feel close to God and sense a fellowship with the mystery of God [Eph.3:9]. But this is still not the same as being ‘one’ or ‘united’ with God, as some mystics describe it. The terms used by mystics to describe union are closer to the descriptions of Eastern transcendental meditation. Eastern meditation has a different aim of being absorbed into the power or essence of God; Christian meditation and contemplation recognise that we are very different from God but can find fellowship with the divine by aligning ourselves with God’s will for us, accepting God’s love for us and living authentic lives as Christ taught and as the Holy Spirit guides us.
The methods of contemplation suggested by several mystics suggest that one can come into a state of recognition that one is in God’s presence. Some describe it as being surrounded by light, others as a sense of profound silence or peace, others as a sense of being surrounded by intense love. I have never experienced this in the intense way that some of my contemplative friends describe, so I do not feel qualified to assess it personally. However I have often felt a sense of being in the presence of truth, love and peace. After centuries of medical and spiritual experience humanity still has so much to learn about our physiological, psychological and spiritual experiences. It is known from experience that fasting and deprivation of the senses can lead to intensification of the feeling that people are having spiritual experiences. The deprivations and suppression of the senses practised by some mystics may account for some of the intensification of their spiritual experiences. Some who have been revived from death recall what they describe as being in the presence of a bright light or a long tunnel with light beyond. Whether such sensations are actually true spiritual experience of entering the presence of God or responses in the mind to the death process, we cannot be certain, but it convinces some that they have had a spiritual experience. Similarly it is unclear whether all Christian mystical sensations received through contemplative prayer are truly the result of being ‘in union’ with God, or ‘one’ with God, though interpreted as such. We may only be sure if after death we find ourselves in such union. It is sometimes hard to confirm other supposedly spiritual experiences, like reports of Pentecostal occurrences and manifestations in others’ lives. We need to be spiritually discerning, being careful neither to be over-naïve or negatively sceptical, when seeking to discern truth in spirituality.
It is hard to understand how beings of such different substances as humans and the divine might be truly united while we are still alive. The Christian idea of union with God is not one of being absorbed into the divine essence, as represented in Eastern religious thinking. If we are in some ways ‘in the image and likeness of God’, as Genesis 1 suggests, those spiritual aspects that we share may have been ‘united’ or ‘reunited’ with God through Christ’. But we are so different from God in so many other ways that even our senses cannot perceive God. Any idea of ‘union’ must therefore regard our relationship as in some ways more like a bond of friendship or marriage between two unequal natures, just as ‘covenants’ between God and people were always an agreement between drastically unequal parties, yet nevertheless expressions of union.
At the heart of Christian mysticism needs to be the humble recognition that we are not being initiated into unknown mysteries or secrets, or absorbed into the essence of God, in the same way that ancient ‘mystery religions’ or sects taught. Christian mysticism recognises that the mystery of God’s love for us has now been revealed through Christ, and Christ has opened up to God’s gift of salvation. So in many ways certain parts of God’s nature and activity are no longer a mystery or secret. Those have been declared to us by Christ, but much more about God, even the nature of who Jesus Christ is, still remains obscure. Christian Mysticism is therefore more about coming to recognise that the mysterious God is available and accessible for us, cares about us and acts for us. We come to realise this through a living relationship with this truth. We accept that much of the rest of God remains mystery, but we build our trust in God and adore God for what is mysterious as well as what has been revealed. We meditate on, contemplatively rest in, and sense that we are in the care of God. Union with God in this context is therefore a state of recognising God’s love for us, recognising that God is active for good, and in our covenant response making sure that our lives and actions are aligned with God’s will, then finding and feeling the peace that can result from this relationship.
I have noticed a sense of superiority in some who believe that their spiritual experiences are more mature or blessed than others. There should be no room for arrogance in true Christian mysticism or any form of Christianity. We are all so much lower than God and so imperfect in our actions and thoughts that we should remain humble. The satisfied fulfilment, peace, or feeling of being loved by God which Christians feel should always be balanced by humility. We should recognise that our relationship with God and God’s love are totally dependent on God’s grace, not on ourselves or anything that we have done. Some Christian leaders I have encountered have seemed smug or arrogant, as though considering that their position, their calling, their activities or their spiritual gifts are on a higher level than others. Such attitudes and behaviour contradicts Jesus’ teaching that we should serve, not lord it over others and should consider others better than ourselves [Mk.10:43; Lk.22:24-27; Phil.2:3]. St. Paul reminded us that we should give greater honour to those parts of the body that seem less honourable or appear to do the less honourable work [1Cor.12:22-23]. Paul called Christians to strive for greater gifts [1Cor.12:31] but such gifts are not given to raise us over others: they are to be used for others, for advancing the work of Christ through the activity of his body the Church. There is no room for arrogance or one-upmanship in true Christian discipleship, spirituality or mysticism. False arrogance tends to swagger in its knowledge of God, and believes that one has deserved God’s love and blessings for everything that one is doing for God. True Christian mysticism will recognise that we know hardly anything about the Source that loves us so much and acts for us. We should accept that we don’t deserve this privileged relationship with God into which we have been brought by Christ. Nothing that we have done, either in our actions or our practices of prayer unites us with God; our union with God is totally the gift of God’s grace.
CONCLUSIONS
Throughout the Bible figures are described as having relationships with God in different levels of closeness or understanding. The varied relationships between God and Jewish tribal and national leaders, prophets, seers and more humble individuals are described in scripture, sometimes as examples, sometimes as warnings. There can be no doubt that the Christian scriptures claim that God intends to be known, and reveals and communicates enough for us to relate to God. God’s self-revelation through Jesus of Nazareth is supreme among these forms of divine revelation, showing us the way by which we can develop our relationship with God. Christ and the Holy Spirit enable our relationship with the Father.
However, nowhere in the Bible is the journey towards knowing, relating to and understanding God described as easy or comprehensive. God is invisible; our ability to communicate depends to a great extent on our openness to study and listen, our obedience in disciplining our lives, minds and actions to follow God’s ways and how much we are committed to seek and relate to God and find and live by truth. Scripture teaches that we are dependent on God to self-reveal; it is not something we can bring about by our own wills, spiritual practices, studies, mystical processes or actions. The histories of the Church and the Jewish nation sadly demonstrate that following God’s truth has not always been a priority, aim or practice of religious and political leaders, or their people.
If God is real and the Christian faith is true, our beliefs should, and need to be able to, stand up to all forms of searching, questioning and doubts. Basically true Christian faith is rooted in a search for truth, even though we may never ultimately find totally convincing evidence or be able to prove our beliefs In this life “Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things unseen” [Heb.11:1].
There is an understandable tension between the Bible’s claim that God desires to develop relationships with people and the philosophical recognition that God and the spiritual world are of such different dimensions and natures to ours that they surely cannot be known sufficiently using any physical or intellectual forms of human perception. Though the Bible describes much about God’s nature, character and activity, it also contains admissions that no human beings can know the majority of what God is, since God’s being is described as infinite and God’s activity is so varied and widespread. The dichotomy between ideas of the knowability and unknowability of God will never be resolved sufficiently by reasoning or study. Many have tried to form proofs for God’s existence, but the evidence collected is most often subjective, and we do not believe that it will ever be possible to develop empirical evidences to proofs that would convince the world. Despite this frustration, Christians have a responsibility towards mission, so we need to develop an apologetic that can explain our reasons for faith as convincingly as possible.
Even if we could develop universally convincing evidence, proofs do not in themselves necessarily lead to encountering God or developing a relationship with God. Faith in God and relating to God in scripture, traditions and in the believer’s daily experience are based on trust far more than mental reasoning. Our own spiritual experiences may not always be sufficiently convincing proofs for other questioners. However feeling personally assured by our experiences and as sure as possible that the evidence that we have for our faith is rooted in truth can gives one the confidence to work on developing one’s relationship with God.
It is claimed that only God can open us up to divine revelation; we cannot do it on our own. Yet, as Aquinas asserted, our study of our faith is an essential part of knowing God. If we want to find God, knowing our Bible can give us as holistic an understanding of the possibly infinite enormity of God as possible. We should not just rely on our favourite aspects of God, like love, forgiveness, care, healing etc. To know someone in relationship we also need to know all other aspects of them, even those that may not make us so comfortable, like God’s expectation of perfection form us, justice, judgement etc.
Believers may sense that they have found God is various ways. We know most about the Christian God through the medium of the various books of the Bible. Christians probably find the fullest account of aspects of God through the Bible’s stories and teachings, most of which may have been initially shared orally, written down, edited brought together over centuries and eventually brought together as a compilation. Through many different genres and literary forms the Bible describes, among other things, God’s interaction with human beings and explores the nature of God’s character and expectations of believers and followers. Christians also believe they can find God in traditions, doctrines, teachings and aspects of belief that have developed among religious people and churches over nearly two millennia of the Christian era, and several millennia previously during which the Jews developed their understandings of God.
A wide variety of useful methods of prayer, meditation, contemplation, study and forms of discipleship are on offer to Christians. They are designed to deepen our relationship with God, but we need to find what combinations suit us at different stages of our Christian growth. Many of us have different ways of learning. However, ultimately the findability of God is not based on a method; it grows from honesty before God and dedicatedly seeking truth with all our hearts, minds, souls and strength, and opening ourselves in the ways that make us most receptive spiritually.
The Christian Church itself is intended to be a place and community that nurtures faith and Christian practice in a wide variety of different people. We are intended to help all to find God through our love, teaching, scriptural readings, studies, teachings, liturgies, inclusivity, community spirit and other practices. We ought to be able to recognise aspects of God in the people who follow the ways taught by God, though this may often be marred by human sins and frailties. By general grace we may also recognise good things about God through all creation, including those who do not believe in God or follow God’s ways, but may in some aspects reflect God to us. Visionaries believe that they have encountered God or God’s messengers more directly, in particular situations. Contemplatives and mystics believe that they encounter God through various forms of prayer activities. Some mystics believe that it is possible to grow to experience unity with God. Other believers imagine God as beyond comprehension yet are content with the understanding that we cannot perceive God with the physical senses, yet our faith may nevertheless trust and believe in an inner sense that God is present.
The spiritual experiences of millions of believers over nearly two millennia of the Christian era, and for many centuries before in the experiences of the Hebrew peoples, seem to be confirmations and evidence that God is present, though invisible in this world, and that a meaningful and spiritually fulfilling relationship with the divine is possible. However, as Ecclesiastes reminds us there will always be frustrations in how much we are able to understand of the spiritual dimension. In practical terms it may be said that despite many frustrations over what we cannot know, the Christian faith is personality and socially helpful and satisfying to a huge number of people. Though the Christian Church has often been regarded by critics as over-negative in its attitudes, due to its emphasis on sin, our faith is largely positive. True Christianity can be mentally, spiritually and intellectually satisfying and peace-giving. In practice many believers find that though they cannot adequately prove, see or define God, we are able to develop a meaningful relationship with God. We often broaden our minds and perceptions by thinking through the mysteries of faith and imagining God through the metaphors used to describe God in scripture. Nevertheless we know that our understanding will always be incomplete and in some ways insufficient.
Following God’s ways, as taught in scripture not only helps us live good lives, we believe the promise that it opens up our relationship with God. It is certainly fulfilling to live by the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth, since, as Jesus himself said: He and his teachings are “The Way, the Truth, and the Life.” If we follow the ways taught be him we are more likely to live abundant, useful lives and find God in the practice of our daily life.
Jesus taught that he was making God known and St. Paul became convinced that we come to know God through Jesus Christ. This eventually led to the orthodox Christian conclusion that Jesus was divine: God’s self-revelation through a human life. Jesus’ teaching claimed that he was speaking and acting as his Father was guiding him to do, and that in knowing him his followers would come to know God. He spoke as though he was not just physically born as a human child but had known the Father formerly in the dimension of heaven. He claimed that after he had left earth, the Holy Spirit would continue his mission by guiding people to know and follow God and commune with God. Thus the Christian Church believes that we find God in and through Jesus Christ and through the work of the Holy Spirit.
The dialectic debate of philosophers and theologians over how far God is ‘findable’ or ‘unknowable’, is far less important than helping to bring people to situations where they can live abundant, righteous, fulfilled personal and social lives. God is to be found in abundant life, as well as bringing us abundant life. It is a significant role of the Church to help people towards abundant life by following Christ’s ways authentically. We aim to find pastorally sensitive ways to help people find God and form positive relationships with God. Finding God is not just about what we believe in; it is primarily how well we live by the principles that Jesus and other parts of scripture taught. It seems that we build and strengthen an understanding of God as we build in daily life the sort of divine Kingdom about which Jesus taught. Finding God is possibly determined by how righteous we are in following God’s ways.
The huge variety of peoples and types of characters and personalities in the world should be enough evidence that there is not one but multiple ways of understanding God. As human relationships differ, so in worshipping God ‘in Spirit and in Truth’, as Jesus taught, many people will inevitably develop a variety of forms of relationship with God. Each human being is a complex combination of multiple characteristics, with a broad variety of aspects to our natures, backgrounds and lives. How much more mysterious and complex must the mystery of God be, who we believe is infinite, omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient! Yet somehow we believe that God, who is so different from us and exists in a dimension that we cannot perceive with the physical senses, wishes to communicate with human beings and enables a wide variety of relationships.
The concept of God being largely unknowable and incomprehensible is not necessarily a stumbling-block to belief. It can be useful, strengthening and positive, because it encourages believers to expand our ideas and broaden our perspective to more extensively imagine the transcendent, perhaps infinite, enormity of God. The imagination can help our understandings of God to grow, though we should be careful not to individualise our faith too far, which has often led in past Church history to spiritual mistakes and the formation of heresies. Christians should always check our interpretations of faith and scripture, by whether they conform to the ideas and principles taught by Christ.
The Bible provides an enormous amount of detail about the qualities and nature of God, upon which Christians build their faith and ideas of the God they worship. Inevitably many believers’ faith is based on experiences and understandings which might be considered subjective by many. Our ideas of the reality and nature of God are often dependent on and formed by our backgrounds and the traditions in which we have been brought up. Our understandings of faith will also be dependent on how we trust and interpret the content of scripture and the integrity and authenticity of its sources and writers.
Scripture implies that human beings reflect our Creator, but does not explain how, and interpretations of this have been debated for centuries. We may not know what aspects God might be connected with and found in human beings or are reflected in the created cosmos yet from the first chapters of the Bible it is claimed that there is ability within us to relate to God. There definitely seems to be a spiritual longing in human beings. While there is no empirical proof for any religious faith, it seems that most human societies and many individuals within them, sense an inner spiritual need to develop a faith that satisfies human questions about what is beyond us, and brings spiritual, physical, mental and social fulfilment. In the world’s multiple different cultures, this inner longing, or desire to make sense of mysteries that are beyond us, has led to the development of a huge variety of forms of religion and spiritual beliefs and practices.
Scripture implies that we are able to find ways of perceiving God, and that any true understanding about God is revealed by God, not by our reason, senses or even experiences. How individual Christians relate to God and find God will vary, since all human beings differ greatly. God communicates in the ways that best relate to us, often though our varying circumstances, personalities and ways of thinking. Theologians describe two essential forms of revelation: General Revelation and Special Revelation. General Revelation suggests that aspects of God can be perceived through nature, intuition and mental reasoning. Special Revelation claims that God self-revealed through scripture and particularly through Jesus Christ.
To be as true as possible in our concepts of God, it is important to try to worship God ‘in Spirit and in truth’. Contemplatives talk of God being found within ourselves and in prayer. Some believe that we find God in the words and practice of Christians worship and belief in traditions and doctrines. Karl Barth claimed that the Christian God can now only be found through our interaction with scripture and what we find of God in it. I understand his argument, but this idea seems very prescriptive, implying that our omnipotent God might be unable to choose to communicate with us in more direct or other ways. Surely an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient God could choose to communicate to human beings in any way God chooses.
In searching for God we need to be careful to look for truth, not be misled into superstition or wishful-thinking. It is very easy to find the sort of God that we want God to be, which will inevitably be more limited than the enormity and complexity of the concept of God derived from scripture. To be true in our Christian conception of God, we need to develop a holistic idea of God that takes into account the full breadth of all the biblical teaching and traditions.
Christians believe that Jesus of Nazareth was God’s most direct way of revealing the truth of faith and teaching how human life can relate to God. If we want to find the sort of God who Jesus revealed, it is important to consider all that Jesus said about God and live according to the life of the Kingdom that Jesus demonstrated. Throughout the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament it is made clear that to know God one needs to put faith into active practice in one’s daily life, as well as believing in God in one’s mind. Jesus exemplified God to us as well as teaching us about God. he also demonstrated how we can reflect God by our actions.
The Christian concept of God does not regard God as an abstract power but through anthropomorphic metaphors describes God as personal, loving, caring, creative, judgemental, righteous, forgiving and many other characteristics that have human parallels God must be very different and more perfect than any of these humanistic metaphors but they help us in our imagination to begin to comprehend the incomprehensible. However we should remember Thomas Merton’s qualification about any imagery used to conceive of God: “We should live as if we are seeing God face to face, but we should not conceive an image of God. On the contrary, it is a matter of adoring him as invisible and infinitely beyond our comprehension and realizing him in all.” [Thomas Merton Hidden Ground of Love p.63-64].
Although inevitably, enormous aspects of the invisible God must be recognised as incomprehensible and unprovable, my own experiences and my contact with the experiences of others, convince me that enough truth about God can be found to develop ways of relating to God in believers. It is not always as easy to find God as conventional evangelism claims, though God is equally findable to a child, an adult with learning differences, someone with a low or ordinary level of education, or to a learned Christian scholar. Neither faith nor our contact with God are dependent on our abilities: “Faith is assurance of things hoped for, conviction of things unseen” [Heb.11:1].
In a post-Enlightenment world, many people find that for intellectual integrity they cannot simply ‘believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and be assured of salvation’ as conventional evangelism once encouraged. Biblical research and analytical criticism have left many realising that for their personal intellectual integrity they cannot just simply accept and believe in the stories in scripture and trust the words of the Bible literally. Most of us need to confirm aspects of our faith through thinking-through personal difficulties in believing. Christians need to find ways of believing and understanding what are taught to be truths about faith that satisfy us intellectually, emotionally and spiritually and also be practical in our active daily life. This does not come easily, and is part of the long journey we take in developing as believers. Our personal apologetics and the ways by which we hope to convince others, need to recognise that there is no one way of believing, nor one sort if convincing evidence. Forms of assurance and convincing types of evidence or experience differ vastly among believers, since our individual minds work in so many different ways. For faith to be considered true it needs to be applicable to many different circumstances, cultures and experiences.
Therefore, since there is no ‘one way’ of finding God or knowing God, we need to be open to new evidences and experiences and try to be spiritually sensitive, while living as righteously as we are able. The search for God is not primarily an intellectual exercise; it is an inner search for keys that will keep our minds, imaginations and experiences open to whatever is true. Belief that the true God is probably infinite encourages us to try to open our minds to be willing to explore and expand our awareness, to encourage the fullest relationship with truth that can be possible.
The ways that people find God are admittedly inconsistent, though they partly depend on the sincerity of our search for truth. God is found by a child being taught to trust and pray; by an adult with learning-difficulties and the most learned scholar; by the artist, the musician, the gardener, the nuclear-physicist and the astrophysicist; the theologian and the philosopher. But we will all have different paths to understanding, different experiences, perhaps even different ways in which we trust God. As Arthur Holmes described, the Christian concept of God is so enormous that it embraces all that is true. Whatever our path to God or the ways that we tunnel into what is real, to find truths about God, we will only perceive a tiny fragment of the whole. If what we find is based on truth, it is sufficient to develop a meaningful, trusting relationship with God. Jesus Christ revealed, exemplified, taught and made possible that relationship. The Holy Spirit at work in our lives and minds enables and guides it.
CONTENTS:
- Introduction
- Ideas of the Unknowability of God in Scripture
- Philosophical Debate About the Unknowability of God – A Brief Introduction
- What ‘God’ Are We Seeking to Find?
- Some Positive Values in Recognising that God is Incomprehensible
- Scripture Passages on the Possibility of a Meaningful Fulfilling Relationship with the Invisible Incomprehensible God.
- Philosophical and Theological Ideas About the Comprehensibility of God
- Visionaries
- General and Special Revelation
- a/ General Revelation – God Revealed in the Cosmos and Natural Theology
- Some Details I Observe in the World and in Experience that Convince me that God is True
- b/ Special Revelation
- Some Things We Believe of God According to the Special Revelation of Scripture
- The Findability of God Through Jesus of Nazareth
- Finding God Through Trust Without Necessarily Feeling God’s Presence
- Does Humanity Have an Inner Sense of God?
- Can Traditional ‘Proofs’ for the Existence of God Help us Find God?
- The Findability of God within Ourselves
- The Findability of God through Fellow Christians and Fellow Human Beings
- The Findability of God through the Ways We Live
- The Findability of God in Worship, Thanksgiving and Praise
- The Findability of God through the Sacraments
- The Findability of God through Prayer
- The Idea of a Special Union with God in Christian Tradition
- Conclusions
INTRODUCTION
I apologise for using in the clumsy-sounding words ‘findability’ and ‘knowability’ in exploring human relationships with God in this study: Both are relatively ugly terms using unconventional English. Yet ‘knowability of God’ has been used as a technical term in theology when discussing levels of ability or lack of ability to comprehend the divine. To me, ‘findability’ is a more useful, meaningful term, since it includes both the ideas that we might be searching for God, and God’s self-revelation to help human beings in their search. ‘Findability’ is used by the theologian Helen Oppenheimer, in one of my favourite theological quotations about the role of the Church in the world, which will be examined later in this study: “We are not trying to pronounce about what God can or cannot be, but about how God can be found in our world… God’s people have the hopeful responsibility of being the presence, the findability of God upon earth…Our diversity should enable God to be found in all areas of life in the world…The word multi-faceted comes to mind… the church may be a prism breaking up the white light of God’s dazzling majesty.” [Helen Oppenheimer, Theology 93:1990 p133-141].
II can imagine some Christians asking quite understandably: “What possible difficulties can there be over whether God is ‘findable’: The Hebrew and New Testament scriptures are full of stories of people who encountered God and to whom God communicated. Jesus Christ himself claimed that he had made God known. The orthodox traditional Christian belief is that God was revealed in human form in Jesus of Nazareth. God wants a relationship with human beings, and has said ‘those who seek will find me’... So of course God is knowable!” However, if finding God was easy surely the world would be far more full of believers than it is. Christians would not fall away because they encounter doubt and sceptics about faith could be easily given proofs that would convince them.
How far God can be found or known by humankind has been a regular question for theologians and general believers, throughout Christian history. Beliefs in some divine power or powers beyond ourselves and an invisible, personal force or forces controlling the cosmos have been a common feature of most cultures. Peoples have possibly searched to understand appease and communicate with that power since the beginning of human culture. In some beliefs, the gods were so far beyond human beings that they were only able to be acknowledged and appeased, certainly not powers to try to know as friends. Many tribes believed that their specific god or gods were on their side and they developed more direct relationships with them. Certain texts in the Hebrew Scriptures explore how far humanity could know their invisible and un-representable God. So the knowability of YHWH was probably debated through Jewish history, as it has been in philosophy since classical times. Certainly the compilers of the Wisdom Books express such questions.
It is significant for Christians to consider how far believers are able to find and know God, since our faith is based around belief that we are able and indeed intended or called to develop relationships with God and to help others by our ministry and witness to find God themselves. Jesus of Nazareth taught that he “made God known”. He clarified and claimed to improve the interpretations and assumptions about God that Judaism had derived from the Hebrew Scriptures and traditions over previous centuries. In doing so, he revealed more expansive truths about God than had been unveiled before. He taught that he wanted his followers to “know God”, and claimed to be the Way by which we could do so. The Early Christian Church often called themselves “followers of the Way.” So, if many aspects of God are ‘incomprehensible’, as certain passages in both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament recognise, the Christian has to find whatever ways he or she is able to relate to the invisible and mysterious God through the insights, revelations and traditions that are open to us. Christians believe that we do so primarily through the revelation given by Jesus and that we communicate primarily by prayer and reading scripture.
It has been common but fallacious to interpret the evangelical phrase “believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved” as meaning that salvation comes easily, as a blessing and benefit directly from God in reward for believing or professing the right doctrines. This was a mistake particularly at the time of mediaeval crusades against heresies, then during the Reformation and Counter-Reformation, and continues today in certain divisions between Evangelical, Liberal and Traditionalist Christians. Many secessionist groups and certain traditionalists believe that only they are properly saved because only they subscribe to the correct doctrines and practices. I have met several who speak and act as though they believe this. At several times in Church History Christians with varied interpretation of doctrine and strict ideas of God have been tortured or killed in attempts to force them to confess the doctrines or adopt the lifestyles of the dominant Christian group of the time. This seems as hypocritical as American Christians who support the gun lobby, which kills thousands of children yearly, yet oppose abortion on the grounds that it kills the child, or African bishops who incite the murder of homosexuals and others of different lifestyles to the norm to which they subscribe. In none of these cases is their understanding of God’s precepts broad enough to be valid.
Authentic Christianity is far more than knowing, or thinking we know what scripture and doctrine teach about God and how Christians should behave. We are intended to develop a practising relationship with God and actively live fully, truthfully and righteously by the ways that we believe are revealed as God’s ways. Belief and practice are indivisible in true Christianity. One might even argue from Jesus’ practice, and teaching on religious laws that the way we act is more important than the refinement of details of our doctrines, while accepting the general statements of the traditional Creeds. If we are to live well as Christians it is important to be as assured as possible that we are building our life and faith on true foundations. Some interpretations of scripture, ways of relating to God and doctrinal understandings will inevitably differ, as people’s minds work differently. Not all believers share the same backgrounds or spiritual experiences, so we may well hold different expectations of faith and interpret God’s truth and God’s expectations of us according to those backgrounds. Scriptural teaching is not always as clear-cut and precise as some interpreters claim, or would like it to be. Therefore, some will inevitably understand some things differently from other believers.
‘Facts’ that Christians believe they know about God commonly derive from scripture, tradition, reasoning and experience. The Bible is ancient literature, and some consider its contents, and past traditions based on it to be outdated. Nevertheless, the Bible is the foundation of Christian faith, containing descriptions of the ways that God is conceived as having worked through millennia of human history. Its various genres of literature, from legendary stories, histories, poetry, prophetic literature to doctrinal letters etc. build up much imagery of the character, nature and activity of God. The New Testament particularly roots Christian understanding of God in the teaching, and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth. He claimed that he had come to fulfil and not to change the scriptures Rather he showed people how to reinterpret scripture in the light of his teaching on God. Building on this bedrock, theologians have created tomes of doctrines and traditional ways of conceiving of God, which have fed into the liturgies and literature of the Christian Church and built up what are known as Christian ‘traditions’.
Augmenting this philosophers and theologians have applied reason to try to further expand ideas about God over centuries, exploring evidence for God’s existence etc. Inevitably, because human beings vary so much in character, in the ways that our minds develop understanding and in our experiences and backgrounds, not all scholars interpret scripture, tradition and reason in the same ways or come to the same conclusions. This accounts for multiple variations in theological understanding around the churches of the world. Our different personalities will express our response to God in a variety of ways, which will inevitably develop into differences in Christian practices, forms of prayer and worship. We need to find the ways of understanding, relating to God and expressing that relationship in prayer, worship and communal Christian life that are true for the individual Christian in their particular culture and situation and at the same time contribute to the body of Christian believers.
Though scripture, tradition and reason tell us about what God is thought to be, and are foundations upon which Christians build faith and seek to develop relationships with God, the knowledge they give is not actually ‘knowing God’ as a practising relationship with God. The ‘findability of God’ needs to be experienced in a living and active interaction with God, both individually and corporately, since Christians are not meant to be self-contained. We have a calling to spread faith as well as contribute to building up other Christians and witnessing to others wo do not yet believe. For a healthy, stable, human personality, we need to interact with people in human relationships and to interact with God in the less tangible spiritual world. To find and know the invisible God involves an interior practice of prayer as well as corporate worship, intellectual exploration, and relating to what is said about God in scripture. And interpreted in true church teaching. Christianity calls us to live and act in the light of true teaching and to open ourselves to a spiritual relationship with an invisible being.
Even deeper than assenting to the Church’s creeds, is the search to find what is true and live by it. I will expand on this later, but when one studies both the past and present Church, one realises that there has probably been as much deception, dissembling and hypocrisy throughout Church history as there has been in the history of human politics. Christians may make their statements of faith as inclusive and traditionally ‘sound’ as possible, but if we are not living by the ways that Christ taught, he would say that we are “hypocrites” [Matt.23:13ff], even “whitewashed tombs” [Matt.23:27]. St. Paul might label us “a clanging gong or a tinkling symbol” [1Cor.13:1]. The Epistle of James reminds us that “Faith without works is dead” [Jas.2:14-18].
Religious thinkers vary in their interpretation of how we might relate to God. Some claim that God must be knowable to a satisfying degree, since scripture and our psychological make-up suggest that human beings are intended to nourish the spiritual elements of our nature and satisfy our inner longings by relating to a spiritual dimension beyond ourselves. Others claim that God is as unknowable as God is invisible and inscrutable, since God is in a completely different dimension from our own, so we can only contemplate that dimension silently and as a mystery, rather than expecting that we might be communicated with or mightcomprehend. Other believers claim that God reaches beyond the spiritual dimension to communicate with us by special revelation, and did so particularly through Jesus Christ and the canonical scriptures. Some believers claim that in this world human beings alone are able to conceive of and perceive God because only we share aspects of the divine image, and that no other creatures have a sense of God. This is not the idea expressed in several Psalms, which contain the wider view that all things in the created cosmos, even inanimate objects, have awareness of their creator and in their own way praise God. But this may of course be poetic picture-imagery rather than literal, since we consider much material in creation to be insensate. Whatever truths may be in any of these propositions, certainly part of the Christian faith and discipleship encourages believers to find ways of relating to God and to follow life-practices and understandings of God that conform to what is are revealed through scripture.
Theologians often emphasise that anything authentic that we may know of God comes from God’s self-revelation, rather than anything that human beings can perceive or discover. But we have been given minds, so reason and revelation often work together and should complement one another. God is spirit, therefore very different from the essence of human beings, and God as ‘spirit’ inhabits such a different dimension that many claim that God is beyond the potential of any form of human perception or communication. Some suggest that no-one should expect to know or relate to God in any comprehensively meaningful way. Others claim that although God can never be known comprehensively, God has chosen to self-reveal in various ways and forms to deliberately help us develop a relationship. I personally believe that we are given sufficient knowledge to understand God’s care for us, to know how to live righteously, to accept God’s gift of salvation and to personally relate to God. Such revelation, is described as being given by God’s Spirit to the writers, prophets and compilers of scripture and is revealed to us through reading and contemplating the stories, lives and events in Bible history, (and presumably events and spiritual experiences since). Especially, we believe, God sent Jesus of Nazareth and the Holy Spirit after him to continue to teach, guide and inspire human minds and lives.
These forms of revelation are intended to enable us, as God’s creation, to comprehend sufficient spiritual truths and facets of the divine to relate to God personally, in meaningful ways that fulfil the spiritual needs of human beings. Scripture contains promises that such self-revelation will increase in the eternal dimension after death. “Now we see as in a mirror dimly, but then we shall see face to face” [1Cor.13:12]. This promise may again be picture language: we cannot be certain that is it is promising that we will actually “see” God or Christ visibly in the dimension where they are. Yet it promises that in some way believers will share that dimension with them. There are plenty of descriptions of the qualities of the Kingdom of God in scripture but we have little idea of what that spiritual life might be like in the dimension we call ‘heaven’. Spiritual promises are nevertheless tantalising: “Beloved, we are God’s children now, and what we shall be has not yet been revealed. What we do know is this: when he is revealed we will be like him, for we will see him as he is.” [1Jn.3:2].
The idea of the presence of God being visible in future is probably more about spiritual than physical ‘perception’. Of the redeemed in the New Jerusalem the Book of Revelation promises: “the throne of God and the Lamb will be in it and his servants will worship him, and they shall see his face” [Rev. 22:3-4]. Once again, as with the apocalyptic imagery which precedes these verses, such as ‘the River of the Water of Life’ and ‘the Tree of Life’... ‘with fruit in every season’... and ‘leaves for the healing of the nations’, we are reading metaphorical imagery, so we cannot be certain about what is meant by ‘seeing God face to face’. Similar phraseology is repeated elsewhere in scripture. In several passages it is suggested that God ‘spoke’ to certain people “face to face”. Again this does not necessarily imply that they saw or heard physical manifestation, but that they received some form of communication or insight [Gen.32:30; Ex.10:28; Num.12:8; 14:4; Deut.5:4]. Several times when God is described as warning “I will hide my face from them” the implied meaning is that people will be placed outside divine care and protection [Lev.17:10; 20:3-6; Deut.31:17-20]. So ‘seeing face to face’, could be imagery for being close to God’s protection and sensing that we are in God’s presence and under God’s care. Moses is claimed to have met God in more direct physical manifestations and communicated with God as with a friend [Ex.3:6; 33:11; Deut.34:10]. However this is not explained sufficiently to understand thoroughly what Moses experienced, nor are the ways in which prophets received insights from God,
The claims that Jesus made about his knowledge of God imply a very different, more direct and deeper level of communication. He is recorded as speaking as though he had seen his Father and experienced the spiritual world tangibly, both before his incarnation and in his relationship with God in prayer during his time on earth. He claimed: “No one has seen the Father, except the one who is from God; he has seen the Father” [Jn.6:46]. “... the Father knows me and I know the Father” [Jn.10:15]. He told both his disciples and detractors that he only spoke and did what he had heard from his Father and had been commissioned to communicate and do [Jn.5:17, 19-23, 25-31, 36-37; 10:18; 12:49-50; 14:31]. In the context of his claim: “I saw Satan fall from heaven like a flash of lightening” [Lk.10:18], it is not clear whether Jesus was speaking of what has become called ‘the Fall of the Rebel Angels’, or using picture imagery to describe to the seventy disciples who had returned from mission, that their ministry had been successful in thwarting the progress and influence of evil and bringing light to the people to whom they had been ministering. The model of Jesus’ relationship with God differs from ours, yet it sets us examples of ways of prayer and openness to God, since he taught Christians to relate to God more intimately than in previous generations. He encouraged us to understand and relate to God, among other aspects, as ‘Father’, to himself as ‘friend’, and to the Holy Spirit as ‘guide’ and ‘paraclete’ [‘advocate’ working alongside to help us].
Much of the discussion in this study has philosophical elements within it. But the question of the knowability or findability of God is far more important than notional theorising over ideas. It is important for Christians to develop a reasoned apologetic for our faith, which can help us witness more effectively by explaining our understandings of some of the mysteries of faith as clearly as possible. Even more importantly, the primary value of exploring how far God is ‘findable’ is to help believers find the true ways that best help us to understand true aspects of the nature of God and give us the confidence in our faith that can help us relate to God authentically ‘in spirit and in truth’ [Jn.4:23-24].
In much Christian communication we talk rather loosely about ‘having a relationship with God”, “being brought into a relationship with God”, and “loving God”. To help others develop real faith and to be authentic on our own relationships with God and worship, it is useful to consider what such a relationship means and the qualities of such a relationship. Some imagine their connection to God in rather sentimental ways. Several Evangelical songs and choruses about loving God and God’s creation are sung using the words ‘love’ and “the beauty of God” very romantically. Some Victorian hymns and poems also express faith over-sentimentally. How we love the invisible God authentically is an important element of discipleship. When Jesus taught about loving him and loving the Father, his emphasis was not so much about sentiment but far more on the practice of doing God’s will, obeying the ways taught and recorded in scripture and obediently following the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Loving God is therefore more about obedient discipleship than having sentimental feelings towards God. That is not to say that Christians who sing of their love of God and the beauty of God are not feeling sincere emotions. It is easy, particularly in large-scale, corporate praise and worship or in personal responses to emotional music or poetic words to stir inner feelings in ways that are not necessarily spiritually true. But many Christians are sincere in their loving response to the perfection of God. Our gratitude for what God has done for us is enough to stir sensations of love. At many times in my spiritual life I have felt caught up in thankfulness and praise, or been deeply moved in my inner response to God. But, as in mature human relationships, love is much more than surface emotion or even inner feelings emotions. Human relationships may grow to a stage when sentimental or passionate feelings are not necessarily part of our response to the one we love. Mature love expresses itself in deep, selfless, practical commitment, and recognition of the breadth of qualities in the one to whom we are committed. That is the sort of outgoing agapé love expressed in 1Cor.13: love that is ‘patient, kind, not envious...not insisting on its own way... rejoicing in the truth; bearing, believing, hoping and enduring all things.”...etc. Love for God can be similarly practical, certainly not selfishly saying that we love of worshipping with the expectation or pretext that we will be blessed as a result.
Some Psalms talk about “the beauty of God” [Ps.27:4; 50:2] and occasionally Christian songs have taken up this metaphor in a rather sentimental way. The ‘beauty of God’ is not of course a physical beauty that we see with our eyes or inner eye. We may occasionally perceive aspects of beauty in the ways that we believe God’s qualities are reflected within the cosmos and how we sense meaning in beautiful details of the created world. But when scripture talks of God’s beauty it is often principally referring to God’s perfection, having insight into an attractiveness in the truths that have been revealed about God or the perfect ways in which God is conceived as working. In Ezek.33:32 God’s voice communicating to the people is described as ‘beautiful’, which may be interpreted as ‘meaningful’, ‘full of good promises’, ‘truthful’ but Ezekiel claims that God’s people refused to respond to the beauty of God’s love-song to them or follow and obey God’s message.
When we consider ‘love of God’ as active, obedient discipleship and ‘the beauty of God’ as recognising valuable truths about God, the relationship which Christians develop with God can become stronger, authentic and more practical in the ways in which we live out our faith. There will inevitably be emotion in some of our responses to God, because we are emotional beings. The emotion in people’s relationships will of course vary, because many of us feel and express emotions differently. But feeling love towards God and responding to the beauty in God’s truths can be far deeper and more intensely recognised than the shallow emotions or surface sentimentality found in some simplistic Christian songs and poetry.
Jesus prayed that his followers might “know God” and they knew himself [Jn.17:3]. Thomas Aquinas claimed that to ‘know God’ is the main goal of human life. The first answer of the Protestant Westminster Shorter Catechism states (with apologies of the non-inclusive language): “Man’s chief aim (or ‘end’) is to glorify God and enjoy him for ever”. ‘Enjoying God’ implies a certain degree of ‘knowing God’, (though it could be argued that we could glorify God without necessarily knowing God, by living the lives that we have been given - righteously and abundantly fulfilling the gifts and abilities that we have). If it was impossible to know God to any useful degree, surely much of our confidence in the Christian faith would be futile. All Christian ministry is to a significant degree focused on trying to enable people to find a relationship with God that gives them a positive sense of spiritual satisfaction, inner peace and the security of knowing that they are valued, loved and forgiven. We may not be able to know God comprehensively or comprehensibly, but surely we are intended to know enough of what has been revealed about God to find and enjoy the salvation that Jesus claimed to have achieved for us, and to respond to God with appreciation and worship.
Theologians like Karl Barth have written many thousands of words theorising over the philosophical idea of whether we know God, as did Thomas Aquinas centuries before. But our primary need is not to form rational arguments or well-reasoned rhetorical discussions, useful as they may be for justifying the grounds for our faith. We aim to help as many people as possible to find and practise life-enhancing ways of living in God’s presence and understanding God sufficiently to develop a spiritually satisfying, true relationship within the otherwise incomprehensible mystery.
WHAT ‘GOD’ ARE WE SEEKING TO FIND?
If we are seeking to find God or something to believe in, I think we should ask ourselves what might be seeking and why. Are we wanting sincerely to know the truth about what might be behind all things? Are we wanting something to believe in that we can hold onto to fulfil our personal needs or something more comprehensive? Are we just considering an intellectual or philosophical exercise? Do we truly want to find and follow the truth? or are we content just to find out about a religious tradition and perhaps become involved in that traditional culture? Is the tradition of religion that we follow something to which we are willing to give our whole lives because we find it to be true, and will be willing to promote to others as a mission to spread truth? Do we want to be involved in a faith community more for social or cultural involvement? Do we pursue faith to develop inner spiritual feelings, while not necessarily being fully committed to the less comfortable demands of faith? Do we want to remain in control of our own lives or are we willing to submit our lives to the will and purposes of God?
I am writing from a Christian perspective, and the majority of my readers will probably be reading with a similar perspective. But we need to remember that there are multiple ideas of ‘God’ and ‘gods’ in the world. Where does the power we might call the Christian God fit in with the powers within all objects in the thousands of various animist religions and superstitions in the world? Are we looking for a God who is the unifying truth behind the multiple gods or emanations of one spirit in Hinduism and Buddhism? Can the Christian concept of God be in any ways compatible with the perspective on God reflected in the 99 names of Allah in Islam? Do any of these other concepts of God give a broader idea of our Creator than some Christians hold when they just think of God sentimentally as loving, all-powerful friend? Are we seeking to understand God in ways that might be sufficiently logical and acceptable to a physical scientist or philosopher who might need to find a belief that is compatible with their experience of the workings of the cosmos and satisfy the thinking mind?
In this study I do not intend to try to explore what other faiths claim about the findability or comprehensibility of God. I know a little about other religions but have only working knowledge, and no expertise in comparative religion, science or philosophy. I don’t like my Christian faith to be labelled in the way that some Christians prefer to be labelled ‘High-Church’, ‘Evangelical’, ‘Pentecostal’, ‘Roman Catholic’, ‘Protestant’, ‘Anglican’, ‘Quaker’, Orthodox’ etc. I belong to a Church and am ordained as a minster, yet if I am asked to more clearly label myself, I normally just call myself ‘a thinking Christian’. We live in a world where people look at religion and ‘God’ from multiple and often very different perspectives, so the God who Christians seek to teach and evangelise about needs to be convincing to minds that have wider fields of vision and different backgrounds form our own. If, as I believe, the Christian belief in God is true and of universal relevance, we need to have an apologetic that appeals to and is convincing to all who seek truth. As Helen Oppenheimer wrote: “Our diversity should enable God to be found in all areas of life in the world…The word multi-faceted comes to mind… the church may be a prism breaking up the white light of God’s dazzling majesty.” [Theology 93:1990 p133-141].
The many different approaches to understanding and multiple faiths in the world challenge the ways that many Christians think of their faith as exclusively and universally true. However the diversity of faiths and intellectual challenges should not pose threats to the mature Christian mind. It can be useful and strengthening to face questions and consider how other perspectives help us to work out where we believe faith to be true. Christians are not omniscient, so we will never be able to answer all the challenges. We also need to remember that no faith is explicable in totally intellectually convincing ways, since we lack empirical proofs. As Hebrews 11:1 reminds us: “Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things unseen.” Yet not all things in life that are true can be proved. We can never be certain that our understanding of events that have passed is true; we cannot prove that someone loves us. Yet in both cases we trust in their truth and believe that we have certain evidences that affirm our belief.
In his book “All Truth is God’s Truth” the Evangelical philosopher Arthur Holmes employed a useful metaphor of a huge planet to discuss the idea of the truth about God. He described the different religions, philosophies and ways of life in the world, and human minds exploring God and faith, as mines tunnelling into the planet. In their different ways they are delving for truth and uncover ores, precious stones, base metals etc. that may be aspects of the truth of what the whole planet (God) is. Some may find more useful veins than others, which help to positively deepen, strengthen, nourish and nurture human life. (He believes Christianity to be about the fullest of such revelations.) Some tunnels and mines may cross one another and find similar seams and strata. By combining all the most truthful aspects of their discoveries they may be able to expand human knowledge and dispel mistaken ideas, assumptions and theories that have developed in individual sects or through-processes. But they are all still only mining parts of the reality of the planet. The more they mine, the more they may discover, which is why we continue to study and explore faith. If anyone has found anything that it is true, we might be able to add it to our thinking or practice, and gain further enlightenment, even though their way to find, comprehend and respond to aspects of God may not be ours.
It is almost impossible to develop a satisfactory definition or description of God. We are seeking to explain and find an enormous (‘omnipresent’, ‘omniscient’, ‘omnipotent’, ‘immortal’ eternal God of all truth, who is within whatever is true in the world, yet also amazingly, according to the Christian scriptures, cares about all that God has created and wants a covenant relationship with us. The God in whom I have come to believe is involved in whatever is within and behind nature, creation, the whole cosmos, and whatever is true. When I pray I imagine myself sitting in the presence of God as the ‘ultimate Truth’. God is within whatever is true about the forces that formed and sustain the cosmos and whatever encourages true, abundant life. God is in whatever is true in the religions and philosophies of the world... God is in whatever the truth of who Jesus of Nazareth and the Holy Spirit are... God understands the truth of whatever human beings are meant to be and how we are meant to live... We may not ‘find’ God sufficiently to understand God in any comprehensive way, but I believe that whatever is true about God’s Spirit can help people reach towards truth. I believe that it is possible for us to develop our relationship with God when we faithfully open ourselves to truth. If the Church or any religion invents or falsifies experiences or teachings in order to promote itself, it goes against the true God and does not represent true faith.
Amid all the complexity and often apparent diversity in the world, how do we focus on finding truth? Christians are encouraged to judge what is true by whether our conclusions, ways of thinking and living, correspond to the revelations about God given by Jesus of Nazareth. I believe that the ways of living that Jesus taught represent the best, most productive, equitable and enlightening sort of life available to human beings, to abundantly sustain individuals, society and the world environment. His phrase “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life” [Jn.14:6] helps to point us towards the truth of what life is about. Christians believe that Jesus of Nazareth authentically represented God and God’s truth to the world. In mission, if Christians want to bring more abundant life to the world we need to both follow authentically and truthfully represent what we know of God and have learned through Jesus.
We also have a responsibility to keep exploring and living by the truth, in belief that working towards the truth draws us closer to God, and in the hope that we can influence others to also find God’s truth. If we become self-satisfied, which is the impression given by some who feel sure of their faith, we will remain immature in our faith, even if we know a lot about faith and doctrine, because seeking and working towards truth is a constant quest, since God is so enormous a power to relate to, and so far beyond our understanding.
IDEAS OF THE UNKNOWABILITY OF GOD IN SCRIPTURE
In case anyone reading this is concerned that to think of God as ‘unknowable’ is unchristian or antichristian, we need to remember that a significant number of passages in scripture emphasise that human beings can never fully know or understand God. Below is a small selection:
- “… his greatness is unsearchable." [Ps.145:3]. “... his understanding is beyond measure” [Ps. 147:5].
- Zophar asked Job: “Can you find out the deep things of God? Can you find out the limit of the Almighty? It is higher than heaven – what can you do? Deeper than Sheol – what can you know? Its measure is longer than the earth and broader than the sea.” [Job 11:7-9].
- This incomprehensibility of God is declared again in Job 26:14: “How small a whisper do we hear of him, and the thunder of his power who can understand?” and Job 37:5: “He does great things that we cannot comprehend.”
- Isaiah asked: “To whom then will you liken God, or what likeness will you compare with Him?” [Isa. 40:18].
- Isa.55:9 suggests that we cannot comprehend anything about God sufficiently: "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts." [Isaiah 55:8-9].
- “Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is so high, I cannot attain it"... “How weighty are your thoughts O God; how vast is the sum of them! I try to count them – they are more than the sand...” [Ps. 139:6 and vs.17-18].
- “We cannot comprehend God from beginning to end.” [Eccles. 3:11]
- “… no one comprehends the things of God except the Spirit of God.” [1 Cor.2:10-12].
- “… How unsearchable are God’s judgments and how inscrutable his ways!” [Romans 11:33].
- Even Jesus of Nazareth, who claimed to both know God and make God known [Jn.15:15; 17:6, 25], and who orthodox Christianity believes to be God’s way of self-revelation to the world, spoke of “your Father who is unseen” [Matt.6:18; Jn.6:48]. Yet he claimed that, though God is incomprehensible he could choose to reveal God to those who follow him: “No-one knows the Son except the Father and no-one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.” [Matt. 11:27]. Jesus also prayed for those who believed in and followed him, that they might ‘know the Father’ [Jn.17:25-26]. He promised that sending the Spirit would help to continue to ‘make the Father known’ [Jn.14:17, 21; 16:13-15]. Even in these passages and in the passages of the New Testament Epistles which mention aiming to know the mind of God on certain matters [Rom11:34; 1Cor.2:16; Phil2:5], and claim that the mysteries of God have been revealed in Christ [Rom16:25], there is no claim that our knowledge of God is thorough. Things are mentioned as being ‘revealed’ to us [Jn16:13, 15; 1Cor.2:10; Gal1:12], but it is not implied that we now have access to all about God or all truth.
We nevertheless are assured that we have sufficient information to trust God, to be assured of God’s care for us, to be at peace with the promise of salvation, and to be confident that we are able to relate to God through the work of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.
PHILOSOPHICAL DEBATE ABOUT THE UNKNOWABILLITY OF GOD
A Brief selective introduction
The possibility of knowing God has been denied philosophically on various grounds, particularly due to the limits of human cognition. Since the Enlightenment there has been much emphasis on needing to be able to prove something empirically before it should be believed. It has been claimed that our human minds usually only know something to be certain if they physically experience it. Yet many philosophers, even philosophers of science, claim that everything is uncertain and that our present knowledge is at best only temporary. Invisible, intangible and perhaps infinite spiritual things are inevitably beyond being able to be proved empirically by the limited means available to us. The existence of God should not be denied absolutely since, as in science, we assume that much exists, which we do not know and cannot perceive. ‘Atheism’ does not seem to me to be a logical position. A more reasoned-through conclusion based on the limited cognition, knowledge and experience of the human mind should surely be ‘agnosticism’, since reasoning and scientifically-minded minds will never prove the existence of God. Nor should we refuse to believe that incidents which have been ascribed to God could be the result of divine activity. We should not rely on arguments based primarily on silence or lack of evidence. I believe therefore that to claim to be totally atheist is irrational.
Christians, who believe in God and other aspects of Christian doctrine, base their beliefs less on evidence or physical phenomena than on trust in the teaching of scripture, traditions of belief, and through intuitively sensing that there is truth in Christian belief. Certainly the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth offer great potential for fulfilling ways of life. The experiences of Christians worldwide over two millennia suggest that there are sustainable and defensible truths within Christianity, and that we are not totally without evidence for the truth of faith. Many Christians will have had experiences which, though subjective, help to convince them that there is truth behind and within their faith.
Most debate among philosophers and theologians over many centuries has been based on reasoning and abstract theorising rather than from evidence. Despite many attempts it has proved impossible to produce incontrovertible physical proofs of the reality of God. By applying reason to trying to understand the invisible spiritual world many come to the conclusion that God and the spiritual dimension are beyond total human comprehension. But equally many believe that they have reasoned through their faith and understand aspects of God through their spiritual experiences, scripture, Christian tradition, including doctrine and intuition.
The writings ascribed to Dionysus the Areopagite [probably late 5th] conceive of God as a form of “super-existence”. Dionysius’ wrote of God: “God is not intelligible; but above all intellect” [Divine Names iv]... "There is no sense, nor image, nor opinion, nor reason, nor knowledge of Him." [Divine Names i]... “God is known in all things and apart from all things... Therefore everything may be ascribed to him at one and the same time, and yet he is none of these things” [Mystical Theology]. He recognised that people think of God in terms of assumed parallels or similarities to human attributes and aspects of nature, but claimed that none of these could be sufficient: "by the similitudes of the inferior order of things, the superior can in no way be known"... “by the likeness of a body the essence of an incorporeal thing cannot be known. Much less therefore can the essence of God be seen by any created likeness whatever.” [Divine Names i]. Although Dionysius’ writings were greatly influenced by Greek Platonic thinking more than orthodox Christian doctrine, his ideas greatly influenced the development of spiritual thinking of many Christian mystics from Bernard of Clairvaux, the Victorines, and the writer of the C14th Cloud of Unknowing to Thomas Merton.
Early Church teachers described the invisible God variously as ‘unbegotten’, ‘nameless’, ‘eternal’, ‘incomprehensible’, ‘unchangeable’. In some ways this is similar to and borrowed from classical Greek philosophical ideas that the Divine Being must be ‘absolute’ and ‘attributeless’. As the Church developed its theorising about God, these its theologians concluded that God is ‘immortal’, ’omnipresent’, ‘omniscient’ and ‘omnipotent’, but this inevitably led to the belief that God is beyond comprehension and unable to be or apprehended by our limited human senses.
Nevertheless, the Early Church Fathers recognised that it must be possible for believers to relate to and worship God, since God created us for such a relationship and calls for it regularly in both Testaments. John Chrysostom wrote that we can worship God without comprehending God: “No man has seen God at any time... not prophets only, but neither angels nor archangels have seen God. For how can a creature see what is increatable?" [Hom. Xiv]. Commentating on Jn.1:18 he wrote: “Let us evoke him as the inexpressible God, incomprehensible and unknowable. Let us affirm that he surpasses all power of human speech, that he eludes the grasp of every mortal intelligence, that the angels cannot penetrate him, that the cherubim cannot fully understand him. For he is invisible to the principalities and powers, the virtues and all creatures. Only the Son and the Holy Spirit know him.” [John Chrysostom 347-407].
The philosopher David Hume [1711-1776] (who has sometimes been called the ‘father of modern agnosticism’) did not deny the existence of God, but asserted that we can have no knowledge of God’s true attributes. He recognised that all ideas about God, and qualities which scripture ascribes to God, are unprovable and are limited in their scope because they inevitably rely on assumed parallels and anthropomorphic analogies between invisible and our physical world. Spiritual, eternal qualities should not be assumed to be the same as human characteristics and experiences or tangible natural phenomena. None of these parallels can be exact, since they refer to a very different being inhabiting a very different dimension.
David Hume and Emmanuel Kant [1693-1737] believed that all knowledge can only be rooted in experience and reason; in fact Kant believed that we can never entirely know anything in itself. Since the human mind is limited, theoretically we cannot know God. Yet we should not claim that because we do not know something in its entirety it does not exist. The philosopher Rudolf Hermann Lotze [1817-1881] recognised that behind all things, including physical and mental experiences, there may be underlying aspects or truths which we cannot see; so he accepted that the invisible spiritual world is possible. Sir William Hamilton [1788-1856] and Henry Longueville Mansel [1820-1871], though agnostic, recognised that ideas of the Divine, the Absolute and Infinite are so beyond our dimension that they cannot be known, but since they cannot be disproved they should not be denied.
The growth of human knowledge in all fields, throughout history, has been based on finding things that we did not know previously. Faith is involved with conceiving of things that are in many ways beyond our knowledge. We cannot define God, since it is impossible to satisfactorily conceive what a transcendent, perhaps infinite being and power could be like, but it is still possible to believe in God’s existence. “Faith is the assurance of things hoped for the conviction of things as yet unseen” [Heb.11:1].
The theologian Karl Barth [1886-1968] theorised extensively on ideas of how people of faith might know God. He wrote: “(the Book of) Romans is a revelation of the unknown God; God comes to man, not man to God. Even after the revelation man cannot know God, for He is always the unknown God. In manifesting Himself to us He is farther away than ever before”. [Rbr. p. 53 quoted in Zerbe The Karl Barth Theology, p. 82.] Barth stresses that God is the hidden God, who he believed cannot be known for certain from nature, history, or experience, but only by God’s self-revelation in Christ. He claimed that we meet God in Christ when we respond with faith. But even as revealed in Christ, Barth stressed, God is still revealed as a hidden God, because we recognise how far distant God is from human beings. We see God’s qualities taught by and revealed in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, but we do not see God directly. Christ’s teaching and actions open up for us a great amount of useful perspectives onto aspects of God, how God is revealed in divine activity and some ways in which God enters into relationship with those who follow God truly. God is therefore, according to Barth, not ‘unfindable’ but ‘incomprehensible’. He claimed that God acts completely freely, being true to all aspects of God’s nature and character: “On this freedom rests the inconceivability of God, the inadequacy of all knowledge of the revealed God. Even the three-in-oneness of God is revealed to us only in God’s operations. Therefore the three-in-oneness of God is also inconceivable to us. Hence, too, the inadequacy of all our knowledge of the three-in-oneness. The conceivability, with which it has appeared to us, primarily in Scripture, secondarily in the Church doctrine of the Trinity, is a creaturely conceivability. To the conceivability in which God exists for Himself it is not only relative: it is absolutely separate from it. Only upon the free grace of revelation does it depend that the former conceivability, in its absolute separation from its object, is yet not without truth. In this sense the three-in-oneness of God, as we know it from the operation of God, is truth.” [K. Barth The Doctrine of the Word of God p. 426].
SOME POSITIVE VALUES IN RECOGNISING THAT GOD IS INCOMPREHENSIBLE
We can see from this how contorted or complex the theoretical exploration of how human beings might find God can become. By what people of faith believe to be God’s revelation we learn to trust in certain things about God and the way God acts but acquire no real or extensive knowledge of God’s inner being. This is really important as a counter to enthusiastic people who claim to ‘know the mind of God’ or who claim that God’s Spirit has revealed things to them. I have often heard believers saying: ‘God wants you to do this’, ‘God is moving us this way....’ or ‘God is saying to us this...’. We should always test such statements discerningly, since such claims are often based on hunches and biased ideas rather than true revelation or reason. Spiritual guidance is notoriously difficult to confirm and churches and individuals have often followed dead-end paths, been led into unfruitful ways, or made severe mistakes through believing that they know God’s mind far more comprehensively than they actually do.
Some Christians are understandably uncomfortable with the idea that God can be ‘unknowable’, particularly as scripture describes so many people having life-giving relationships with God. But actually the ‘unknowability’ of God is not necessarily an impediment to developing a meaningful and valuable faith. Knowing that God is so far beyond our apprehension can broaden, expand and enliven our faith. If God was comprehensible there would be very little difference between God and human beings; we could predict God’s ideas and actions as some misguided Christians do. But to remember that God is higher than all our thoughts and understandings can evoke awe at God’s greatness, rather as Job experienced awe after God’s revelations in the three penultimate chapters of the story [Job chs.38-41]. Job’s faith was elevated by recognition of so many aspects of God’s incomprehensible greatness: “I know you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours is to be thwarted.... I uttered what I did not understand, things too wonderful for me which I did not know!...” [Job.42:2-3]
The idea of the ‘incomprehensibility’ of God (sometimes called the ‘darkness of God’, ‘negative’ or ‘apophatic’ spirituality’ by theologians and mystics), is at the heart of much valuable spirituality. It is a feature of the Late C5th treatise ‘Mystic Theology’ by Dionysius the Areopagite, the C14th Cloud of Unknowing, and much Dominican teaching on spirituality. Despite its name, it is not negative spirituality: The belief is that the soul can develop a unity with God through passively recognising that God is entirely unknowable and transcends all possible knowledge. Dionysus claimed that in recognising the presence of God we are reduced to ‘complete speechlessness.’ But in that we recognise that we are loved and cared for by this incomprehensible power and a way of mind that is far above ours.
The idea of the unknowability of God does not mean that we cannot relate to God. Dionysus believed that despite God being incomprehensible we can become incorporated into God’s mystery through what became known as the “unitive way”: a progressive process though 1/ ‘purification’ from sin and ignorance, 2/ ‘illumination’ through restoration of a relationship of grace with God, towards 3/ ‘union’ - a restoration of a sort of paradise-like relationship with God. While God remains invisible to us, scripture assures us that God seeks to relate to us. This idea of a ‘unitive way’ had its roots in ancient Greek thinking, influenced by some mystery religions. But it became Christianised through regarding contemplation of scripture, the sacraments and meditation on what has been revealed about God, as ways by which we are opened to God’s presence and divine intentions for us.
It may be advantageous that we do not know sufficiently what God is like or know God’s mind on so many matters. As a result of recognising deficiencies in our understanding, we are likely to approach a concept of God more expansively and creatively, accepting that God is far greater than can possibly be conceived. This may make us more thorough in thinking-through how we might imagine, conceive, comprehend and seek to resolve issues that we could never fully resolve from our limited perspectives. This should expand our human understanding and our appreciation of what God could be like. We recognise that the amount that has been revealed to us about God, particularly through Jesus Christ, may be wonderful and expansive, but it can only be a tiny fraction of all that the reality of God is. Probably what we know is just a shadow of something incomprehensibly greater. Some Dominican and mystical teaching on concepts like ‘the darkness of God’ claims that God is in far more that we do not understand than in what we see or think we comprehend.
To focus on and worship what we know of God can be inspiring and elevating, but it is even more inspirational to worship a transcendent God who is far greater than and far beyond our highest conception. It expands our sense of awe and our possible expectations of God to believe that God is ‘eternal’, ‘infinite’, ‘immortal’, ’omnipresent’, ‘omniscient’ and ‘omnipotent’ etc., since these qualities are completely beyond our apprehension. Although scripture assures us of certain aspects of God like love, power, wisdom, justice, righteousness, etc. we can never know even these qualities completely or exhaustively. Yet these limitations can be positive advantages, since we realise that there is always something more to learn. As the compiler of Ecclesiastes wrote: “I have seen all the activity that God has given to human beings. He has made everything meaningful in its time, and has set the search for eternity in the human heart, yet we cannot fathom God from beginning to end.” [Eccles.3:10-11]. It is impossible for humans to know sufficient of God or any other matter in the cosmos and there is always more to search for or long for. This further encourages the human mind to seek more extensively and expand human knowledge and experience. Ps. 139:17 reminds us that we have been formed in relationship with God and that this can be experienced now and can develop throughout our life. The imagery of the Book of Revelation and Jesus’ promises about heaven suggest that we will have eternity to continue to develop our relationship with and understanding of God and appreciate and enjoy God’s presence.
To worship only what we know may actually be rather heretical or idolatrous, because we are worshipping a limited image of God. After all the experiences and arguments of life in the first 37 chapters of the book, Job was enlightened by the expansive recognition that he had previously been relying on far too limited ideas and concepts of God and God’s involvement in his world. Thomas Merton warned us not to create false imagery but hold in our minds an holistic idea of God, which enabled us to be open to recognising God in any situation: “We should live as if we are seeing God face to face, but we should not conceive an image of God. On the contrary, it is a matter of adoring him as invisible and infinitely beyond our comprehension and realizing him in all.” [Thomas Merton Hidden Ground of Love p.63-64].
This expansive idea of God was also recognised by Helen Oppenheimer, who reminded us that it is impossible to define God, but believed that comprehending God is not the primary aim for believers or the Church. Rather we are intended to be relating to God in the whole diversity of our lives, and moving within the world to helping others realise the presence and enormity of the potential of God in their diverse lives: “We are not trying to pronounce about what God can or cannot be, but about how God can be found in our world… God’s people have the hopeful responsibility of being the presence, the findability of God upon earth…Our diversity should enable God to be found in all areas of life in the world…The word multi-faceted comes to mind… the church may be a prism breaking up the white light of God’s dazzling majesty.”[Helen Oppenheimer, Theology 93:1990 p133-141]
SCRIPTURE PASSAGES ON THE POSSIBILITY OF A MEANINGFUL & FULFILLING RELATIONSHIP WITH THE INVISIBLE, INCOMPREHENSIBLE GOD
While we recognise that a comprehensive understanding of God is impossible for the limited minds of human beings, we are assured many times throughout scripture that God desires a relationship with human beings as particularly-loved treasures of creation. This implies that we should be able to perceive aspects of God in several ways. Although we cannot know God exhaustively, Christians believe we can know things about God that have been revealed as truths. Several scriptural passages reinforce the idea that God will self-reveal to those who seek sincerely; most particularly:
- “Seek and you shall find, knock and the door will be opened to you” [Matt.7:7]
- “Behold I am standing at the door and knocking. If any hear my voice and open the door I will come in and eat with you and you with me/” [Rev3:20]
Christians believe that Jesus Christ was sent so that we may come to know the Father. He claimed: “This is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent” [Jn.17:3].
Ultimately ‘knowing God’ is not based on comprehensive theological knowledge, rich spiritual experiences or a reputation for wisdom and spirituality; it is our living daily relationship with the invisible but ever-present source of our “Way, Truth and Life”: "Thus says the LORD: 'Let not the wise man boast in his wisdom, let not the mighty man boast in his might, let not the rich man boast in his riches, but let him who boasts boast in this, that he understands and knows me, that I am the LORD who practices steadfast love, justice, and righteousness in the earth. For in these things I delight, declares the LORD.’ ” [Jer.9:23-24]. Jeremiah’s prophecy is surely not claiming that anyone could totally “understand and know” God, but that the truly wise believer is one who recognises God’s presence and follows the ways which have been revealed that lead to holy life. Later in Jeremiah it is prophesied: “This is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel in those days (ie. ‘the days that are surely coming’ v.31) says the Lord: I will put my law within them and write it in their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. No longer shall they teach one another ‘Know the Lord’, for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, says the Lord, for I will forgive their iniquity and remember their sin no more” [Jer.31:33-34]
Psalmists asked “Make me to know your ways O Lord” [Ps.25:4] and sang “Be still and know that I am God” [Ps.46:10]. It was definitely believed that in the Hebrew biblical laws the will of God was revealed through Moses, other law-givers, prophets and interpreters of the law. God was also thought to be partly revealed and understood by divine actions through history, including events recorded in scripture, God’s self-revelation in Jesus Christ and God’s involvement in the world since. God had ‘made known his Name’ in the events and activities in history.
The biblical concept of ‘knowing the Name of the Lord’ also includes knowing significant things about God. Someone’s ‘name’ was considered to contain or represent all aspects of who they are. So in being given the ‘Name’ of God through Moses, God’s people considered that they had a relationship with all that God is, even though God was unseen and unknowable in so many mysterious ways. The given name ‘YHWH’ was itself mysterious: ‘He who is’ / ‘I am what I am’/ ‘I will be what I will be’ is not a definite name but an assurance of God’s reality and transcendence. In the Hebrew Scriptures, worship was often spoken of as being directed towards ‘the Name of God’, indicating that though God was largely unknowable, God’s people worship all that God is: that into which we believe that we have insight and that which is completely beyond all comprehension.
When Moses was given a name by which God could be identified - ‘YHWH’ - he and the Hebrew tribes who he led had a concept of God to hold onto. “He who is” / “I am who I am” / “I will be what I will be” did not define God, so left the people knowing that God is mysterious and beyond revealing, yet they understood that they could relate God as a personal being and power. A Psalmist wrote “Those who know your name put their trust in you” [Ps.9:10]. Repeatedly Psalmists wrote of knowing certain things about God: “The Lord sets apart people for himself” [Ps.4:3]; “the Lord saves his people” [Ps.20:6]; the Lord knows our sins and failings [Ps.69:5]; the Lord knows our predicaments [Ps.69:19]; the Lord’s judgements are right [Ps.119:75]; the Lord knows all about us, even before we are born [Ps.139]; the Lord knows all our ways [Ps.142:3]. The list of things that the people believed they knew about God in the Hebrew Scriptures is enormous, and became augmented and clarified in the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. Yet none of this understanding is exhaustive or complete, since an infinite God must have an infinite number of qualities and characteristics. God remains the mysterious being or personal power that the word ‘YHWH’ and later the theological mystery “Trinity” imply. For all we know, God may be far more expansive that the term ‘Trinity’ implies. God could be a ‘Multiplicity in Unity’; we are just relating to this transcendent being and power through the revealed concept of three ‘persons’. ‘Persona’ in ancient Greek was the theatrical mask by which showed the character an actor was portraying at any one time. One actor could be performing many ‘personae’
The knowledge of multiple aspects of God unveiled in the scriptures helps believers to develop a personal relationship with God. Such a relationship is more of a privilege than just notionally knowing ‘about’ God, as prophesied in Jer.31:33-34 (quoted above). It is a relationship that develops further through communicating to God in prayer, opening our minds to the truths revealed in scripture, recognising that we are in God’s presence in worship, believing that God indwells us by God’s Spirit and living daily in the belief that God is around and within us.
Jesus’ statement, “And this is life eternal, that they should know you, the only true God, and him who you sent, Jesus Christ” [Jn.17:3], balances the difficulties in comprehending God. He claims that what has been revealed of God is sufficient to bring abundance to our lives. We are reminded that “We know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true, and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.” [1Jn.5:20]. This is an even stronger statement, claiming that we do not just know God through Jesus Christ, but that we are united to God through and in him. St. Paul expands this to claim that through knowing Christ we have come to know the true God, and have been freed from domination by false gods or unhelpful powers. This understanding of God does not derive from our own search for truth, but through God revealing truth to us: “Formerly, when you did not know God you were enslaved to beings that by nature were not God. Now, however, you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God...” [Gal. 4:9]. What Paul meant precisely by being “known by God” in this context is uncertain. It probably points to belief that it is God who reveals to us, not us who discover God by our searching. But is may also contain the meaning that we are no longer distant to God, now that we are followers, friends and family of Christ, and now that we are loved and recognised by God because we are loved and redeemed by Christ, and are part of Christ’s Body.
Traditional orthodox Christianity teaches that the clearest knowledge that we have of God is through the revelation of Jesus Christ. In speaking of God’s self-revelation as ‘the Logos’, both in the beginning of John’s Gospel and in Early Church teaching, Jesus was being identified with the invisible source of all things: the one through whom everything was created and in whom all life is sustained. The orthodox Christian claim is that the invisible, incomprehensible Creator has now been made visible and tangible in the Son. We do not see the whole of God through Jesus; he claimed that “the Father is greater than I” [Jn.14:28] but it is believed that Christ revealed all that we need to know about the incomprehensible God in order to have assurance of salvation and to develop a meaningful relationship with God, leading to abundant and eternal life.
PHILOSPHICAL & THEOLOGICAL IDEAS ABOUT THE COMPREHENSIBILITY OF GOD
A C4th Arian teacher Eunomius went too far in claiming that because God is a simple, unified truth, and human beings are made in God’s image, there is nothing about God that is not able to be known perfectly. He believed that Godcould be fully comprehended by the human intellect open to God and recognising God’s image as reflected through their own nature and understanding. Understandably, in the light of so much mystery that still remains about God, Eunomius’ teaching was rejected by orthodox Church Fathers. But some Christian leaders in Protestant, Evangelical, Catholic, Pentecostal, Liberal and other circles sometimes give the arrogant impression that they or their Church know, or have access to, all that is important about God.
Origen [c185-254] claimed that it is through the scriptures that we gain understanding into the mystery of God. Unlike some early teachers who searched for mystic meanings and secret teachings within scripture, he claimed that reason cannot discover the mysteries of God, Rather, he believed, that God becomes disclosed to us when we approach scripture humbly in prayer and love, desiring to hear God’s Word communicating to us through what has been already revealed. Several Church Fathers taught that if we approach scripture with humility and prayer, and seek to purify our minds and lives, the Holy Spirit will engage with us and enable us to contemplate truths about the Father. Contemplatives speak of two different types of purification - ‘active purification’ where we consciously aim to purify ourselves from sin and ignorance, and ‘passive purification’ where we open ourselves submissively to God’s purification of us. Contemplating the sacraments too is regarded as a form of coming to understand aspects of God and entering into God’s relationship with us. The Eucharist and Baptism particularly were considered as ways in which we participate in the mystery of what Christ achieved through his death and resurrection. Baptism was regarded as a form of union or being reunited with God.
Augustine believed that we can know God through the working of God within us: "When we know God, some likeness of God is made in us." [De Trin. v]. Yet we only know God very partially by analogy: "We see through a glass and in an enigma ('in a dark manner')... "by the terms 'glass' and 'enigma' certain similitudes are signified by him, which are accommodated to the vision of God" [De Trin. xv]. He believed that in the glorified dimension of heaven our vision of God will be very different: "Those eyes" (the vision of the glorified) "will therefore have a greater power of sight, not so much to see more keenly, as some report of the corporeal sight of serpents or of eagles ... but to see even incorporeal things....Now whoever can see incorporeal things, can be raised up to see God. Therefore the glorified eye can see God” [De Civ. Dei xxix, 29]. Yet Augustine believed that such glorified vision will still not be anything like physical vision: "No one has ever seen God either in this life, as He is, nor in the angelic (spiritual) life, as visible things are seen by corporeal vision." [De Vid. Deum, Ep. cxlvii]. He emphasised that spiritual vision is entirely different from physical vision: "That is comprehended which is so seen as a whole, that nothing of it is hidden from the seer. But if God is seen in His essence, He is seen whole, and nothing of Him is hidden from the seer, since God is simple. Therefore whoever sees His essence, comprehends Him." [De Vid. Deum, Ep. cxlvii]
In the 12th and 13th Centuries Scholastics from Peter Abelard to Thomas Aquinas, basing their rationalisation largely on a combination of Aristotle, Platonists and the Early Church Fathers, sought to clarify the ways in which we know God. They recognised a distinction between different sorts of understanding of divine matters. They acknowledged that we do not know what God is in God’s essential Being (the ‘quid’ of God’ - ‘that which God IS’), but maintained that we can know those aspects of God’s nature and activity that concern what God is in relation to us (the ‘qualis’ of God - what God is like to us or what kind of things God is about and what God does), since God has revealed certain divine attributes through Christ and in scripture.
Various philosophers and theologians have developed different ideas about ‘Special Revelation’ (that which is revealed of God in scripture and especially through Jesus) and ‘Natural Revelation’ (that which is uncovered about God through observation of the cosmos and reason. Several Scholastics claimed that Natural Revelation provided sufficient information for human reason to scientifically believe in God as the source and cause of everything in the cosmos. But they recognised that this did not confirm understanding of many mysteries of faith, like belief in the Trinity, the Incarnation of Christ, and the redemption he achieved. Special Revelation was necessary to provide this knowledge, but is not provable by human reason and such beliefs need to be accepted by faith. They claimed, like Aquinas, that ‘belief’ and ‘reason’ need to be united in developing knowledge of God. Scholasticism attempted to increase faith by demonstrating that many of the mysteries of the Christian faith could be rationally believed and were probable.
Thomas Aquinas [c.1225-1274] took a rather different approach. He recognised that it is impossible to prove Special Revelation by any form of logic, unless there are elements of Natural Revelation within the evidence given. He emphasised that to be true, natural truths and supernatural revelation cannot be in conflict. He based faith primarily on Special Revelation rather than Natural Revelation, the evidence for which can be subjective. Thomas Aquinas used his classical training in rhetoric to discuss in detail his conclusions of how people come to a knowledge of God. In 13 Articles in ‘Question 12. How God is known by us’, he quoted the teachings of figures like Augustine, Dionysius and Boethius as well as exploring what natural reasoning could contribute to draw certain conclusions about the findability of God:
It is impossible for God to be seen by the sense of sight, or by any other sense, or faculty of the sensitive power. [Article 3]. It is impossible for any created intellect to see the essence of God by its own natural power. [Article 4]. It is impossible for any created intellect to comprehend God; yet "for the mind to attain to God in some degree is great beatitude," as Augustine says (De Verb. Dim., Serm. xxxvii). [Article 7]. The created intellect, in seeing the divine essence, does not see in it all that God does or can do. [Article 8]. He believed that our reason is able to explore God through grace, which links our reason to Special Revelation: We have a more perfect knowledge of God by grace than by natural reason [Article 13].
Those who see the divine essence see what they see in God not by any likeness, but by the divine essence itself united to their intellect. For each thing is known in so far as its likeness is in the one who knows... Hence, according to the knowledge whereby things are known by those who see the essence of God, they are seen in God Himself not by any other similitudes but by the Divine essence alone present to the intellect; by which also God Himself is seen. [Article 9].
Our natural knowledge begins from sense. Hence our natural knowledge can go as far as it can be led by sensible things. But our mind cannot be led by sense so far as to see the essence of God; because the sensible effects of God do not equal the power of God as their cause. Hence from the knowledge of sensible things the whole power of God cannot be known; nor therefore can His essence be seen. But because they are His effects and depend on their cause, we can be led from them so far as to know of God, "whether He exists," and to know of Him what must necessarily belong to Him, as the first cause of all things, exceeding all things caused by Him. Hence we know that His relationship with creatures so far as to be the cause of them all; also that creatures differ from Him, inasmuch as He is not in any way part of what is caused by Him; and that creatures are not removed from Him by reason of any defect on His part, but because He super-exceeds them all. [Article 12].
Reformers often rejected the possibility that Natural Revelation alone could ever be sufficient evidence of God. They claimed that after sin entered the world, God’s presence in nature became greatly obscured and invisible to the human senses. Human beings, they claimed, became spiritually blinded and unable to recognise what had been present about God in creation. To heal this and allow God’s purposes to be fulfilled, they claimed that God deliberately placed signs in nature that could not be misinterpreted, which would satisfy human needs. God also sent Christ to cure spiritual blindness by redeeming, regenerating and sanctifying us, and providing spiritual illumination through the Holy Spirit. Through this they claimed that we are now able to obtain true knowledge of God and be assured that eternal life is possible.
Protestant Reformers did not accept all the ideas of the Roman Catholic Scholastics that God could be understood by human reason and general revelation. Yet they emphasised the importance of using greater reason to re-evaluate traditions of faith. Calvin wrote of ‘common grace’ as an element of general revelation. Some Reformers emphasised that true knowledge of God can be found primarily through the special revelation of scripture, illuminated by the Holy Spirit. ‘Faith’, they claimed, is at the heart of our understanding of God. Luther wrote about the ‘Deus Absconditus’ (the hidden God) and the ‘Deus Revelatus’ (the revealed God). He recognised that in several ways the revealed God is still a hidden God, since God is beyond being fully known, even where aspects of God have been revealed by special revelation. Calvin claimed that God’s ‘essence’ is ‘incomprehensible’: the depths of who God is remains beyond discovery or perception: “His essence is incomprehensible; so that His divinity wholly escapes all human senses.” Yet several Reformers believed that we can recognise or learn aspects of God’s nature through observing creation. All believed that we have been given sufficient knowledge to be assured of the grounds of our salvation. Richard Hooker claimed that our knowledge of God comes through ‘Scripture’, ‘Reason’ and true Traditions (ie the true doctrines of reformed Christianity). More recent theologians have added ‘Experience’, ‘Intuition’ and ‘Feeling’ to the ways that many believe God communicates and is made known.
Influenced by Hegel and Schleiermacher, theologians began to reflect more on how God might be found within the world. Ideas of God’s ‘immanence’ within what God has made were considered as important as God’s ‘transcendence’. This emphasis on immanence makes the idea of God’s incomprehensibility less prominent, while recognising that God and the spiritual dimension are still full of mysteries. Enlightenment thinking among theologians questioned whether God directly communicates with us by special revelation. It was believed that that we should be able to have sufficient understanding of God without a need for special revelation, since the human mind can discover God in our inner being, in observation and life within the physical cosmos. All these may be physical manifestations of God’s immanence, but not as direct as the revelation though Jesus Christ.
With the rise of the Enlightenment a greater demand for rationalism raised the profile of Natural Revelation over supernatural revelation. The qualities of the human mind were preferred to previously prevalent belief in the authority of scripture and religious tradition and doctrine. Some still believed in the validity of supernatural revelation, while others, including some promoters of Deism, completely rejected it unless reason could be applied. Schleiermacher emphasised the subjective nature of faith over objective proofs. He still talked about “revelation” in religion, but in terms of developing spiritual insight through the diligent search in the human mind.
Some believe that the idea of God is innate within human beings, present in our human consciousness from birth. Locke attacked the belief that anything is innate within us, but many believe that the knowledge of God, or the desire for a relationship with God, is implanted within us.
William Blake reflects the dichotomy of the Age of Enlightenment, though his theology is far from orthodox. Initially he was strongly influenced by the esoteric writings of Emanuel Swedenborg who encouraged people to believe in angelic guidance and recognise spiritual presences in the world, though later Blake moved away from Swedenborg’s ideas. Blake’s early work included the small treatise on ‘There Is No Natural Religion’, but this work was more a criticism of the domination of ‘reason’ and the emphasis on tangible human senses over faith in his time: “Man’s desires are limited by his perceptions; none can desire what he has not perceived”...by contrast, he concludes: “If any could desire what he is incapable of possessing, despair must be his eternal lot. The desire of man, being infinite, the possession is infinite and himself infinite. He who sees the infinite in all things sees God. He who sees the ration (‘rational’) only, sees himself only... God becomes as we are, that we may be as He is.” [There Is No Natural Religion]. In many phrases of his poems, especially Auguries of Innocence, Blake wrote of seeing the nature of the divine and his belief in the influence of the divine on the moral ordering of creation: “A robin redbreast in a cage puts all heaven in a rage” [Auguries of Innocence]. In the Songs of Innocence he recognised spiritual truth in the natural world... “Little Lamb who made thee, dost thou know who made thee? [The Lamb]... “Merry, merry sparrow...” [The Blossom]...” In ‘The Tyger’ and several of his ‘Songs of Experience’, Blake recognised some complex difficulties in reconciling traditional ideas of God natural revelation. He questioned how the loving God, who made the Lamb an image of divine gentleness, could be involved in the “deadly terrors” within the cosmos. In ‘The Garden of Love’ and ‘Earth’s Answer’ he questioned where death, suffering and enslavement could be involved in the plan of a God of love. His poem ‘The Divine Image’ and his treatise ‘All Religions are One’ explored the idea that all human beings have an inner spiritual drive, because we all develop from one cause and creator, who he calls by various names “The Poetic Genius”, “The Infinite” and “The Eternal”, “The True Man” (Jesus), as well as “God”.
Blake had a sincere faith, but the unorthodox approach to Christianity in his writings exemplifies some of the confusion that arises when we put our minds to understanding the dichotomies and confusing apparent contradictions within the complexities of the world. Throughout the Age of Enlightenment, as today, many theologians aimed to justify God by applying reason to tradition and scripture, yet our justifications are never able to be totally satisfactory, since faith is so often based on trust in what we cannot see or prove empirically [Heb.11:1]. Nevertheless applying reason has an important part to play in helping us to develop maturity of faith
Modern theology often softens the distinction between specific revelation and natural signs, believing that reason can bring insights into the divine through several different ways in which we explore truths. Karl Barth denied the possibility of combining the subjective and the objective, claiming that all revelation comes through God’s self-revelation augmented by scripture, preaching and particularly revealed ‘once for all’ through Jesus Christ who he claimed is the revelation of God. Further, he claimed that it is through mediating on these forms of revelation that God’s communication can come to us by the special ‘testimony’ of the Holy Spirit.
Karl Barth believed that the true God can only be found through the special revelation that has been handed down to us through the Bible. He did not believe that the true God can be found in nature, history, or human experiences. Barth believed that there is no way for human beings to work towards knowledge of God by their own power or reasoning. He claimed that the only direction of communication of revelation can be from God to humans. Barth denied the possibility of combining the subjective and the objective. He was clear that faith is based on revelation and did not accept that there is any revelation in nature. He claimed that all revelation comes through God’s statements and actions as revealed in scriptures and particularly in Jesus Christ who he regarded as the primary revelation of God. Only through knowing Jesus Christ through grace can we gain revelation of the divine. Through Jesus’ revelation Barth recognised that we become aware of being sinful and that God’s forgiveness is available through the reconciliation that Christ achieved. God is sovereign, so is free to reveal or conceal. Barth regarded the Bible and preaching as ‘witnesses’ and signs of God’s revelation but did not believe that even scripture should be thought of as God’s direct revelation. When we mediate on scripture or the preached Gospel, God’s communication can come to us by the special ‘testimony’ of the Holy Spirit. Jesus promised that the Spirit would ‘testify to the truth of his teaching [Jn.14 /16]. Barth claimed that God was revealed ‘once for all’ in Jesus Christ. To him this meant not just that Jesus of Nazareth appeared at one time in history, but that what he revealed about God continues to reveal God and communicate to us.
To me, this reasoning seems abstract and limited. It may be rooted in scripture but it is very proscriptive. He admitted that God, being sovereign and free to reveal or conceal as God wishes, so surely God can self-reveal in many ways. Scripture claims that God listens to our prayers, has and does communicate with people, especially when we are listening to God, but sometimes when we least expect it. Barth seems to claim that the spiritual experiences of many people throughout history, are subjective. He seems to questioning the reality of some believers’ sense that they have had spiritual revelations. Such experiences should not be dismissed just because they do not fit narrow philosophical theories. There are probably aspects of truths in many ways of thinking, since we believe that God is both immanent and transcendent, listens to our prayers and wishes to communicate to human beings. Modern theology often softens the distinction between revelation and natural signs, believing that reason can bring insights into the divine through different ways in which we explore truths.
We should test all ways in which we believe God is communicating to us with spiritual discernment, since some misinterpret ‘wishful thinking’ for divine communication. It is easy to misinterpret scripture or make scripture say what one wants it to say, by taking verses or phrases out of context, or selecting only verse that agree with our ideas or wishes. Human reason and careful discernment, for which we seek to be guided by God’s Spirit, help us interpret scripture and experiences. Discernment should also be applied to traditions since the3y have developed over centuries of Church history. Tradition includes doctrines, ways of thinking about God and the world, the phraseology of liturgy etc. There is surely much that is true in tradition, but the Church throughout history has often made mistakes both in the things to which it gives emphasis and in its practices, as the Reformation demonstrated. (Cruel Inquisition practices, Arian heresies, excesses of Mariolatry and the adoration of saints, the adoration of the Host rather than adoration of the Christ who it represents, can be among these.)
God’s Spirit needs to be involved in true discernment. St. Paul wrote: “No one comprehends what is truly God’s except the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world but the Spirit that is from God, so that we may understand the gifts bestowed on us by God. And we speak of these things in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual things to those who are spiritual” [1Cor. 2:11-13]. Most of our knowledge of God is derived from God’s self-revelation in scripture, but St. Paul seems to have believed that God’s Spirit also revealed God in aspects of the world.
We may not be able to entirely comprehend God, since, as Calvin emphasised “the finite cannot contain or understand the infinite’. If you try to satisfactorily define ‘God’ you will find that it is impossible. Every attempt to understand or define God is necessarily only partial. Nevertheless it is possible to build sufficient understanding to enable us to relate to God and find how we are meant to live by ‘the Way, the Truth and the Life’ [Jn.14:6]. Even partial knowledge is enough to help us hold onto God in trust and worship meaningfully.
VISIONARIES
In addition to these various ways of sensing that the presence of God is true, we should not discount the possibility of more direct revelations. Throughout Christian history many have sensed that they have had visions of spiritual realities. Early Hebrew understanding of visions of God was largely based on the verse: “No one can see my face and live” [Ex.33:20]. The idea in Job that he had seen God is probably just figurative language: “I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear, but now my eyes see you” [Job 42:5]. Yet several figures in scripture claimed to have relatively direct experiences of the presence of God, from Moses, Elijah, several of the Major Prophets, St. Paul (Saul of Tarsus) to John on Patmos. After wrestling for a blessing at Peniel, Jacob is reported as saying “I have seen God face to face, yet my life has been preserved” [Ex.33:30]. He obviously believed that he had encountered God in some physical way. Jesus himself promised: “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God” [Matt.5:8]. But it is not clear whether this relates to seeing God in the dimension beyond death or during life or whether we it implies experiencing physical vision or receiving inner insight. Much in mystical experiences seems to be described as ‘an inner eye’ or ‘inner illumination’, as in the teaching and example of Teresa of Avila.
Famous among these are mediaeval figures like Bridget of Sweden, Catherine of Siena, Julian of Norwich, Hildegard of Bingen, St. Francis. Since the 18th Century Enlightenment, not so many modern people claim to be visionaries, but if God was truly in the mediaeval visions, the possibility of God communicating through direct visions should not be discounted.
Visions, like spiritual gifts, cannot be programmed and so often cannot be proved. Visions are not God’s responses to anything we do, though it may be that some ascetics who have deprived their bodies of food or rest are sometimes prone to hallucinations, which could account for some past visionary experiences. It is also possible that certain methods of contemplative prayer encourage a visionary sense of union with God. But sensory hallucinations and contemplative openness to God are rather different from visions, which are regarded as more direct communications from God.
GENERAL AND SPECIAL REVELATION
The Bible suggests that God is revealed in two different ways: General Revelation and Special Revelation, though these terms are not used in scripture. General Revelation implies that God and God’s truths are present and reflected in the whole of the cosmos around us: the details of nature, the workings of the cosmic laws, the way the world works and wisdom in the human consciousness. Consequently, if we open ourselves sensitively to be guided by God in our thoughts, imagination and observation, we will discover important aspects of God. Special Revelation concerns what is revealed about God by Jesus in his teaching, character and life, and what is revealed by and about God in the Bible. Trust that the scriptures were inspired by God’s Spirit encouraged believers to assume that the teachings, laws and information in the Bible books were directly communicated by God, using the scribes and the prophets as God’s amanuensis: “All scripture is inspired by God and I useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work” [2Tim.3:16-17]. This concept of special revelation had often made scripture as revered as the sanctified Eucharistic host, sometimes more revered in Protestant theology and churches. Today we recognise that the various books of the Bible were edited at various times in history, so it is more reasonable to believe that God’s Spirit was influencing the workings of the minds of those who developed the scriptural texts, rather than that God was directly dictating scripture to the writers, as some literalists still claim.
a/ GENERAL REVELATION - GOD REVEALED IN THE COSMOS and NATURAL THEOLOGY
General revelation is based in our interpretation of creation and the interpretation of the world by applying human reason to understanding what we see and experience. We hope to find spiritual as well as physical truths from our observation, as well as having communion with God through appreciation of what has been made. By contrast to Barth’s ideas that we only find God through faith in what we read in scripture, the Bible contains claims that aspects of God can be perceived through the cosmos. But as Barth suggests, many of these aspects of revelation may be regarded by many as subjective, so unreliable:
I find the saying “One is closer to God in the garden than anywhere else on earth” trite. Yet contact with the natural wolr can inspire wonder, awe and a marvelling at details. Many claim that by living close to nature, they feel close to the presence of God and recognise God’s workings through natural phenomena. This is a concept that is found occasionally in scripture:
In several Psalms the writer looks out to nature and in its beauty, arrangement, workings and detail, and recognises the wisdom of the Creator as forming and sustaining all. Psalm 19 imagines that all of the cosmos and the life within it are silently communicating the existence and truths of God: “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament proclaims God’s handiwork. Day to day pours forth speech, and night to night declares knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words, their voice is not heard; yet their voice goes out through all the earth and their words to the ends of the world. [Ps. 19:1-4]
Viewing the powerful expanse of nature a Psalmist recognised aspects of the vulnerability and fragility of human beings yet also their high value in context within the created cosmos: “When I look at the heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and stars that you have set in place; what are human beings that you are mindful of them, mortals that you care for them. Yet you have made them a little lower than heavenly beings and crowned them with glory and honour. You have given them dominion over the works of your hands...” [Ps.8:3-6].
The bounty of nature’s provision towards us and our world was also considered as evidence for to the existence of God who provides what was needed in the right times and seasons for fruitfulness, nourishment and generous provision. In justifying true faith to a superstitious audience in Lystra, St. Paul asked them to turn to “the living God who made the heavens, the sea and all that is in them. In past generations he allowed all nations to follow their own ways, yet he has not left himself without a witness in doing good - giving you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, filling you with food and your hearts with gladness.” [Acts 14:17].
St. Paul was convinced that he world gives abundant evidence that God’s exists and teaches us aspects of God’s nature and ethical expectations: “What can be known of God is plain to them; for God has shown it to them. For ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things that have been made.” [Rom. 1:19, 20]. This passage has been assumed to be claiming that ethical rules are also interpretable from issues in the natural world. But some specifics in Paul’s argument, especially his claims about sexuality, are challenged today.
Since the ‘Enlightenment’ a philosophical and theological argument over whether God’s existence, attributes or nature might be apprehended through the cosmos. The theories of ‘ Natural Theology’ attempted to demonstrate evidence that God and divine qualities could be proved through applying human reason to observation of the natural world. Proponents claimed that we do not need to rely on special revelation from God, though what might be observed is added to what is revealed in scripture. Based on some of Thomas Aquinas’ ideas, Paul Tillich developed a form of natural theology by applying reason to philosophical and theological thinking, though they both had a strong belief in divine revelation. Aquinas believed, as do many Christians, that the universe and all within it has God as its cause. As believers study nature in detail, many come to the conclusion that there is a purposeful design within it and a purposeful designer as its source. We seem to have a propensity for seeking the source and meaning of things, yet the overall meaning of life evades us. There seems to be a common aim in cultures to discover, imagine or form myths to explain how all was set in motion. The beauty and finesse of detail in nature might be interpreted as being formed as a result of God’s love and a divine desire to create.
Evidence for a creative mind being behind the development of the cosmos has been pointed to through many examples: the complexity of the development of the human eye and brain; the ways that cells divide to form and develop a foetus, that can develop into a perfect child, the rhythm and ordering of the scientific laws that keep all in motion, the apparent specialness of the Earth among so many apparently inhospitable planets in the Universe. Critics of Christian belief find ways of trying to explain many of these examples away, as in Richard Dawkins’ ‘Climbing Mount Impossible’ [1996], but this does not negate the possibility of divine involvement. Recognition that nature has developed through evolution and natural selection is not antithetical to the idea that a creator God is working through the process. To me, it seems more likely that nature developed and continues to develop though the direction of a creative mind than by accident. For many people the beauty and variety within the world is considered sufficient evidence that a power that we know as God is behind all. Much in nature seems to point to things having developed by design rather than just being products of millennia chemical, physical or biological accidents and natural selection. Again, none of these examples are sufficient to be ‘proofs’, but they seem to be ‘evidence’ that intelligent design is at work. Such a possibility is rejected by many scientists but accepted by many other scientists, suggesting that it is impossible to agree on the matter. But to totally reject even the possibility that God could be the intelligent force at work within the process of natural development is not scientifically reasonable. A scientific claim of agnosticism is reasonable; a claim of atheism seems to me not to be a reasonable scientific conclusion, as it is usually based on personal bias rather than the weight of evidence.
The ideas of natural theology were rejected by many Reformed theologians who believed that God’s revelation comes mostly or wholly through the revelations in scripture (the idea of ‘Sola Scriptura’). Some argue further that because humankind is in bondage to sin, it would be impossible for us to know anything of God unless God reveals it to us. Karl Barth believed that God can only be known through God’s ‘special revelation, whereas those who believe in natural theology sense that we can develop a certain understanding of God through observation, reason and experience.
One difficulty in believing that God can be sensed through nature and reason could be that such proofs can never be empirical or even testable. We can never ‘prove’ the existence of the God about whom Jesus taught, by either observation of the cosmos or philosophical / theological reasoning. We need to add an understanding of the Hebrew and New Testament scriptures to come close to believing in the Christian God.
Although a plethora of scriptures suggest that God is to be found or perceived in the world, other passages suggest that reason and observation are insufficient: In the Wisdom Books we are told: "Trust in the LORD with all your heart and do not lean on your own understanding." [Prov.3:5]
St. Paul’s suggestion that the things of God can be perceived in the world and that a natural morality is embedded within us as a result, seems contradicted by Ps.147:19, 20, which implies that our actions and thoughts should be regulated by scripture’s teachings, particularly those revealed to Israel. "He declares his words to Jacob, his statutes and his ordinances to Israel. He has not dealt in this way with any other nation; And as for his ordinances, they have not known them. Praise the LORD!" This may seem, if read literally, to contradict Calvin’s idea of ‘Common Grace’, like natural revelation being open to all, but it is poetic rhetoric and political propaganda being used to emphasise the uniqueness of Israel.
Many believers still feel that they can sense the presence of God with them is many situations. But unorthodox attempts have also been used to assess the probability of God’s existence: One scientist, Dr. Stephen Unwin in ‘The Probability of God’ 2022, came to the conclusion that statistics show that there is a 67% chance that God exists. He started from the assumption that God has a 50/50 chance of existing, then focused down his calculation to taking into account factors like natural goodness and the possibility of unusual workings like miracles, natural evil physical disasters like cancer or earthquakes. Dr. Unwin claimed that his research convinced him personally by c.95% that God exists. [cf. article: ‘Stewart Maclean, Catherine Bolsover and Polly Curtis ‘Odds On That God Exists, Says Scientist’ Guardian - Mon 8 Mar 2004]. Despite this, however there is no ultimate proof of the existence of God that we could use to convince all others. Faith is based primarily on trust, not on sight or proof.
Some Details I Observe In The World And Experience That Convince Me Personally That God Is True:
I realise that the evidences that help to convince me personally of the truth of God could be denied by sceptics. Yet I include the following list of objective and subjective examples that help to reassure me of the probable reality of the spiritual realm and the workings of a power I call God. Some of these suggest that God is revealed within the cosmos, particularly nature and human life. Others are, to me, otherwise inexplicable events unless there was intervention of a caring supernatural power.
I am fortunate to spend part of my life in an area of countryside where on a clear night one can see an expanse of stars in the sky. The enormity of the universe, yet the complexity of physics which describes its natural motion, convinces me that there is a metaphysical power at work within it. The beauty and variety of form in pollen grains viewed under an electron-microscope convince me that this power has a quality that creates beauty. There must be billions of other refined, complex and beautiful details in nature that reflect this. The ability of the human body to heal itself and combat disease (despite the many as-yet incurable diseases and tragedies in life), convinces me that there is a caring purpose within this power.
I recognise that the rhythm of the seasons is due to the angled rotation of the earth on its axis and other physical factors. But the response of creatures to that rhythm seems to me to be more than just developed by natural selection. How can physics or biology sufficiently account for the instinct that causes the migration of birds and Monarch butterflies, and return to nesting or wintering sites, sometimes thousands of miles away? What causes the spark of life that brings new buds into leaf and flower after winter? As far as we know, plants are not sentient creatures, yet they have an inner process of change. There seems to be a conscious design behind so many similar details of our world
In reproduction cells divide repeatedly to form a perfect embryo then foetus, that develops into a child then an adult. They do not divide randomly to create amorphous masses, which seems to suggest the involvement of a process that has been designed. Of course, in nature sometimes problems in development occur, leading to occasional malformation, disability or disease. But in the vast majority of cases cells continue to divide correctly. Science may explain how this process works, but it does not explain why, or what causes the growth of life.
I recognise that development in the world has come about by a process of evolution. But surely evolution cannot just be the result of millions of incidents of the survival of the fittest. I find it hard to believe that the evolution of the brain, the human intellect, the emotion of love and other senses and emotions in human beings, and whatever are the equivalents in the minds of animals like their commitment to a mate in the natural world, can have developed purely by physical or chemical processes. I cannot imagine how our senses, our emotions and our spirituality can have evolved other than by being formed within human minds by a sensitive power. Our recognition of what is good and our appreciation of what is beautiful, similarly cannot just be put down to random chance in evolution, or to what proves to be for the social good of individuals and the community. Can the ability to make informed or emotional choices just have developed in the mind by a random division of cells and the working of chemicals to create a brain?
Is spirituality just another mental power that has developed randomly? The huge number of Christians in the world who claim to have had a wide variety of spiritual experiences that have transformed their lives, convinces me that there is truth within Christianity. There are many other religions and life-styles in which people find truths by which to live. I believe that following Jesus’ teaching and the way of life that he encouraged authentically can lead people, communities and nations to greater fulfilment, abundance and peaceful advancement. I have become convinced that Jesus’ way offers us “The Way, the Truth and the Life” [Jn.14:6]. I believe that there is a natural propensity developed in the human mind to find fulfilment if they live by the best ways. I recognise that believers are far from perfect; in fact significant hypocrisies and failures to follow Christ authentically, in churches over two millennia have caused many tragedies that have scarred the world. But Jesus’ precepts make sense, and if followed with integrity and truth could transform the world for good towards the best sort of life, which Christians call ‘The Kingdom of God’.
I am not convinced that the argument is rational that God must exist because so many peoples throughout the world develop religions. It does not prove that God is true. Without other evidence, it would be possible that ALL religions might be following irrational superstitions and mistaken interpretations. But the concept of God makes sense of so much mystery that we do not otherwise understand. Within religions I believe that the reality of many people’s varied spiritual experiences suggests that God is responding to them. If those interpretations are true and were not just the result of psychological wishful-thinking, there seems to be evidence that God’s existence should be regarded as true.
There is plenty of convincing evidence that Jesus of Nazareth was a real, historical person. If there is any truth in the records of the miracles attributed to him, he was an unusual figure. If he performed miracles which could not be attributed to natural phenomena, perhaps his teachings about God being the source of his powers could be true. If that is the case, and God was truly behind Jesus’ life and ministry we should be able to trust God.
I have had a number of experiences myself, in which I am convinced that the power which I call God was involved. I admit that none of these are convincing empirical proofs; they are subjective. Nevertheless I am personally certain that they were not everyday occurrences.
- Three times my life has been saved by the intervention of people who, without contact from me, sensed that I was in trouble and called to see me. I will not give details of them here, as they are too personal to share widely, though I am happy to share them with friends. However, I am certain that spiritual intervention was involved.
- I had contact with church as a child, went to a junior school linked to a church, and was sent to Sunday School. My local church’s teaching and the environment in which I was brought up didn’t naturally lead to my thinking that one might know God or develop a relationship with God. For a brief period I said night prayers as a child, encouraged by books that my godmother sent to me. My parents didn’t attend church and never talked about faith. I progressed from Sunday School to church choir and youth group, was confirmed, acted as an altar-server and went to events arranged by the Diocesan Youth Chaplain. He particularly awakened ideas about faith in me, and especially the social and ethical aspects of Christ’s teaching. But despite these contacts, the inner relationship with God in this spiritual content didn’t really click. Once in church, in my mid-teenage years I knelt in a pew and prayed sincerely: “God if you are there, show me somehow; please prove it to me.” Nothing happened and I gradually grew away from church, in a mixture of frustration or disillusionment, questioning whether faith was real. I tried various different churches and found the peaceful and thoughtful nature of Quaker meetings meaningful for a while. But still the idea of relating to God did not convince or come alive in me.
Then eventually a few years later, at university, I was in a very different environment, and met people of faith who exemplified and were able to teach me the sort of Christian faith that could nourish me. At the moment I prayed in trust to God (apologies if that sounds an exclusively Evangelical a phrase, it is not meant to be) my mind flashed back to that prayer as a teenager in the pew, and I felt an inner voice telling me: “Now I can answer your prayer!” I had a wonderful, committed, rather scatty godmother, Cilla, for whom I cared. I wrote to tell her about my renewed commitment to faith, and she responded delightedly that she had been praying for this for years. I believe that God had been at work, developing me progressively through time and in various situations, to a position, place and among people where I could benefit and begin to practically learn what an authentic faith should be. I am still nowhere near being a good enough Christian, but I recognise that God’s Spirit has been involved in my slow progressive development and continues to be.
- Several close friends have come into my life at various times, some short-term, some long-term, who proved, like my godmother, to be gifts who I believe came from God. In most cases they were not the sort of people who one would have thought would have been naturally attracted to me as a friend. We may have had a few common interests, and shared aspects of my faith, but most were very different from me, with very different interests and abilities. However, their friendships transformed my life in a variety of ways. Many came into my life at the points when I most needed those friendships, and I cannot believe that this large number of supports found at exactly the right time, could have been simply coincidence. Similarly, I have found myself in place to support others in their own times of need.
- In perhaps the deepest period of depression and loneliness in my life, living temporarily alone in Bournemouth, I was at the end of my tether. Lying in bed emotionally exhausted, lonely and in tears, inexplicably, I physically felt an invisible figure climb into bed with me and hold me tightly. This wasn’t a dream, illusion or wishful-thinking; I was wide awake, and knew I was being physically held tight and supported by an invisible physical power.
- At about the same time, I was given hope at a point where my future seemed hopeless. Those who I had sensed were my closest friends seemed to have deserted me and I could not envisage any way out of my situation. A caring couple, who had taken me temporarily into their home, brought me a letter, out of the blue, from a Christian organisation with which I had only vague connections, offering me the possibility of a job. I was in no emotional position to feel that I could be accepted for the very responsible job or had the abilities to do it. But through a series of improbable processes, I was entrusted with the job, grew through the pastoral and training responsibilities and found all the support that I needed. It proved the most fulfilling and strengthening role that I have ever undertaken. I grew phenomenally as a Christian through the experience. To this day I am amazed at being offered the role and being able to undertake it. I was totally open with the executive who interviewed me, as to my inadequacies. They provided me with pastoral and psychological support which enabled me to fulfil the role. An extra bonus was a fellow member of staff who became my best, most supportive, Christian friend for many years. The job brought me many fantastic contacts who have remained good friends for decades.
- I had often been sceptical of so-called ‘healing miracles’, spoken about regularly by Christians from Pentecostal groups. However I witnessed the indisputable healing of Olive, a neighbour in her sixties, who lives two doors away from my home and attended the same relatively traditional church as me. She had been disabled since her teens due to severe illness. For nearly 50 years she had lost the ability to walk, and in the 14 years that I lived near her I had only ever seen her in a wheel-chair, pushed around by her elderly mother or later by friends. Her mother declined and was confined to bed upstairs. Though others came in to help her mother and herself, from being the one cared for, Olive became her mother’s main carer. Olive could only crawl up the stairs from her wheel-chair, lifting a small tray from one step at a time. Her mother became increasingly demanding and Olive became increasingly exhausted and debilitated. During one day of being called upstairs repeatedly Olive knew that she had reached the end of her strength. She felt guilty in doing so, but found herself propped up by the bed, praying that her mother might die and be released from suffering, and that this demanding care would come to an end. Olive described to me that she felt at that moment a sudden inner power saying to her “you can walk!” She gradually pulled herself up and found that she could progressively move and walk and support herself downstairs. Over the 50 years of her disability the muscles of her legs had atrophied, so she needed a stick and required therapy to strengthen them. The healing event also caused her emotional challenges that manifested in physical symptoms. But there is no doubt that a healing occurred. Our community, who knew Olive were utterly shocked when, on the following Sunday, she walked into church with a stick, on the arm of Maisie, who had been a long-term friend and supporter. Of course sceptics might attribute this to some form of psychological power giving new strength and determination to a woman who had not used her lower limbs to walk for about 50 years. But, knowing the situation well, I feel over 95% certain that a spiritual power was intervening to strengthen her.
- At one time about 25 years before I was ordained, I had wondered if I was being called to church ministry. But though I tested the calling I don’t now think that I could have coped with the responsibilities or been very good. I began training, though it became clear that I had chosen a course that was unsuitable and led to deeper inner searching. It was far better that I remained in the field of art, teaching, lecturing and painting. Then later in my 50s I wondered if I ought to be doing more in church than leading youth and Bible-study groups and very occasionally preaching. I approached my minister with the idea that I might become a church lay-worker. He responded that this had been on his mind too, but told me that he could imagine me more in an ordained ministry. At the very moment that he said this, I felt what I can only describe as a physical tingling, rather like a medium-level electric shock going through my body. I don’t know what caused it psychologically or physiologically, but it felt like an affirmation of my calling. At the same time I felt totally inadequate, and all through the discernment process,like Gideon with his fleeces, I kept putting possible barriers in the way, but the process developed towards my ordination. It was the right timeand the right place, and I believe that God physically confirmed it.
- At the point of my ordination I felt a similar sensation a hands were laid on me, which again seemed ot be a physical confirmation that I was following the right spiritual path.
- I definitely find God in ministry. I often recognise places where God is at work in people’s lives particularly when I am visiting them pastorally and we talk or pray over issues in their lives together. I have felt that I must have been unconsciously guided many times as I have prepared sermons and liturgies. Sometimes my direction of thinking has gone off tangentially when considering the readings or themes for the day and I wonder: “Is this relevant to the situation into which I am preaching or presiding?” Then the atmosphere in a service, or a few congregants’ responses afterwards, make it clear that the message spoke precisely into issues in their lives. I have also found this on retreats that I have led, where I have not known the groups beforehand yet the themes, readings or words chosen have spoken to certain people particularly. This is not just my experience; I know it is the experience of other church-leaders. We may be weak and not feel especially spiritually moved at times, yet God works through people to help the lives of others.
- I recognise the presence of God particularly when I am presiding at the Eucharist. It is especially meaningful to me to I hold out the bread and chalice and say: “Take, eat, this is my body which is given for you... do this in remembrance of me... Drink this all of you... this is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins... Do this as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” In a former church the chalice was polished so well that as I raised it I could see my own face reflected in it as well as the whole congregation to whom I was offering it. We were all included in the love, self-offering and forgiveness contained within that cup. God’s presence seems so certainly present at such times.
- I also find God when I am painting spiritual subjects that require a lot of meditation on their meaning during the planning and development of the painting. I often draw in my sketch-book as a way of meditating on scriptural subjects. My painting process is fairly slow and I make numerous changes both in my original sketches and all the stages of painting, trying to capture the most meaningful expressions and gestures in my subjects. The play of light on a scene might need to be developed to convey its meaning. Much of the initial work on a complex painting might just be hard slog to get the composition, anatomy, light and colour right. Then come the long finishing stages where I am thinking about what a gesture is conveying, imagining the character and faith of the figures I am painting in the scene, considering and praying about what meaning the viewer might interpret from the image, etc. A slip of the brush, unintended stroke or new idea about the theme might lead to a change of perspective on the image. It is during this finishing process that I often feel closest to God - in trying to understand and convey the heart of a spiritual subject. I follow a similar process when I am trying to write down my ideas about faith, though rarely as expressively: both are a struggle worth wrestling with.
When working on an image about faith I often feel a huge sense of spiritual responsibility in the presence of God. This is particularly the case when I am working for a commission and longing to create a work that will continue to speak to people over a long period of time. When creating Stations of the Cross for churches like St. Mary’s, Ewell and St. John’s, Bury St Edmunds, or a series of paintings for a touring exhibition, I constantly try to make the works convey spiritual meaning to me as I am painting. But I am not working primarily for myself. Far more important are my responsibilities to convey something of the spiritual truth of the subject to those who will use them, and to create images that can communicate and encourage faith in others. So during the long painting process I have to keep praying about and thinking-through the context in which the work is to be used and how others might respond.
I felt this responsibility especially when working on the commission-of-a life-time: my altarpiece for Gloucester Cathedral Lady Chapel. These three, seven-foot-high panels - a crucifixion, pieta and resurrection – took 3 years to complete. It felt as though my studio, which they dominated due to their size, became a chapel while I was working on them. I approached the figure of Christ with awe, longing for the three images to communicate the meaning of salvation. I kept a diary of my thoughts throughout the process, recording how my ideas on faith in Christ’s Passion and Resurrection changed and deepened as I worked on the images. A very similar atmosphere grew in my studio more recently painting my first set of Stations of the Resurrection and studying, praying and writing down my developing thoughts about the meaning and implications of those themes. (The meditations on the Resurrection can be found on my website.) I feel God to be close when I am praying and considering the responsibilities I have to convey the spiritual meaning of my subjects. The process of painting is not the same as honing the words of a sermon: a work of art especially should be allusive not didactic, but it is carries similar responsibilities.
- In my ministry through art, I have encountered many coincidences that convince me when I feel I am being guided in certain directions. My commissions for Gloucester Cathedral came through a chance bringing-together of circumstances, rather than my seeking them. The Lady Chapel Altarpiece was my largest commission and I felt intensely the responsibility to convey meaning as truthfully as possible. I wrestled to get the figures right until they eventually seemed complete in the studio. I then installed them in their niches in the Cathedral Chapel, giving myself a week on site before their dedication, in case alterations needed to be made. Sure enough, when seen from a distance in the light, atmosphere and scale of the chapel, the faces, especially those in the Pieta, did not express the same meaning as they had appeared to do in the studio. Mary seemed to be smiling and too wan; Jesus’ expression did not convey the hope, trust and rest that I intended. Despite being uncomfortable at heights, I struggled up and down a step-ladder with my palette, walking backwards and forward in the chapel for hours to view the work from different angels and distances, making tiny changes to the brush-strokes and colouring until the faces and gestures spoke meaningfully. Eventually, the day before the dedication, just as I was wondering whether it was now finished, a yellow beam of light from a side window moved over the three panels and temporarily bathed all the faces of the figures with radiance. This had never occurred previously in all the times that I had visited the chapel over the 3 year project or when painting on site, and it helped me recognise that now, finally, the work was complete. A similar confirmatory light-effect happened once again, at the moment that the altarpiece was dedicated (at a different time of day). The choir was chanting the Gloria from Palestrina’s Missa Papae Marcelli, I stood with the clergy in front of panels with which I had spent 3 years of intense spiritual and physical involvement. The prayer of dedication was being made, and the sun suddenly shone out from behind a cloud, causing a shaft of golden light to immediately illuminate the reredos. It felt that the rightness of the project was being affirmed and that I could now hand over to others’ use the paintings that had been so close to my heart for such a long period. The majority of the public and clerical responses to the work in position were really positive and many mentioned and have written about the sensitivity of their installation. The chapel felt as though it became more of a place of prayer, since people sat in contemplation there more frequently. The architecture of the reredos had been ravaged and smashed during the Reformation but now the pain of destruction seemed partially healed by the presence of paintings on the theme of salvation. When a priest raised the elements in the daily Eucharist, they were at a level where the bread and cup seemed to be embraced by Christ’s hand in the Pieta. It felt as though Mary was holding out the body of her son for us to accept his loving self-offering. Imagine then my disappointment when 13 years later another dean decided that he didn’t like the works and, despite opposition of congregation and clergy, relegated them to a the museum in the Triforium, where they would be seen by few and were not able to contribute to the spiritual atmosphere of the building. But that it the prerogative of some church leaders.
- My first project for a church - the altar box of St. Peter’s West Molesey Church came out of the blue, during the time that I was studying for my MA in Fine Art. The local archdeacon had contacted my college asking if there was anyone who might be suitable for the project. At any other time I would not have been available; I was not known and no one would have thought of me for the commission, but my university professor and fine-art tutor knew of my faith so proposed me. A similar coincidence led to the commission from BBC Songs of Praise for an art-work for Sir Hubert Parry’s family-church in Highnam, Glos. It too came out of the blue. Again, I had no connection with the church but somehow the BBC found out about me. A strange, chance collection of linked circumstances also led to my commission for the Bury St. Edmunds Stations of the Cross.
These things aren’t miracles in any sense of the word, but coincidences that seem to happen too often to be merely chance. I know that I am not good enough as a Christian to be being given special treatment. These are just blessings that might have their equivalents in anyone’s life. But they do make me recognise that things happen in our daily lives that seem to be guided towards the good. I am a natural sceptic; I am certainly not credulous or simplistic in my thinking, but so many events and circumstances in my own experiences have come to convince me that the spiritual dimension is real and has an active influence upon our own world.
More important than any of these apparent confirmations of my faith, is my sense that God is here, surrounding me and within me at all times. I feel that I am in the presence of truth and therefore should be living by the truth. A sceptic might claim that my faith could just be wishful-thinking or that I have attuned myself to thinking that I am in the presence of God. But after over 50 years of carefully exploring the grounds of my faith I am convinced that there is truth in my beliefs and spiritual experiences.
b/ SPECIAL REVELATION
The Christian scriptures claim that God revealed aspects of the divine nature and correct ways of following God’s will through more precise guidance than interpreting nature. In a biblical metaphor the legend of the ‘Fall’ of humanity implied that people were more capable of a direct relationship before divided from God by sin. The implication of the Hebrew covenants is that those who follow God’s ways and resist sin can still develop a relationship with God, though less intimately than before sin entered the world. The covenant relationship with humanity had been made first in legend with Adam and Eve, then Noah, then applied to the Hebrew tribes through Abraham, Jacob, Moses and reaffirmed after the Assyrian and Babylonian Exiles in the religious and social covenant reforms of Josiah and after the rebuilding of the Temple in Ezra and Nehemiah. The promises made by the people included keeping to the social and religious laws and practices laid down by the laws of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, then interpreted and expanded by generations of priests, prophets, scribes, Pharisees and other teachers.
It must be remembered that the Jews up to the time of Jesus did not have their own scriptural texts in the form that we read the Hebrew Scripture in the Bible today. The books of the Hebrew Bible were not compiled and brought together as a canon until fairly late in the history of Israel. Most Jewish people developed their relationship with God by being taught the stories of events and people in their history and following the stories and themes of life around which the regular Jewish festivals were based. God was thought to have revealed himself in these events and relationships.
At the centre of Jewish society was the great sign of God’s covenant relationship with the Jewish tribes – the Tabernacle in the Tent of Meeting in the desert, then in the Temple at the heart of Jerusalem. Their God was invisible, yet the Tabernacle was their physical, visible sign of God’s presence , especially as it contained objects that related to their covenants, Moses’ tablets of the Law, the ‘bread of the presence’. Though Jews might live far distances away from Jerusalem, particularly after the diaspora, to know that the Temple was there, and to expected to be able to return for significant festivals made it a key part of their relationship with God. When they prayed many would face Jerusalem, as Muslims face Mecca, even though both recognise that God is present everywhere. Later the dispersed Jews began to meet, worship and be taught about faith in synagogues. These grew in importance after the Temple was destroyed in 70C.E, but the symbols of the Covenant promises remained in their memories.
Throughout their history, Jews believed that God communicated with them as a people through leaders and prophets. “He made known his ways to Moses, his acts to the children of Israel,” [Ps.103:7]... “God warned Israel, and to Judah, by every prophet, and every seer, saying, ‘Turn from your evil ways, and keep my commandments and my statutes, in accordance with all the law that I commanded your ancestors, and that I sent to you by my servants the prophets...’” [2 Kings 17:13].
Later prophets like Joel Isaiah and Jeremiah began to teach that ordinary individual believers would come to know God more personally themselves: “This is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel in those days (the days that are surely coming v.31), says the Lord: I will put my law within them and write it in their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. No longer shall they teach one another ‘Know the Lord’, for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, says the Lord, for I will forgive their iniquity and remember their sin no more” [Jer.31:33-34]
Yet a large divide remained between human beings and their God. That difference between us and God remains in Christianity, yet orthodox faith believes that Jesus Christ made a substantial bridge that narrows that divide: “Long ago God spoke to our ancestors in many and various ways by the prophets, but in these days he has spoken to us by a Son...” [Heb. 1:1, 2]... “No-one has ever seen God; it is God the only begotten Son, who is close to the Father’s heart, who has made him known.” [John 1:18].
The idea of Special Revelation, particularly the revelation brought by Jesus of Nazareth, recognises that God communicates to us out of forgiving grace, even though we all fail to reach the perfection that God’s purity requires, so do not deserve a close relationship with a perfect creator.
SOME THINGS WE BELIEVE OF GOD ACCORDING TO THE SPECIAL REVELATION OF SCRIPTURE:
Although God cannot be known completely, we are assured by scripture that certain things about God are true. These cannot be interpreted from nature and reason. For example:
God is love [1Jn.4:8],
God is spirit [Jn.4:24],
God is just and righteous [Rom.3:26],
God is all-seeking and all-knowing [Ps.139],
God is in light and truth, and in God is no darkness or untruth [1Jn.1:5],
God is Creator [Gen.1:1ff],
God is a loving Father of all creation. [Rom. 8:15],
God desires a trusting covenant relationship with people and God is faithful to covenant promises towards creation, particularly God’s people [Deut.7:9],
God is forgiving as a result of Jesus Christ’s activity [Eph.1:7; Col.1:14]
Jesus lives in us by God’s Spirit [Eph. 317; Phil 3:8, 10; Col. 1:27; Jn.14:23],
God’s Spirit is with us to guide us into all truth [Jn.16:13]
God has eternal expectations and promises for us [Jer.44:25; Mk.14:11; Jn.24:49; Heb.9:15; Jas.1:12; 1Jn.2:25].
A comprehensive list of the scriptural promises about the character, nature and activities of God would be enormous. In addition there nearly 1,000 metaphors in scripture used to describe God, like ‘rock of salvation’, ‘stronghold/fortress’, ‘husband/lover’, ‘shepherd’, ‘shield’, ‘healer’. If one unravelled their meaning the list would be even more expansive.
Although we do not actually see God, or see these qualities directly, when we consider these aspects of God, it could be said that, in some ways we ‘find God’ when we believe and trust in them. When we pray for God’s love, forgiveness, protection, healing, guidance, companionship in need, etc. we trust or hope that God will be true to those qualities of nature expressed in scripture. When we read of such qualities in scripture, meditate on them, believe them to be at work, or worship God for them, I believe that we are partially ‘finding’ God. As in a relationship with any human being, or any creature, the more we find out about them and experience being around them, the more we get to know them. It is similar with God: the more we consider the aspects of God that are revealed within scripture, reason, tradition and experience, the more we are able to develop an understanding of what is believed about the invisible God. This enables us to develop an inner relationship with God. Of course a sceptic could say that this is not actually ‘knowing God’ or proof of the reality of God, but increasing understanding of what scripture says about God enables us to develop trust and grow in insight. In addition, when we respond in trust and are faithful to the teachings and expectations of God, as revealed in scripture, we often find that experiences appear to confirm that there is a reality in what we believe.
The Bible does not primarily aim to present evidence for the existence of God. Rather, from the first verse in Genesis: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” onwards, the various writers assume that God exists and build their teaching upon this. Throughout the Bible it is implied that we are not just being told about God; people are assured that it is possible to relate to God personally. The expressions of faith in the Psalms especially describe a relationship with God as a source of joy, security and companionship, as well as a guide to our conscience and a power to be worried about is we are living wrongly. In a significant passage from the Gospel of John, Jesus is described as praying: "Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent." [Jn.17:3]. The Epistle attributed to John claims that we know God: "I write to you, children, because you know the Father" [1Jn.2:13]. These passages claim that God can be known meaningfully, despite being invisible and intangible. Such knowledge of God is described as a source of joy because we have the opportunity to communicate with God and rely on God’s power always being present.
THE FINDABILITY OF GOD THROUGH JESUS OF NAZARETH
The key Special Revelation of God is considered by Christians to be Jesus Christ himself. If Jesus of Nazareth was divine, as orthodox Trinitarian Christian doctrine claims, those who met him had actually known God manifested in human form [1Jn.1:13]. If this is true, and if the Gospel writings about Jesus are basically reliable, then in exploring the character, activities and teaching of Jesus in the Gospels we may come close to knowing what God is like. I believe that the many claims in John’s Gospel that Jesus has “made God known” were especially emphasised to clarify how Jesus’ revelation went so much further than any other revelation, even the Hebrew Scriptures and Jewish traditions of the time. Verses in the Bible make it clear that God is beyond comprehension, yet many times we are told in the New Testament that we now ‘know’ God through Jesus Christ [Jn.1:18; 15:15; 16:14-15; 17:26; Acts 8:10; Rom.3:21;Eph.1:9; 3:3-10; 1Jn.2:13]. “No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son who is close to the Father’s heart, who has made him known” [Jn.1:18].
It seems amazing that belief in divine aspects of Jesus’ developed so quickly after his death, while the early Church communities were still primarily comprised of Jews. For any Jew committed to monotheism, as was Saul of Tarsus, the idea that Jesus could be God would have been heretical and unthinkable. So it must have taken significant events and experiences to convince them to alter their sincere belief that there could be no God but YHWH and incorporate Jesus into their concept of God. In some elements of the Judaism of the Greco-Roman world there was a special reverence for unique figures like Moses, Enoch, the Messiah, or angels such as Michael, some of whom were given the title ‘sons of God’. Rarely, enigmatic figures were even referred to as associated with a divine title: Yahoel and Melchizedek were designated with the title ‘elohim’; Metatron was called “yahweh hakaton” [cf. L.W. Hurtado ‘How on Earth did Jesus become a God?’ Eerdmans 2005 p.128]. But the Rabbinic lists prohibited any worship of angels or men, and all these figures were regarded in very different ways to the form of devotion that early Jewish Christians developed towards Jesus. They gave worship to him alongside God the Father, while insisting that there was ‘one God’. It used to be assumed by many recent theologians that ideas of Jesus’ divinity and nature as ‘Son of God’ developed from the influence of pagan beliefs in the Greco-Roman world, where humans becoming divine, human heroes assuming divine status or being the sons of gods, apotheoses, and gods manifesting themselves in human form were relatively common concepts. Gentile Christians and Hellenistic Gentile converts to Judaism were thought to have assimilated pagan ideas into their understanding of Jesus’ nature. There may have been tendencies towards such assimilation of ideas and pagan superstitions among some believers. But such was the commitment to monotheism of the New Testament writers and early Church theologians that we cannot attribute the belief that Jesus was the divine Son of God who could be worshipped alongside the Father to this.
The early Christian belief that Jesus was God, and was raised to share the divine throne with the Father, is very different from the ideas of heroic sons of god in other religions. Among many theologians L.W. Hurtado has shown that the development of belief in Jesus’ divinity cannot be primarily attributed to pagan influences. He demonstrated that the belief grew first in Jewish Christian groups, where converts like the committed Pharisee Saul of Tarsus, would have adamantly countered anything that seemed to contradict the concept of a monotheistic God. St. Paul admitted to having had been an assiduous persecutor and destroyer of those who spread heresy [Gal.1:13-14; Phil.3:6; 1Cor.15:9; Acts 8:1-3; 9:1-2]. It must have taken significant events and experiences to build the convictions of Jews like Paul that led him to write of Jesus as God’s Son, Christ (Messiah / Kristos), “Lord” (’Kyrios’). Saul’s conversion is dramatically described in scripture [Acts 9:1-19; 1Cor.15:8-10]. With his Pharisaic background, it is astounding that St. Paul could write between 20 or 30 years of Jesus’ death, that Jesus “was in the form of God”... and shared “equality with God” [Phil.2:6]... and had “the name that is above every name” (probably a reference to the name of God) [Phil.2:9] or that the world could have been created through him “through whom are all things and through whom we exist” [1Cor.8:6]. Such belief was SO heretical for a strict Jew, that Paul must have had strong evidence to convince him.
As well their own spiritual experiences (most of which would not have been anything as dramatic as that of Saul), converts to Christianity would have heard reports of miracles, teachings and events during Jesus’ lifetime and experiences after his death that led eventually to the conviction that Jesus was to be worshipped as “Lord” [2Cor.3:4, 12-18]. Ideas would eventually develop into the concept of a Trinity over the next few centuries – ‘three persons in one God’ as believers sought to rationalise their beliefs and experiences. But if Phil.2:6-11 is quoting a Christian liturgy or hymn, which Paul’s contemporaries would have recognised, it seems clear that by about 30 years after Jesus’ death beliefs in his divinity were already commonly accepted in Christian communities. Certainly by the time that John’s Gospel was written (c80-90CE) the conviction was widespread.
John’s Gospel includes Jesus’ claim: “I and the Father are one” [Jn.10:30]. When Jesus debated with the Jewish authorities over the nature of his authority and whether he would admit to their accusation that he was heretically claiming to be divine, he is reported to have responded cryptically that in what he was doing they were seeing the work of his Father: “If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me, But if I do them, even if you do not believe me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father” [Jn.10:37-38]. The theologian L.W. Hurtado described the traditional orthodox belief in a useful phrase: “Jesus of Nazareth is the personal, human embodiment of the second person of the Trinity” [How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God? Eerdmans 2005, p.1]. For those who find it difficult to believe that Jesus of Nazareth could have been God manifested in human form, perhaps it might help to initially use a phrase like ‘Jesus of Nazareth provided God’s self-revelation through a human life’. Jesus is recorded as saying of himself “No-one knows who the Son is except the Father” [Matt.11:27; Lk.10:22] and “... the Son can do nothing on his own, but only what he sees the Father doing, for whatever the Father does the Son does likewise...” [Jn.5:19]. Jesus seemed to be claiming that he and his Father God were interdependent and worked in coordination, though Jesus maintained that he was subservient to the Father [Jn.14:28]. In Jesus teaching as recorded in John 14 and16, he included the Holy Spirit in this interdependence and unified activity.
The closeness of Jesus to God in revealing God’s ways and nature to us is reiterated by the writer of the First Epistle of John: “God’s love was revealed among us in this way: God sent his only Son into the world so that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the atoning sacrifice for us.” [1Jn.4:9-10]. The concept of Jesus’ death being required by his Father to act as a sacrifice is uncomfortable for some thinking people, who understandably believe that the idea of God sacrificing his Son seems cruel. Many contemporary believers prefer to consider Jesus’ death as an example of love offering itself on behalf of others and demonstrating to us an example of faithful self-giving. Nevertheless, it is clear in several books of the New Testament that Jesus’ death was regarded as a propitiatory sacrifice by the early Church and by the majority of believers over the centuries. Through Jesus’ death God is believed to have revealed not just divine love through the self-giving of Jesus, but God’s desire to restore a way whereby human beings can have the most direct possible relationship with God.
Orthodox Christian belief claims that Jesus Christ was sent so that people might come to know the Father in and through him, and by his teaching and his actions. [John 17:3; I John 5:20, I John 2:13; also Gal. 4:9; Phil 3:10; I John 2:3, 4:8]. He claimed “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No-one comes to the Father except thorough me. If you know me you will know the Father also. From now on you do now him and have seen him... Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say “show us the Father”? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not say on my own: but the Father who dwells in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, but if you do not, believe in the works themselves. Very truly I tell you, the one who believes in me will also do the works that I do, and in fact will do greater works than these because I am going to the Father... I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son....” [Jn.14:6-14]
We should not, however, weaken our concept of the uniqueness and enormity of the power of God as Creator of the cosmos by simply imagining God as the gentle image of a loving, wise, righteous, just man exemplified in Jesus. Our concept of God needs to be far broader than imagining God as a caring, loving ‘Father’, or the intimacy of friendship and advocacy of the Holy Spirit indwelling us. As well as Jesus claiming: I and the Father are one”, he also said: “the Father is greater than I” [Jn.14:28]. This again is a mystery, that there could be a sense of hierarchy with in the Trinity, despite oneness and interdependence, but it emphasises that we should think of God first and foremost as ‘one supreme God’ and the Son and the Spirit as dependent on and obedient to the Father’s will. St. Paul wrote of Jesus “not regarding equality with God as something to be exploited” [Phil.2:6]. Yet he was adamant in emphasising monotheism. ‘There is one God and one Lord, Jesus Christ” [1Cor.8:6; Eph.4:6; 1Tim.2:5]. Paul seems here to be making a clear distinction between the terms “God” and “Lord”. An understanding when St. Paul or the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews were writing, appears to have been that God raised Jesus to high, exalted status [Phil.2:8-9; Rom.1:3-4; Heb.1:3-4; Acts2:29-36]. This concept seems to have developed through interpretations of Ps.110:1: “The Lord said to my lord, come and sit at my right hand...”
If Jesus’ teaching and activity on earth is God’s self-revelation, there are many things that he exemplified and taught, by which we might know God: God is ‘loving’, ‘forgiving’, ‘creative’, ‘just’ and ‘demanding of justice’, ‘righteous’, ‘all-seeing’, ‘all-knowing’, ‘all-understanding’, ‘spirit’, ‘life-giving’. Even if Jesus was just a good, wise man, not, as the Christian Church concluded, the personal, human embodiment of the second person of the Trinity, his teachings about how to live are still the truest, most universal way to live abundantly, lovingly, at peace and righteously in community. So one could say that he was teaching truth. And if we are in the presence of truth and living by truth we can be assured that God is there, involved with us.
For a peasant child of a craftsman’s family, living in an undistinguished area of Palestine, Jesus spoke with prodigious wisdom and developed a deep knowledge of people as well as faith. It is possible that he could have developed in such a way, just as a clever, sensitive young man assimilating learning through the teaching of the local synagogue. However there were many aspects of Jesus’ teaching and actions that went far beyond the normal rabbinical teaching that he would have received. The Gospels refer to people being astonished at the level of his wisdom and biblical and spiritual understanding for a carpenter from Nazareth. The crowds appear to have flocked to him because they recognised a unique charisma within in his words and actions. If there is only a small percentage of truth within the stories of his healings and other miracles, it would still suggest that there was a power in Jesus that was more than in normal human beings. Whatever is the truth of who Jesus was – whether he was human, divine or both, his teachings remain eminently worth following. And if he was divine, he gives us a more intimate way to relate to God than in any other form of religion in the world, and more direct ways to understand and develop a relationship with God. If Jesus was the means by which God ‘self-revealed’ to humanity, that is an important reason for all Christians to seek to develop a working knowledge of the Gospels and find how to apply the knowledge of Jesus Christ’s life and teaching to our daily lives.
FINDING GOD THROUGH TRUST WITHOUT NECESSARILY FEELING GOD’S PRESENCE
Many, perhaps the majority of Christians believe in God and follow Jesus’ teaching without necessarily having the sublime experiences or the physical confirmations of trust with which some biblical characters and a few Christians over time and today have been blessed. Not all Christians have significant physical or spiritual experiences. In practice, unlike St Thomas, the majority of us ‘believe without having seen’ [Jn.20:29].
Christian belief is primarily based on trust that our beliefs are true. In the Bible the words ‘faith’ and ‘trust’ are used almost synonymously. In the Gospel of John they are translations of the same Greek word: ‘pistis’, which can also be translated ‘trustworthy’, ‘faithful’, ‘absolute certainty’, ‘reliability’. By trust we come to believe that God is the true Creator ordering the cosmos. We trust that God has many of the qualities described in scripture and demonstrated by Jesus; we trust that God lives in us by God’s Spirit [Eph. 317; Phil 3:8, 10; Col. 1:27; John 14:23], and so much more. When we trust in these unprovable yet meaningful things we can act with confidence in faith, whether we see them at work or not. This is the sort of trusting faith that is commended in Heb.11, where the writer lists many figures in biblical stories of characters who stepped out into the unknown in faith, discovered God to be true and achieved significant things.
I am certain that it is possible to have found God without feeling any sense that God is present with or in us. I sense from pastoral conversations that this is probably the state and experience of a huge number of believers’ relationships with God. It is possibly also the nature of God’s relationship with many who do not believe or find belief difficult, yet have appealed notionally to God or sought the truth at some time in their lives. “I sought the Lord and he answered me” [Ps.34:4] is not always the experience of those of us who search. If Jesus’ promise is true that if any truthfully seek they will find [Lk.11:9], God must be in some way findable to any who seek authentically. At baptism Christians start a journey towards understanding. Their godparents, family and sponsors and the church community make promises to nurture them in faith. Adult baptism and confirmation candidates should have been mentored in preparation, but they are largely entering upon a relationship where more is unknown about God than is known. This is especially true in child baptism, where, dependent upon age and background, a child may have no knowledge of Christ or faith whatsoever, so the relationship with God may be building on no initial experiences or mental knowledge. The Church baptises in faith that God will carry out the divine part of the covenant promises. But it is largely the role of believers to nurture and train new Christians towards a mature faith. We must admit that in most cases this post-baptism nurture and training is sadly lacking in today’s Church worldwide.
There are several promises in the Bible which assure us that God responds to those who seek and ask:
- “Knock and the door will be opened to you; seek and you shall find...” [Lk.11:9]
- “When you search for me you will find me, if you seek with all your heart.” [Jer.29:13
- “Wherever two or more are gathered in my name, there I am in the midst of them.” [Matt.18:20]
- “Behold I stand at the door and knock, if you hear my voice and open the door I will come in to you...” [Rev.3:20]
- “Those who love me will keep my word and my Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them.” [Jn.14:23]
- You will know the Holy Spirit because he abides with you and will be in you.” [Jn.14:17]
The writer of John’s Gospel claimed of Jesus’ contemporaries: ‘”We beheld his glory” [Jn.1:14] but most believers live in trust that God exists; that what scripture teaches about Jesus is largely true; and that the promises and other teachings offered in the Bible contain truth, without us having yet seen or experienced many or any of them. That is the nature of faith, as claimed by the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews: “Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things as yet unseen.” [Heb.11:1].
It is a tragedy when any enthusiastic but erroneous church teaching implies that all should have some physical or tangible experience of God, since this is evidently not true. Pentecostal preaching has sometimes caused sincere believers to lose faith when they have failed to reach the level of experience that others claim to have and believe or claim that all should have. The agnostic husband of a Christian friend of mine attended several Alpha Courses, sincerely seeking to be able to believe, so that he could share faith with his partner. He prayed repeatedly for a tangible experience of the Holy Spirit which the unwise leaders of the groups insisted he should be having when they prayed over him. When apparently nothing out of the ordinary occurred in response to his repeated, sincere prayers and the prayers of others over him, he concluded that the rest of their teaching must also be hokum. The deep disappointment set back his sincere search for faith. He had truly wanted to believe. Sadly, the tension of the experience gradually built a barrier in what had been a loving relationship with his wife, and the marriage fell apart. This damaged not just the couple, but their two young children and their shared relationship with friends. I regarded this man as very close to God’s heart. I am certain that if the church leadership had been wiser in their teaching and guidance, if they had been more able to support someone with questions and doubts, his relationship could have been saved. He should have been taught honestly that few believers actually have physical proof of spirituality yet can still believe and have God’s Spirit within them. Like the young ruler who came to seek truth from Jesus [Matt.19:16-22], he was very close to the Kingdom of God without knowing it! In living spirituality we are searching for what is true even if our physical senses do not tangibly apprehend that we have found it. Living authentically by Christ’s way, with true spiritual integrity is often sufficiently satisfying.
How then can we be assured that God is with us if we do not have physical proof? Much of the time we need to hold on to the promises of scripture, like those above. We recognise that scripture contains editorial changes, so is not simply ‘the direct word of God’, as some fundamentalists still believe. But all of the Bible can still contain life-enhancing truths. In the Bible’s various books we are dealing with different genres and different ways of describing and expressing faith from a wide spectrum of generations. Some books of the Bible contain legend, poetry, political and religious propaganda and biased opinions, so it cannot be all regarded literally as historic facts that can be corroborated. Yet the whole of scripture contains enough truth to live by and to find a relationship with God within, as long as we interpret it correctly. Faith in scripture is not just based on wishful thinking, outdated traditions and superstitions. The scriptures have stood the test of time and much enlightened critique to show that the bases of faith contained within them are sound for practical living. Jesus’ teaching is still, two thousand years later, “the Way, the Truth and the Life” [Jn.14:6], it can help us towards abundant life and physical, emotional and spiritual fulfilment and abundance [Jn.10:10]. Interpreting and applying the Bible wisely in the circumstances of everyday life can bring us close to understanding about God and the ways to live rightly, The scriptures are ancient literature, with the cultural attitudes that were prevalent at the time of writing, in the culture in which it was written. So many interpretations will inevitably be different today. For scripture to be true it needs to be interpreted with sensitivity to the present context. Understandings of human society and psychology have changed drastically since biblical times. We are better educated, and comprehend more broadly and in more detail, though our knowledge is never complete and is recognised as being provisional. We have different comprehension and attitudes towards gender roles, sexuality, foreigners, other belief systems, cleanliness, food, worship, the sanctity of human life, human rights, etc. So it is inevitable that we need to be careful not to simplistically apply scripture verses directly, out of context, to today’s world. If we are living with love and integrity according to the amount of knowledge that we have, I believe that we will be in the presence of the true God.
The Christian scriptures can never be sufficient in themselves to assure us that we have found God. Other experiences can act as assurances. Sometimes in prayer we sense that we are communicating with a mind that understands and cares for us. This may be wishful-thinking, but I do believe that my prayers, intercessions, thanks and praises are heard. In worship we may sense that we are declaring truths that we believe to be real about the spiritual dimension. In situations where we feel awe, truth and beauty we may sense that we are recognising qualities that God formed in creation.
Key aspects of our experience may assure us that we are living by truth. The fruitfulness of our human lives can enable us to sense that we are living by truth, including whether we are developing the qualities that St. Paul mentions as ‘the fruit of the Spirit’. Our lives growing in ‘love’, ‘joy’, ‘peace’, ‘patience’, ‘kindness’, goodness’, ‘faithfulness’, ‘gentleness’, self-control’ [Gal.5:22-23]. We know that life is hard and a struggle for many: we all struggle at times and are not promised that things will be easier for Christians than for any who do not follow God, though we pray for protection. Yet it is possible to find a peace in difficult situations and to feel that God is with us. Though we may not see or feel God’s presence we may be assured of it by an inner warmth of conviction.
It could and has been argued that psychologically it does not matter whether God is real or not: that it is enough if believing in God is a useful psychological prop for those who have faith. St. Paul considered this issue, and also admitted that if Christ has not been raised from the dead we are most to be pitied, because we are giving our lives for a falsehood. [1Cor.15:14, 19]. However, on the other hand, if the grounds of the Christian faith DO prove to be real, as Paul was convinced, and as I believe, we can only benefit. If faith works to help people, then surely it is useful, whether it is founded on truth or not. Yet this is a sad argument: if it was true, those of us who believe would be reliant on false premises and foundations. I am not ashamed to admit that my belief in God is a ‘prop’, for it a support that works to make my life fulfilling. It is a prop, but I am convinced that my faith is also true. We pray into silence to God when we have needs, or when we intercede for others and for situations beyond our sphere of influence or help. We may not experience answers to those prayers, but it is useful to feel that we are not alone in carrying burdens and concerns. Sharing problems and thoughts can often go a long way towards lightening their pressure on our minds. We are not losing out if we are sharing those concerns and alleviating their pressure upon us. But if we are sharing them with a power that truly has the ability to intervene in the situations that concern us, we have a double advantage.
DOES HUMANITY HAVE AN INNER SENSE OF GOD?
Although there are many forms of belief in the world, many Christian believers have chosen their faith because they believe that Christianity provides the fullest true understanding of God. They also consider Jesus’ teaching as the most authentic way to live with integrity. For centuries Christians have tried to gather evidence to prove the existence of God for evangelistic purposes and to consolidate belief. Although universally convincing empirical evidence is not possible, this does not make belief invalid. Nor, unfortunately, is it proof of the truth of our faith in God.
It has been suggested that all human beings are formed with an inner sense that God exists. Rom. 1:21 and 1:19 seem to affirm this. John Calvin [1509-1564] claimed that a ‘sensus divinitatis’ (‘a sense or awareness of the divine’) was built into all people, giving us an awareness that God exists. René Descartes [1596-1650] claimed that our senses only have meaning if a beneficent God is behind creation. The fact that nearly all societies in human history have developed religious faiths and superstitions does not necessarily confirm the truth of God’s existence, as some claim. Yet as it appears that so many peoples have an inner spiritual drive, it certainly seems possible that we may be intended to gain spiritual fulfilment through a relationship with something beyond ourselves, not just other human beings. As I will discuss later, the gatherer of wise thoughts or ‘Qoheleth’ who compiled the Book of Ecclesiastes described the frustration of having an inner drive to understand God and discover new knowledge, yet never to be able to fully understand [Eccles.3:10-11]. St. Paul claimed that the movement of God’s Spirit within us gives us an assurance of the reality of our faith and that the Holy Spirit in our lives bears witness that we are God’s children [Rom. 8:16]. St. Paul similarly claimed that human beings have an inner sense of right and wrong, ideas of morality and a fear of resultant judgment if we go against such inbuilt ethical drives [Rom. 1:18 -20 and 1:23, 25, 28, 32]. Does this inner sense just derive from socialising with others and develop as a result of sensing responsibility towards the community, or may God have formed such inner senses within us?
Sceptics would deny that there is no proof of God in people having an inner sense of the existence of God or an instinctive drive for spiritual fulfilment [Ps. 14:1, 53:1, 10:3-4]. To counter scepticism, some Christians follow St. Paul’s claim that sin has brought doubt and denial of God’s existence and denial of people’s inner knowledge of God. But that can be too patronising and easy a way to counter criticism. Much in the world religions and popular beliefs has derived from superstition, so it is understandable that thinking people question our beliefs. As a thinking person myself, I often question my beliefs too, and reason through them. I may have had a few experiences that convince me that God exists and that what I have found is true, but I recognise that they could be mostly labelled as subjective. I sense that God is with me and I sense when I have God’s disapproval. (I am as sure as I can be that the latter is not just my conscience at work.) Very occasionally there may be something that I sense confirms God’s presence. But normally, like most Christians in the world, I am living with faith as “the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things unseen.” [Heb.11:1]. That was sufficient for many of the great heroes of the Bible and throughout Church History.
CAN TRADITIONAL ‘PROOFS’ FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD HELP US FIND GOD?
Traditionally several evidences have been given for God’s existence, though these have often been challenged by both Christian and non-Christian thinkers. Such evidences are not necessarily ways to know God, or ways of developing a relationship with God, but if any of them are convincing, they may give someone confidence that the grounds of their faith are not illogical.
In ‘Summa Theologica’ Thomas Aquinas [1225-1274] proposed five arguments as evidence of God’s existence, which might be summarised as:
- Everything must be created by something, ant that thing must exist in reality - an ‘unmoved mover’ behind all things.
- Nothing exists as a result of itself, so all must have a ‘first cause’.
- All reality is dependent on something else more powerful than itself, so there must ultimately be something immutable that is of a higher order and in control of all.
- We recognise that in the world nothing is supremely good, but as creation is itself good and valuable, it must be created by something that is supremely good.
- All life has a purpose so it must be created by something that determines that purpose.
These philosophical arguments were the basis of Church understanding for centuries, but they do not stand up to detailed modern philosophical, logical or scientific scrutiny. However, some of them developed into some of the evidences that are offered today:
1. The cosmological argument – claims that everything in the universe has a cause. Nothing begins to exist without a something causing it to happen. God is claimed to be that cause.
2. The teleological argument – partly related to the cosmological argument, claims that evidence of harmony, order, and complexity of design in the cosmos is evidence of an intelligent mind or purpose behind all, which is attributed to God. [The Greek word ‘telos’ means “end”, “goal”, ‘aim’ or “purpose”]. Plato and Aristotle proposed this argument, as did Thomas Aquinas and William Paley in ‘Natural Theology, or Evidences for the Existence and Attributes of the Deity’ [1802]. David Hume and Chares Darwin questioned the logic of the argument, but I personally find this argument the most convincing of all evidences for God’s existence.
3. The ontological argument – proposed by St. Anselm of Canterbury [c1033-1109]. In his ‘Prosiogion’ / ‘Prosiogium’ [1078] he claimed that there must be something “greater than which nothing can be imagined.” It argues that some such entity or being must exist and claims that God is this being, so must be real. [The stem ont- in “ontological” derived from the Greek word for “being”]. It seems rather contrived reasoning to claim that because the idea of God exists, God must be real, since God is the logical answer to the concept of a being or power beyond all else.
4. The moral argument – claims that human beings have an inbuilt sense of right, wrong, the need for justice and fear of future judgement, which must be instilled in our consciousness by God as our righteous source. It is claimed that we also have, in ourselves, a recognition that we are impotent to help ourselves, and that only something outside ourselves, which is God, can overcome sin and forgive us. Further to this, it claims that only God’s Spirit can open our minds to convince us of the evidence of God’s existence, convict us of our spiritual need and enable us to turn to God and relate to God [2 Cor. 4:4, 1 Cor. 1:21, 1 Cor. 2:5]
5. The argument from beauty – similar to the moral argument, this supposes that our recognition of beauty, goodness and meaningfulness in things shows that we have inbuilt connections to a spiritual dimension that is full of beauty, goodness and meaning. These qualities are in the world, it is claimed, because God is perfect and God’s creation is the result of a universally perfect creative power at work. It has been spoiled by what is bad and sinful, but we still recognise and long for what is perfect. This argument is based in part on Plato’s idea that there is a dimension beyond ours which holds more perfect forms than ours, and towards which we have an inner relationship and a longing to be reunited.
6. The argument from consciousness – suggests that our human minds and awareness or consciousness cannot have been developed simply by accident or by purely physical processes. It is claimed that our consciousness must have been developed by a power beyond our own conscious abilities. i.e. We exist and are aware that we exist as spiritual beings with souls, because the mind of God is involved with our formation.
7. The argument that there is ‘a Rational Warrant for Belief’ – promoted by the philosophers Stephen Toulmin and Joseph Hinman claims that though much religion is based on traditions and myths, many people have significant spiritual and physical life-changing experiences that cannot be denied or merely attributed to mental weaknesses or hallucinations. Faith in God seems to work and be true for believers, so this evidence that spirituality can truly help to transform people’s lives is taken as evidence that a spiritual world and God exists. This, I personally consider to be the second most convincing argument.
8. Other arguments from reason – suggest that there are many indications in the cosmos, in the human mind and in spiritual experiences that point to the truth of God. Inductive reasoning claims that though each piece of evidence on its own might not be sufficient to convince, taken together they build up to be convincing as evidence.
9. More subjective arguments include the idea that credible witnesses throughout history have had personal spiritual experiences, felt that God has communicated with them, had spiritual truths revealed to them, witnessed miracles and particular events that have convinced them of God’s involvement and God’s reality. Being subjective, it could be argued that one person’s feeling that they have had a spiritual experience could be interpreted differently by others, and is not empirical proof that it is true. But the numbers of spiritual experiences that people have in the world are surely not all misinterpretations of events. It seems probable that there is truth behind and within spirituality.
Numerous other evidences are given for the existence of God by theorists, philosophers and theologians, but as I have written earlier, none actually enable us to ‘find’ God. They merely help to develop confidence in the possibilities that faith is true and that belief in God could possibly be reliable. These give a foundation for making the leap of faith to begin to reach out and attempt to relate to God.
THE FINDABILITY OF GOD WITHIN OURSELVES
If Christian theorists and apologists are right in believing that we are formed with an inner need and capacity to relate to God and the spiritual realm, then it should be possible for all to find ways of fulfilling this. A perfect God would not form creatures with the intention of developing relationships with them, and instil in them the capacity and longing to relate spiritually, yet make it impossible to form such a relationship. St. Augustine recognised this when he wrote: “Almighty God, you have made us for yourself and our hearts are restless until they find their rest in you”. [Confessions 1:1:1].
Thomas Aquinas believed that we reach out to the divine when we allow love to develop within us towards God and towards others. Our final union with God, he believed, will be essentially a union of our minds or souls through love with what he called “the First Truth”. He believed that our minds ascend to God through contemplation. Our union with God involves a combination of the human intellect, metaphysics enlightened by revelation and the work of the Holy Spirit within us. Thus, he believed, all aspects of our nature, body, soul/mind and spirit, work together in relating us to God. Based on Jn.17:3, he claimed that to ‘know God’ is the main goal of human life. (This has similarities to the declaration of “Man’s chief aim” in the Protestant Westminster Shorter Confession, which is described as being “to glorify God and enjoy God for ever”. (The phrasing of the Confession reflects 1Cor.10:31; Eccles.12:13 and Ps.73:24-26 as well as the meaning within Jn.17:3.)
For a relationship in which we ‘know’ or understand aspects of God, Aquinas claimed that we need to develop more than simple contemplation of God. Love motivates the human mind to search for and approach God, but Aquinas claimed that our love of God alone is insufficient to bring about our union with God. He regarded curiosity as an essential element of human nature, which encourages us to develop and builds our understanding and broaden our experience in our search to ‘know God’. He encouraged Christians let our curiosity motivate us to actively seek to become closer in our knowledge of God. Contemplation, prayer and worship are valuable elements in this process. But Aquinas insisted that we also need to nourish our minds by intellectual reasoning, diligent searching and thoroughly studying to try to understand God’s truth and recognise where God is at work. While also emphasising the incomprehensibility of God, and that God is the source of all revelation, Aquinas promoted the importance of committed intellectual search to seek to understand as much as can possibly be known of God. Spiritual contemplation, intellectual search and reasoning combine to help believers encounter the mystery of God.
Intellectual reasoning and study cannot usually resolve mysteries. We may not always, if ever, become satisfied with the extent of our relationship with God, since so much about God is mystery and thus incomprehensible to all human minds. The wise compiler of Ecclesiastes claimed that frustration is inevitable due to the limitations of our capabilities. The passage in question is variously translated, but perhaps the clearest translation is: “I have seen all the activity that God has given to human beings. He has made everything meaningful in its time, and has set the search for eternity in the human heart, yet we cannot fathom God from beginning to end.” [Eccles.3:10-11]. The constant search for further and deeper understanding of most things in creation, including spiritual things, has been the source of human progress through millennia in the sciences, arts, social development, technology, philosophy sociology, history, religion and all other areas of enlightenment. Within our human psychology seems to be a drive to search into things we do not sufficiently comprehend and advance our minds and skills. It leads us to think further and explore more deeply many issues that have led to the advance humankind. Yet despite our yearnings to find out truths, in relating to God, God will always remain largely unfathomable in so many ways. Nevertheless we still seem to have an inner urge to search to comprehend more about our God, as part of our aim to advance knowledge, and to fulfil our inner spiritual longings.
Many things other than the limitations of the human mind hinder or get in the way of such spiritual fulfilment:
- Not working at the relationship – either expecting that it will just happen, or not deepening our ways of relating to God, through prayer, study of scripture and other study of truth, contemplation, worship etc.
- Becoming blasé about our faith, arrogant, self-satisfied, emotionally cold, insensitive or closed to further spiritual enlightenment.
- Trying to fill the spiritual gap within us with different alternatives like materialism, other relationships, emotional, physical or spiritual substitutes, dry intellectualism for its own sake, failing to relate to God “in spirit and in truth” [Jn.4:23-24].
- Feelings of personal inadequacy in weakness, unworthiness or inexperience, which prevent us approaching God.
- Shame at personal unworthiness. Recognising sin and guilt can make us ashamed, sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly. This can drive a wedge between us and God through a sense of failure or frustration with ourselves or with spirituality itself. Many feel that they will never overcome their failings, so God would not be interested in them.
- The invisibility of God can make God seem difficult to relate to, especially at times when we are under pressure or encounter problems. We can become discouraged by God’s apparent silence in situations where we have sought help and support, or where we have wanted some tangible outcome or assurances which have not yet occurred.
- Our recognition that we live in such a different dimension from God can make us feel distant or incapable of real communication. However, scripture teaches that God can reach into our dimension and has actively done so throughout history. (This sense of distance from God is one reason why developing an understanding of Jesus of Nazareth as a more tangible revelation of God may help us relate more personally to God. Jesus represents a closer, more intimate way of conceiving of and approaching God, So does the imagery of the Holy Spirit as our advocate, but Jesus taught more intimately that God our Father is approachable. Heb.10:19-20 reminds us that, because of Jesus, we are able to enter the veil into God’s presence with confidence.
- Aquinas encouraged us to study faith to the best of our intellect. Trying to reason our way into understanding God is essential for giving us a reasonable ‘apologetic’ by which we can explain why we believe. But we can take this need to understand too far if we feel that we need to fully understand before we allow ourselves to believe. Sometimes we need to be content to accept some things as mysteries. Over-intellectualisation can be as much of a barrier to living faith as failing to develop our minds and remaining naïve.
- Too much emphasis on studying and developing knowledge can exhaust us and distract us from developing our more personal relationship with God. Ecclesiastes reminds us that “Of the making of books there is no end, and much study wearies the body” [Eccles.12:12]. However, this should never be used as an excuse for not exploring, deepening and maturing our faith through study.
If the idea that we are made “in the image and likeness of God” is true, and not just visual imagery in the legendary language of Genesis, it may be that whatever is common in our two such different natures could be a place of contact between us and God. I have heard several believers talking of the concept of ‘finding the God within ourselves’, but this could be interpreted wrongly. A Christian should not interpret this in a ‘New Age’ transcendental way. Rather the Christian aim is to find how we can faithfully be examples of the true image of God that we are meant to represent and share. We are assured by Christ and St. Paul that God lives in us by the Holy Spirit [Jn.16:13; 1Cor.3:16; 6:19; 2Tim. 1:14]. Genesis 1:26-27 and 9:6 implies that there is part of us that is ‘in God’s likeness’. Despite the arrogance of some people, it is obvious to most of us that we are not ‘gods’ in the conventional use of the term as ‘divine beings”. We fail far too much to “be perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect”. So anything of the divine reflected in us must be less direct than metaphorical.
Jesus did use the term ‘gods’ of human beings when quoting scripture back to the religious leaders who were condemning him for supposedly claiming to be the ‘Son of God’. In Jn.10:33-36 he justified what they were saying of him by pointing to scriptures in which human beings are described in god-like terms: A Psalmist wrote in Ps.8:4-6 says: “What are human beings that you should consider them? Yet you have made them little lower than the ‘heavenly beings’ (or ‘gods’ in some translations) and crowned them with glory and honour. You have given them dominion over the works of your hands; and have put all things under their feet.” An old translation of the Psalm, probably a mistranslation, interprets this to being a prophecy about Christ: “What is man that you are mindful of him, the Son of Man that you should look on him. You have made him little lower than God and crowned him with glory and honour, and have given him dominion over all things.” Although commentators in the past often related this directly to Jesus, in the context of the whole psalm it seems clear that the words are talking about us as human beings in relation to God’s Creation and that this is not reference to the Messiah. In the context of this Psalm the word ‘gods’ (‘elohim’ in Hebrew; ‘theoi’ in the Greek Septuagint translation) seems to mean ‘heavenly beings’ rather that anything like the One God. (‘Elohim’ can also be translated elsewhere as ‘heavenly beings’ or even ‘angels’). The verse seems to be suggesting that we have a high spiritual calling and elevated possibilities as human beings, rather than that we are supernatural or have elements of the divine.
The statement ascribed to God in Genesis 1 relates us to the nature or image of our Creator: “Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness”... So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.” [Gen.1:26-27]. This is a verse in an ancient legendary story, so it may not have as literal a meaning as many believers in the past, as well as some in the present, have interpreted it. We may just be reading a form of picture language or metaphorical imagery suggesting our important place in the spiritual and physical world. It seems to imply that we share some aspect of the characteristics or nature of our creator. We may never know what being ‘in God’s image’ was actually initially intended to mean but I am fascinated by the variety of ways that people of faith through history attempted to define what it might mean for us to be ‘in the image and likeness of God’ [Gen.1:26; 9:6]. Some of the many and varied speculations and guesses at interpretation are listed below:
- A few have related it to the physical: In Renaissance and Baroque paintings of the Trinity, the Father is often represented as a bearded, crowned human monarch. God was also represented in human form in images of the creation of Adam and Eve.
- It has also been suggested that a semi-physical resemblance is to be found in our sharing God’s perfection. The perfections and harmony of our proportions and the beauty of the human body have been interpreted as reflecting the beautiful qualities and perfection of our Creator
- Others explained God’s likeness in us to be our spiritual nature, or that we share spiritual characteristic with God which enable us to communicate with the divine in the spiritual realm.
- Our moral and ethical nature – an internal moral drive in the humans mind to fulfil the law of God.
- Our eternal indestructible soul.
- Origen of Alexandria (c185-254) thought that the image of God is seen in our highest human faculties: The ‘nous’’ (the pure, human mind or complex human soul) was for him the clearest reflection of the divine image. (cf. Origen, Against Celsus VII.66.)
- Augustine of Hippo (354-430) partly recognised God’s image in our natural tendency to draw towards God, as though at some time we were part of him before being separated from him. He was influenced by Platonists who taught that people search for another half of ourselves, from whom we have been separated and with whom we are yearning to reunite. That is partly the interpretation behind Augustine’s famous statement: “Almighty God, you have made us for yourself and our hearts are restless until we find our rest in you”.
- Augustine also believed that that our inner character reflects God. The human soul, he thought, both mirrors and longs to seek for and understand God. He suggested that Christians should contemplate the pure human soul to recognise elements of the image of the Father who we reflect. The Trinity he thought was mirrored in the three parts of our nature: ‘Body’, ‘Soul’ and ‘Spirit’ / ‘mind’, ‘will’ and ‘understanding’ / ‘reason’, ‘intelligence’, and ‘interior spiritual nature’. Augustine believed that our body, soul and spirit complement each other, working together to animate us, just as the Trinity work together and complement each other as a whole.
- Some early Christians taught that human beings were created perfect yet were not created complete. They had to grow and develop to maturity into the likeness that God had created them to reflect. That’s one reason that on certain early carved sarcophagi Adam and Eve are depicted as tiny adults, like children waiting to grow to maturity.
Our understanding of personality has thankfully expanded hugely since the Early Church and St. Augustine, but perhaps Augustine’s instinct was true that we reflect our Creator in our wholeness and complexity. Other theologians through time have continued to speculate, and still do.
The passage in the Genesis legend on which all this speculation about the nature of human beings is based, ascribes these words to God: “Let us create humankind in our image, according to our likeness” [Gen.1:26]. The verse uses two distinct Hebrew words ‘tzelem’ and ‘demus’ translated differently as ‘image’ and ‘likeness’. These Hebrew words, though used in the parallelism of Hebrew poetry and dialectic, are not synonymous, although they both carry the sense of either ‘similarity’ or ‘correspondence’ between God and humankind. ‘Image’ has its roots in the idea of a ‘shadow’-‘tzel’. ‘Likeness’ is derived from ‘domeh’ meaning ‘similar’. Together they imply that we do not physically ‘resemble’ God so much as reflect or mirror God in the way that the ‘shadow’ of a person relates to its original. But exactly in what ways we embody God’s image and likeness are not specified in the Bible. I think that this enigma could be deliberate and useful. We find out how to live, act and think in God-like ways by living. Each of us has to discover how this applies to our lives for ourselves in the light of Scripture, revelation and experience. Being told that we are ‘in the image of God’ gives us a high aim to grow towards, and is a profound guiding principle by which to measure our actions. Jesus’ command: “Be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect” gives us a similar broadly focused aim without precision of interpretation [Matt.5:48].
I personally think that it doesn’t matter that we are not able to understand this mystery of how we reflect God. What truly matters, I believe, is that we should keep in mind Jesus’ teaching that we are meant to resemble and represent our God, in whatever ways may be true, and in whatever ways we are able. This can expand our expectations of ourselves, as God’s mystery expands our conception of God. It gives us aims and ambitions, individually and corporately, to live up to God’s holiness and activity. We are meant to live, work and use our gifts and our stewardship of the earth, keeping true to this high understanding that to be fully human we should live in righteous, perfect, god-like ways.
As reflectors of God’s image, Christians must be careful to ensure that we are humbly emulating the God about whom Jesus taught and who he reflected in his whole life. It is tempting and far too easy for us to create a limited God in our own image, with our own ideas and prejudices, or to become arrogant that we know more than we do. This has led to mistakes throughout Christian history. By our faithfulness to the true ways shown by Christ, we may not reflect God as perfectly as Jesus revealed him, but our Christian lives are intended to show consistently that the God in our lives is real and as available to all others as to us. It is also useful to remember that somehow the image of God may be in all people, whether followers of God or others, so we should treat all with equal dignity and respect. It may be hard to consider that God’s image is still present in people who we regard as acting particularly sinfully. We know that we ourselves sin, but often our intentions remain good. Some seem more intentionally evil. Yet if we can try to love all, as though they contain aspects of the image of God, we will act more consistently according to the model and example represented by Christ.
Jesus called his followers to be faithful to his teachings: “You are my friends if you do what I command you...“I do not call you servants any longer, because the servant does not know what the master is doing, but I have called you friends because I have made known to you everything that I have heard from my Father... You did not choose me, but I chose you... I appointed you to go and bear fruit, fruit that will last.” [Jn.15:14-16] This is not just a description of us being disciples of a teacher, but particularly a way of representing our oneness with our leader, since this passage is preceded with Jesus’ words about us being part of him in the imagery of ‘the Vine’: “Abide in me as I abide in you... abide in me and (let) my words abide in you...” [Jn.15:4, 7]. In his prayer in Gethsemane before his arrest Jesus is recorded as asking for his followers: “As you Father are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us... I in them and you in me, that they may become completely one.” [Jn17:21-23]. We talk of a similar oneness when we use the imagery of the Christian community as the “Body of Christ” [1Cor.12:12-27]. In some ways, therefore, when we are united and working together for good, we may be manifesting God more directly than we see.
We must always be careful to keep a broad holistic concept of the God represented in the whole of scripture in our mind, so that we protect ourselves from making, relying upon, or promoting a God in our own image, or with our own biases. Yet in several ways, God is what we want or need God to be at different times of life or in various situations. At specific times we need God to be loving and caring, forgiving, supporting and affirming in situations of desperation; to be a God of purity, judgement and discernment in times of temptation or when combatting sinful situations; a God of wisdom in times when we need to make significant decisions. A strong God is needed when we feel weak and in need of support, loving and accepting when we feel lonely or deserted; God’s justice is important to remember when we have done wrong, or when others have sinned against us. Because our minds are finite we can only deal with a limited number of issues at one time, so it is inevitable that we may only recognise a narrow perceptive on God in certain situations. We call certain qualities of activities of God to mind in the areas of life to which they apply. It is important to focus on certain aspects of God when we need to recognise God as meeting our needs in that area or the needs of someone who we may be helping, or praying for at any particular moment. Limited perspectives only become unhealthy or unhelpful views of God if we hold onto severely limited ideas of God all the time. Recognising that we live constantly in the presence of God requires us to hold a broad understanding that God is all the qualities, nature and character that are represented in scripture, and probably infinitely more than these.
Even the greatest Christians will probably never adequately represent God, just as we can never fully understand God, and as St. Paul reminds us: “All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” [Rom.3:23]. None of us are ‘perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect’ [Matt.5:48] as Jesus encouraged us to aim to be. We often limp forward, following God as perfectly as we can, and when we have failed, repenting and finding and accepting forgiveness through Christ. Many people carry false images of themselves, either feeling too inadequate and sinful, or less frequently too arrogant and self-assured. Part of our mission as Christians is to help others as well as ourselves to find and be the righteous people that we and they are created to be.
The Christian idea of being the person that God formed you to be, and fulfilling the gifts that you have to the best of your abilities, can be very different from the modern preoccupation with people ‘finding themselves’ and ‘being true to themselves’. Such a humanistic preoccupation could, and often does, become very self-centred. Whether it is manifested in sexual or gender liberation, racial liberation, self-assertion, freedom to behave as you want, liberation of one’s personality or even attaining ‘mindfulness’, such self-preoccupation can sometimes lead to people asserting themselves over-dominantly above others. This does not reflect Christ’s idea of working selflessly, for the good and up-building of others, considering others better than yourself and being a servant to others, loving them with Christ-like ‘agapé’ (‘selfless, outgoing love’). Too often over recent years, individuals and groups have started over-asserting their rights and dominate others rather than working for equality, equity and the advancement of all. (Sadly, too often we experience unrighteous self-centredness and self-promotion among church members and leaders as well as in secular society.) It is right to rebalance the bias of the status quo that has persisted in society and in churches for too long in areas of gender, sexuality, class or financial privilege, disabilities etc. We need to demonstrate that all are equal and all should be treated equitably, but we should not overbalance in the other direction and over-promote minorities or those who in the past have been marginalised or discriminated against. The Bible does not talk about the assertion of our rights; it tries to make us all recognise that we are equal in sharing the love and care of God. We have responsibility towards all others, valuing and responding to all equally. It is wrong for any party to over-assert their distinctions or distinctiveness at the expense of the value of others. This is not even the way that God. as supreme Lord, acts towards subjects.
Being content within ourselves or our situations and not standing on our rights is another quality in which we can reflect God. Regularly throughout the Hebrew Scriptures God promised to justly deal with those who sinned or fell short of his precepts and requirements. But almost as frequently God did not stand on divine rights and is described as forgiving and reuniting with those who have failed, not insisting on divine prerogative. Jesus reflected this image: “Let the same mind be in you as was in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.” [Phil.2:5-8].
Sadly self-assertion rather than Christ-like humility occurs too much in Church circles. In my former diocese I encountered a number of leaders in the diocesan hierarchy who arrogantly insisted on putting themselves and their rights at the forefront and put down or disregarded others. Many Christians initially come to God because they recognise their inadequacy and their need of God. But when, through their faith in God, their confidence in themselves or their growing position of influence in church, some start to ‘lord-it’ over others. Some become arrogant, over-assured that their faith is strong and their doctrinal beliefs are ‘sound’ (our faith is NEVER strong or complete enough). Christians should never feel themselves to be of supreme importance in their church community. Jesus was totally against hierarchic arrogance: Think of his teaching about the value of the little child [Matt.18:4; 19:14], the way he deflated the ambitions of the twin disciples who wanted to reign on his right and left [Matt.20:20-27; Mk.10:35-45], and his ‘woes’ to the Pharisees [Matt.23:13-35]. Or model of humility in our relationship with God should follow the model of Christ: “who did not take equality with God as something to be exploited”...”emptied himself, taking the form of a servant”... “humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death.” [Phil.2:6-8]. How many religious leaders in the Church today do we see reflecting God in their personalities and actions, with that extent of humility? Perhaps that is why it is increasingly hard to find God through some churches and religious institutions. Humble recognition of one’s own weaknesses, as well as valuing one’s position with gratitude, is part of developing our relationship with God.
When Jesus taught: “Those would lose their life for my sake will gain it” [Matt.10:39; 16:26; Mk.8:5-36; Lk.9:24-5] he seems to have been encouraging us to find God’s priorities and follow them more than our own. He was not encouraging us to become martyrs... A BIG mistake throughout Church-history has been people’s neglect of themselves. Jesus said: “I have come that they may have life in all its abundance” [Jn.10:10]. Abundant life is NOT an over-full life or ministry, over-neglectful of one’s self, one’s health, one’s rest and one’s responsibilities to family and others. A true Christian work ethic gives time to find God in our lives while making time for self, family, other people, rest, relaxation and enjoyment as well as developing our relationship with God and being involved in God’s mission. Too many people today, even Christians, over-work or are not wise stewards of their time, lives and families. An abundant Christian life, in which we find God, is not one that is focused abnormally on work, ministry or Church. We will not enjoy God if neglect the other pleasures that are given to us to fulfil life. Perhaps recognising beauty, enjoyment, entertainment and socialising with others are areas where we might find glimpses of God in others and in the environment. Jesus made time for social relationships: the marriage at Cana [Jn.2:1], close friendship with the family of Lazarus [Jn.11; 12:1-2], feasting with a leader of the Pharisees [Lk.7:36-37; 11:37]. He was criticised for being a friend of tax-collectors and sinners, feasting and drinking with them [Matt.11:19; Mk.2:16; Lk.7:34], but that was how his ministry of love and the offering of forgiveness worked and where he fulfilled his mission. His interaction with others persuaded them that in him really was “the Way, the Truth, and the Life” [Jn.14:6]. He wasn’t ramming sinfulness down people’s throats all the time; he was showing the way of living righteously and abundantly in relationship with people and with God. The energy and direction for living our lives to the full needs to come through being connected effectively to our spiritual source, actively connected to our place in God, as an electrical device needs to be connected to its source of energy. In all these things it is possible to find God.
We are frequently drawn closer to God and find God when we turn for divine support or guidance in times of struggle and need. Jesus claimed that ‘the road is hard that leads to life” [Matt.7:14]. Christ did not promise that life for his followers would be easy, and neither did he promise that knowing God would come easily. Too often some Christians think or are badly taught that our lives should be continually blessed, and perhaps that we should have a permanent sense that God is close to us in all situations. Jesus claimed that “If any want to become my followers they should deny themselves, take up their cross and follow me. For those who find their life will lose it and those who lose their life for my sake will find it. For what will it profit them if they gain the whole world but forfeit their life? Or what will they give in return for their life...” [Jn.16:24-26]. Finding and knowing God amid the struggles of many human lives, and following and trusting Christ authentically may always be challenging and a struggle for many. Aquinas’ teaching of the importance of seeking, searching and studying to develop our knowledge and relationship with God is key to developing stability that can help particularly when troubles rise. In certain circumstances God may seem far away and only our previous experiences or working though why we believe that God is with us, may assure us that God is nearer than we perceive at the present time. But to gain that security, we often need to have worked at our relationship, as we need to work at human relationships that are struggling in hard times.
It is important to find the forms of communication with God that most suit our individual personalities or those of the church communities of which we are a part. Christians need to find what will help to satisfy and nourish their spiritual needs in us at different stages in our development. No one method of prayer suits all, and most of us will use a combination of different forms of prayer, study and worship. Meditation, contemplation, prayerful study, Lectio Divina, regular intercession for others, corporate prayer and worship, liturgical and extemporary prayer, etc. are all available to draw upon. Often we neglect simply sitting in God’s presence and listening for God’s prompting in silence which may be where we most intimately commune with the God within ourselves. I was shocked when listening to a relatively well-known Evangelical preacher teaching about communication with God recently. He concluded his rambling talk by asking his congregation to spend time with him in silence, listening to what God might be saying to them. Yet he paused for a maximum of five seconds, then immediately went on to address God in a long, declamatory prayer, asking God to speak to them all, but leaving no time for silence or divine communication at all. It reminded me that too often we primarily want God to agree to what we want, rather than ourselves trying to comply with what God might want.
True ‘Christian meditation’ relies on God’s Spirit’s guidance. Sitting in silence may appear passive, but it is actually an active way of focusing our minds in silent thought. This differs from the eastern practice of meditation in which people often seek to empty their minds rather than focus them on God. The life of Christian prayer is rarely passive. Meditation strengthens us by a combination of thinking, reasoning, waiting and listening to perceive what truth may come to mind. ‘Hearing God’s voice’ is a phrase often found in scripture and used by Christians who believe they have received guidance. But this is rarely a physical sound; more often we sense that something is true, or an idea appears in our thoughts that we might not have been considering previously. Sometimes a verse of scripture or line from a hymn or liturgy might come to mind that speaks into our situation. This might just be a feeling or intuition, but who is to say that intuition might not be guided by an exterior force? We should always test such apparent insights by what we already know, particularly by whether they conform to the sort of ideas that were taught by Christ. It is very easy to be led down unhelpful or even heretical paths by stray ideas, and Christian history is littered with the victims of mistakes. Meditation and study encourage us to think-through the true meanings, implications and instructions of scripture and consider their application thoroughly, to be able to put them into practice in our daily life and enhance God’s Kingdom. In all righteous activities truths about God and God’s presence may be glimpsed, especially as we are dependent on the Holy Spirit to guide us.
God’s Spirit came at Pentecost and lives within us. In some cases we do not have to wait for God’s infilling or in many cases, for God’s specific instructions. Often enough about God and enough about the requirements from Christians have been revealed already, sufficient to know who we are serving and glean insights into what we should be doing. But we do need to listen more intently than many contemporary Christians often do, to find what the God within us might be saying in particular situations. I have attended many Church committee meetings which start with a short prayer for God’s guidance then undertake business with little regard to God, ending the meeting with a prayer asking God to rubber-stamp and bless ready-made decisions.
Evangelical and Charismatic leaders particularly are often very good at saying “God told me or us this... God has revealed that we should go in this direction”... sometimes without actually spending more than a few moments listening to God in thoughtful and extensive prayer. Many Christians automatically believe that their own ideas must be God’s ideas. Many of the great people of prayer in the Bible and in Church history spent long periods in prayer and wrestled to be sure of their ways forward. Surely it should be similar for us, who are not anywhere near being as great as them. We need the Spirit’s wisdom to work effectively for God in this complex and often difficult world. I am sure that we all need to strengthen much further our reliance upon the God living within us, who can help to direct us. We might find our ministry to be more practical and effective if we wait sincerely and patiently for guidance, listening and thinking with minds open to God’s direction.
THE FINDABILITY OF GOD THROUGH FELLOW CHRISTIANS AND FELLOW HUMAN BEINGS
If we are living in accord with what scripture teaches are the ways of God, we are more likely to feel close to God. We are not on our own in our search for God; we are meant to find and share our relationship with God corporately. Christians automatically belong to the community of all believers living and dead (the ‘Church Militant’ and the ‘Church Triumphant’). The experiences of others can encourage us, ignite our own spiritual thoughts and support us. All members of the Church as the ‘Body of Christ’ are meant to be working together to help both its members and those outside to find and develop their relationship with God. Too often church members, even evangelistic ones, are content with church services and devotional practices that merely satisfy their own spiritual needs rather than encouraging, witnessing and supporting others. I have frequently asked congregations to share about their spiritual experiences and challenges and encourage one another in faith during after-service coffee. Most often I then arrive from the vestry to find all discussing media entertainment, the weather, local gossip and useful things like family problems and ill-health. Seldom will church-members share what is happening in their spiritual lives. Are we afraid of opening up our spiritual selves to others, afraid perhaps that our faith might be seen as not spiritually mature enough or that weaknesses in our spiritual lives may be shown up? That shouldn’t matter: if we are honest with one another we can encourage each other in growth. One of the functions of being part of Christ’s body is to encourage and stir up one another and build up each other in faith and Christian action [1Thess.5:11-15].
The writer of the First Epistle of John implies that we will know God if we live lives of love and grow together in love: “Beloved, let us love one another, because love is from God; everyone who loves God is born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love, does not know God, for God is love... No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God lives in us, and his love is perfected in us.” [1Jn.4:7-8, 12]. It is certainly more holistic to develop a relationship with God through belonging to a Christian community where we worship and learn about faith together. However, it is also my experience that dishonest or insensitive members of the Christian community can damage the spiritual development of others. The selfless, out-giving ‘agapé’ love that Jesus taught and exemplified is what supports, nourishes and helps the whole community grow physically and spiritually. Self-centred Christianity just builds up the ego of individuals, and is not following Jesus’ teaching: in fact, it is not true ‘Christianity’.
I have heard many people say that they ‘see God’ in certain good people. Quaker friends have spoken particularly of the idea that they seek to find God through others. An aim of any community of Christians should certainly be to live in such ways that we exemplify the qualities of perfection that are expected of those who follow God’s ways. Christian churches should be microcosms of the Kingdom of God, modelling the perfect way of life to the world. Would that we were! By helping others and sharing truths that we have found in faith we can be messengers of spiritual truth to others. There have been many good people in various periods of my life, who I recognise as having brought help, hope and love, and communicated spiritual truth to me. Scripture describes prophets and ‘angels’ as ‘messengers of God’ (‘angelos’ literally means ‘messenger’). Most of my supportive friends had enough humility and human failings to assure me that they were not heavenly ‘angels’. But they reached out with the care, truths and loving, practical actions that made me sense that they had been sent into my life. They still seem to have been messengers of God. In many respects, when a Christian community is working together properly, as the Body of Christ described in 1Cor.12, we can be God’s messengers to one another, and they may find aspects of God communicating to them through us.
Occasionally I wonder if, in humble ways, we can sometimes ‘be as God’ to another person in their times of need, when circumstances leave them feeling that God is either distant or not with them at all. I have often found myself carrying faith’ for particular people when they feel that they have lost their faith, or cannot believe. When people are in particularly difficult situations, in which they feel they have lost hope and have no sense that faith in God could be true, I sincerely believe that Christian friends can carry faith in God for them, cocooning them in the love of God through their time of vulnerability. It may seem a strange concept to believers who emphasise the need for having a ‘personal faith’. For a satisfying spiritual life it is important for all of us to develop our personal faith. But in some people’s lives there may be many times when God’s love and care seem distant. In loneliness, depression, grief, confusion, serious illness, mental or physical trauma, etc. it is often very hard to develop positive emotions, feel hope, believe that we are valuable and are valued, or believe that a divine power could love or be caring for us. At such times the love, care, friendship and faithful support of another can be the firm anchor that keeps us from being swept away by despair. I know from my own experience that in some circumstances Christian friends desert you because they misinterpret or cannot understand or cope with the situation. Think of the mess that Job’s religious friends made in trying to help him, by their dire misinterpretations of the spiritual situation! Sometimes the struggles of those one supports may even make one doubt the sustainability of one’s own faith. But supporting people by offering continued friendship is essential, even if we feel inadequate to do so, and do not have answers to their predicament Through God’s common grace, supporters do not necessarily need to be Christians. I have found by experience that some who I believed to be close Christian friends proved far less adequate during hard times of greatest need than some without Christian faith, or who found faith difficult yet who kept me alive and gave most sustained support. I think particularly of a local builder who recognised that I had been seriously ill and regularly phoned or sent messages asking if there was anything I needed or any way in which he could help. During that time not one church friend, nor church minister nor the bishop responsible for my ministry bothered to make any contact whatsoever. If our supporters do have faith, I believe that we can hold onto faith for the one we are supporting. To use a simile for this, carrying faith for another person can be like giving artificial respiration and breathing the kiss of life or into someone who has stopped breathing. We use our own breath to sustain them when their own body is temporarily unable to breathe.
I have personal experience of this. At the lowest point depression and loneliness in my life, when I felt abandoned by the Christian friends who I held most dear, a beautiful Christian couple took me into their home and nurtured me back to spiritual health. I had not lost my faith; I was clinging onto God for survival at the time. But this couple’s love and faith helped set me back on my feet physically and emotionally. They gave me security and I felt spiritually part of their family. I know that they continued to pray for me daily for decades afterwards and I still feel a really deep spiritual connection to with them, even though our lives moved in different directions years ago. I feel far more than a sense of gratitude to them; I feel part of them. Their faithfulness in prayer, united with faithfulness in action was more than an image and reminder of God’s faithfulness to me: I am certain that through their love God was being faithful to me through people who are part of Christ’s body. I sincerely believe, like St. Teresa of Avila, that we can be the hands, feet and eyes by which God loves and cares for others. Even when someone is in trouble or has temporarily lost faith we can faithfully carry faith for them, while waiting and praying for them to regain their trusting relationship with God.
If it is true that human beings are made in the ‘image’ and ‘likeness’ of God, and that aspects of God are perceivable in all that God has created, then we might expect to find glimpses of the qualities of God within the community as within the natural world. Human lives are powerfully damaged by our sin, selfishness and greed, so we often focus on the bad in people and situations more strongly than we recognise the good. The social media tend to concentrate on bad people and events because they are often more sensational. Too frequently we focus on the failings and sins of others far more intensely than we see signs of good within them. But in a society that works together well there is much beauty, physically and morally in many people and in the ways that they help and respond to others. This often appears at times of crisis like the Covid pandemic, which brought many communities together. Neighbours supported each other during times of lock-down and isolation. There were many instances of bad people exploiting the situation, using the world’s vulnerability for fraudulent financial gain and exploiting others. But in more situations people’s care and support of the vulnerable or the lonely was positive. Could this inner goodness be regarded as finding aspects of a good Creator within others as God worked through them? Our conclusion depends partly on the mind-set with which we consider human beings and whether we believe in what Calvin called ‘general grace’ – a quality in all created things that reflect their Creator.
We can sometimes confuse matters if we speak over-romantically or sentimentally about “seeing God in other people.” What we are perceiving may be general grace. Or if the person is particularly good we may be sensing the fruit of the Holy Spirit at work in their lives, such as their ‘love’ , ‘joy’, ‘peace’, ‘patience’, ‘kindness’, ‘goodness’, faithfulness’, ‘gentleness’, ‘self-control’ etc. [Gal.5:22-23]. The workings of God’s power, inspiration and guidance in people can make some shine with these qualities. This is not necessarily divine nature in them; it may simply be their upbringing that makes some people particularly good, sensitive and caring. Yet scripture does imply that we in part share aspects of the image of God. The exact meaning of this has been widely debated, and has many possible variations, as I discussed earlier, and in greater length in another article on my website. Yet if we are actually living by God’s ways, and displaying the fruit of God’s Spirit in our lives, there may be ways through which God’s Spirit is communicating to others through us. Jesus did promise that the Father would work through us as God did through the Son [Jn.14:12, 20-21; 17:21-23].
In Jesus’ prayer for his followers in Jn.17:20-26 he asked that we may be united with each other, but also that we might be united with God as Jesus was himself united to God. He also prayed that as he knew God and had made God known, we might share that love [Jn.17:25-26]. It is not exactly clear what Jesus, or the writer of John’s Gospel, interpreting his teaching about oneness with God, intended this to mean. The words and other promises in 1Jn.4:12, 1Cor.12-13 and other passages seem to suggest that somehow when we are in harmony with one another and with God, something of God is manifested among or within us. Living by the truth we are also claimed to be manifesting something of the Kingdom of God. Many phrases in the Eucharistic liturgy emphasise our participation in the nature and activity of God, particularly when we share together as part of the Body of Christ.
Similar to the place of the Eucharist in the life of the Church, the Tabernacle in the wilderness, placed at the centre of the tribal encampment, was a sign that God was with God’s people and central to their society. The Temple in Jerusalem performed the same function for the Jewish nation as well as the Jews of the diaspora who could look back at the Temple and be sure that God was really present for them. Both the Tent of Meeting and the Temple were physical reminders of God’s presence, God’s availability and God’s ethical and religious requirements of followers. In many ways the presence of the Christian Church today in its parish should perform the same function. Any church building in the midst of the community should be a welcoming reminder that God is available to all. More actively, the Church community and each individual Christian, if we are living by Christ’s ways and active in our missional responsibilities, should be physical reminders of the reality of God and the availability of God to all around. Too often churches tend to appear to those on the outside to be exclusive clubs for certain sorts of people rather than inclusive places of welcome to all, whatever their condition or need. Sometimes individual Christians are too busy with their church activities to be truly reflecting God’s love and care to the world around them.
This is where Helen Oppenheimer’s vision is so appropriate: “We are not trying to pronounce about what God can or cannot be, but about how God can be found in our world… God’s people have the hopeful responsibility of being the presence, the findability of God upon earth…Our diversity should enable God to be found in all areas of life in the world…The word multi-faceted comes to mind… the church may be a prism breaking up the white light of God’s dazzling majesty.”[Helen Oppenheimer, Theology 93:1990 p133-141]
THE FINDABILITY OF GOD THROUGH THE WAYS WE LIVE
Those places in scripture where it is claimed that God has ‘hidden his face’ from people, are most commonly situations where others have disobeyed the righteous ways in which we are intended to be living [e.g. Deut.31:17]. In the early chapters of Isaiah the people and their rulers are called out for disobeying the laws of justice, neglecting care for the needy [Isa.1:23], indulging social inequity and failing in many more ways to fulfil their covenant commitments with God. Many of the details that First Isaiah mentions could be equally relevant to many societies today including modern Britain: Bribery for power and influence among the rich; offering backhanders was common [Isa.1:23]; attempts to corrupt and influence judges [1:26]; worship had become corrupted by superstitions and false ideas from other faiths [2:6]; false international alliances brought dirty money and warfare into the nation [2:7]; leaders dissembled using false rhetoric [2:22]; the poor and needy, widows and orphans were insufficiently supported, foreign visitors within society were despised and unwelcomed. The religious nation made sacrifices and followed the religious rites and festivals assiduously, but these were regarded by God as empty when social injustice is dominant [Isa.1:11-15]: “bringing offerings is futile; incense is an abomination to me. I cannot endure assemblies with iniquity... your appointed festivals... I am weary of hearing them. When you stretch out your hands I will hide my eyes from you; even though you make many prayers, I will not listen, your hands are full of blood.” [Isa.1:13-15]. How relevant this seems to the Church in the contemporary world, which has too often become an institution rather than the caring body of a holy, committed family!
Sometimes political or social leaders use religion and make claims about their own faith to promote themselves or justify their actions. It has to be admitted that false political or religious rhetoric is also found among religious leaders. I was once warned by a wise and experienced clergyman: “Never fully trust your archdeacon or bishop... today they so often see their role as political and administrative positions more than pastoral ones... If they see troubles, they will almost always support the status quo and protect the institution and hierarchy of the Church, rather than necessarily following Christ’s holy ways.” That was a very uncomfortable claim, as it is SO far from what biblical church-leadership should be, but I have experienced it to be true in practice in several situations. That is not to say that corruption and neglect are as rife in the Church as they are in politics and big business, There are no doubt many righteous church-leaders and politicians and business-leaders. But to some the Church institution is less a family or the ‘corporate Body of Christ’ than an institution to protect and maintain, and a business to finance. Positions of business or administrative responsibility often lead people to neglect their greater priorities of righteousness and their responsibilities towards individuals entrusted to their care. In politics, society and the Church, the best ways are to follow the principles of God’s righteous ways. Leaders, like all Christians should act with loving sensitivity, and demonstrate Christ-like responsibility towards the needy, not prioritise self-protection, self-advancement, insist on maintaining their authority and dominate by authoritarian behaviour. Isaiah condemned the arrogance of all types of leadership which neglected responsibilities and overlooked righteousness. One should be able to look at a Christian leader and at the Church and recognise God’s qualities through them. Sadly this is rarely the case.
I must admit that I feel far closer to God at times when I feel that I have been acting rightly than at those times when I am aware that have disobeyed and acted wrongly. A psychologist might say that is just my conscience clicking into motion and has nothing to do with belief in God, but I am not sure. Jesus told us that the Holy Spirit would remind and teach us about what is true and convict us with regard to sin [Jn.16:8-9]. It has been my experience in pastoral situations, that people sense that God is closer to them when they have been living good lives. Others find that God feels closest when they hold onto God’s care in times of need. But as I discussed earlier intensely needy situations may leave some feeling spiritually bereft, sometimes even wondering falsely that God may be punishing them for something that they have done. Although some prophetic writing in the Hebrew Scriptures might suggest that God punishes sin by vengeful retribution, Jesus countered this popular superstition [Lk.13:4].
We may feel aware of God when we recognise that God can be anywhere and in anything that is good and true. Walking in the countryside we may find ourselves in awe of the power and detailed design within nature. Experiencing illness, the healing of the human body, the complications of operations and medicine may cause us to recognise the complexity, intricacy and interconnectedness within our design. Working actively may make us aware of the interconnectedness of human beings and how people’s physical or mental gifts work together to support and develop society as God intended the Christian community to work together as a body. [1Cor.12:12-31].
In daily life we may often be too absorbed in what we are doing to recognise the presence or activity of God within it. In fact, if any of us thought we should be praising or praying to God every moment of the day, as some Christian teaching suggests, we would probably be distracted and make mistakes in our work, or be seriously inefficient. When Thomas Merton talked of “realizing God in all things” [Thomas Merton Hidden Ground of Love p.63-64], I think he was implying that we live with an inner awareness that we are living in the presence and power of God, not that we recognise God in everything we do and everywhere we go.
THE FINDABILITY OF GOD IN WORSHIP, THANKSGIVING AND PRAISE
Although we live constantly in God’s presence, there are certain points in the daily and weekly life of the believer where we specifically focus our thoughts on God. We do so in times of personal private prayer, perhaps also at times of rest, when we just sit, lie down, or just ‘be’. On top of our study of our faith, the most focused time of concentrating on God and the meaning of our faith is often during times of worship, praise, thanksgiving and petition, particularly when we concentrate on the meaning of the words we say or which are read in liturgy and during corporate prayer.
Relationships between human beings usually develop by meeting someone, getting to know things about them, experiencing being with them, watching and listening to them, developing appreciation of them, perhaps developing love for them, then expressing your appreciation of them. Developing a relationship with God goes through similar processes. When new believers become involved in a Christian Church, we often expect them to immediately be able to express appreciation of God in praise and worship of aspects of God that they and perhaps we ourselves, have not yet experienced. Newcomers may be asked to worship God before they feel they have actually met God or learned to trust and appreciate the qualities for which they are expected to praise and thank God. I sometimes wonder if by doing this we are encouraging worship that is truly “in spirit and in truth”, which is the type of worship Jesus wanted to bring and promised would develop [Jn.4:23-24].
Christian churches have been relatively good at giving people materials to use in worship: liturgies with words that are meaningful doctrinally, music with words that express the grounds for our faith, prayers that enable us to focus our thoughts on expressing faith, need, gratitude and praise. The content of some Christian songs, preaching or liturgy is not always as meaningful as God deserves. Many trite modern songs and shallow liturgies are not as carefully thought through and expressed as some more traditional liturgies were. Some Victorian hymnody was also dire sentimentally and several old liturgies need updating though not watering-down in theological meaning. It is possible to overcome and surpass weaknesses, to form truly meaningful modern liturgies that are not saccharine of simplistic. Two of our priorities in designing and encouraging worship are to be spiritually true and help people grow in their beliefs through what we say and sing.
Some churches are good stewards in the ways that they catechise believers, so that they are firmer in understanding for what they are worshipping God. But not all do this. I sometimes wonder whether the simplistic teaching given by some ministers is not laziness in the preparation of sermons, but a deliberate intention to keep their congregation knowing less about God than themselves. This was certainly the case in the mediaeval pre-Reformation Church, which did not want believers to have Bibles in their own language, and kept many in subservience to the Church by ignorant superstitions. Some other churches are very prescriptive about what worshippers should believe. Considering what I have written earlier about the infinite nature of God and the enormity of the qualities ascribed to God, it is sad that many church-goers have been given limited teaching about God, while other churches or traditions put over-narrow confines around the sort of God that they promote. The restrictive lives of some strict Presbyterians make their concept of God seem dour, negative, judgemental and condemnatory of human beings enjoying the life and developed gifts with which humanity has been nourished and enlivened. From the enormous tome of the Roman Catholic Catechism and volumes of Protestant Systematic Theology to the expectations of belief promoted by the Evangelical Alpha Course, and a plethora of Bible study material of various qualities, church members are encouraged to believe certain things, then praise and worship God for them. But these too can limit our understanding of God to one way of thinking.
In some churches it can sometimes seem as though you are not a sufficient Christian unless you believe in and comply with every detail of your particular church’s restrictive doctrines and catechisms. Your resulting responses may not feel like authentic worship if you feel guilty that you do not feel or believe certain things that you are expected to say or sing in liturgy. Yet there are details in most of these systematic teachings that may be difficult for some to accept. Examples may be found in certain comments about sexuality and family life in the Catholic Catechism: some uncomfortable old phrases have been reintroduced into recent Roman Catholic liturgies that are very awkward to say with conviction. (Recently on consecutive Sundays I was privileged to attend baptisms in a Roman Catholic church, an Anglican church and a Methodist chapel. Each were presided over by sincere ministers and the children being baptised in each case were from committed Christian families, but some of the phrases in the new Catholic baptism liturgy especially made me cringe and the Anglican rite seemed coldly recited by rote. The Methodist liturgy was as challenging as the others in its theological content and in its call to sincere, righteous discipleship, expecting Christian training and church commitment, but it seemed more meaningful than either of the others because its phraseology was less forced and felt closer to contemporary theological understanding.)
Sometimes the language of faith that convinced ancient, mediaeval and pre-Enlightenment believers of the nature and expectations of God, is insufficient for contemporary understanding, or can seem uncomfortable or even cruel today. The emphasis on penal substitution or simplistic descriptions of the sacrificial aspect of Christ’s death being expiatory and a ransom for sin in Evangelical Protestant theology, Eucharistic liturgies or depicted in graphic detail in Mel Gibson’s film ‘The Passion of the Christ’, is questioned by some eminent theologians today. It is not surprising that some believers find such teaching uncomfortable, when we stress the love of God yet cannot sufficiently explain how it squares with the horrific torture of Jesus. We need to explain more carefully how love can be expressed in self-giving, rather than using words that imply that God could be cruel and vindictive, when Jesus taught that his Father is perfect.
Another misinterpretation of God is given where church teaching is over-rigid or prescriptive in the ways its members expect the Holy Spirit to work in people’s lives. Some Alpha-course and Pentecostal teaching and praise can be dangerous if all members of congregations are expected to speak or sing in tongues and have Pentecostal experiences. That is definitely against St. Paul’s teaching about the Spirit [1Cor.12:30; 14:1-19] and not the way of the Spirit introduced by Jesus in chapters 14 and 16 of John’s Gospel. I described earlier how a true seeker of faith became alienated from faith by a church’s over-prescriptive false teaching about the working of the Holy Spirit.
Some Christians, who find difficulties in believing e particular things or may not have had the same experiences as some others, may find it hard to use the words of certain songs or liturgical words. I personally find it uncomfortable to sing the phrase “till on the cross as Jesus died the wrath of God was satisfied”, as I regard Jesus’ self-giving as more of an act of love - both his own and his Father love - rather than expiating God’s wrath. In all other verses I find the song inspiring, and use it in worship, but I believe the phrase in the song encourages a mistaken interpretation of the theology of the atonement. I always replace the word ‘wrath’ with ‘love’ when I sing it, though I know that the writer of the song has insisted on his original wording. “On the cross as Jesus died, the love of God was satisfied” seems far truer to a holistic understanding of Christ’s self-giving.
Others find difficulties in calling God ‘Father’ or imagining God as male; I certainly try to avoid the term ‘he’ as much as possible when devising liturgies or preaching about God. We should not make people feel that they have to say things in worship that they find difficult or are uncomfortable with saying. For example, when I attend Roman Catholic or some High Church Anglican services, I find I cannot say the ‘Hail Mary’ prayer or intercession through the saints, even though I have a very meaningful understanding of the value of Mary in the Christian story and am in awe at the examples that many saints have given us. When I am worshipping, I can imagine myself among the company of saints, living and dead (the Church Militant and the Church Triumphant). But I personally feel that we are given the privilege of praying directly in God’s presence (‘before the throne of God’, to use traditional biblical metaphorical imagery).
The imagery of Christ as High Priest in Hebrews chapters 5, 7 and 8, and as both sacrifice and the one offering the sacrifice in Hebrews chapters 9 and 10 calls us to rely on his priestly activities on our behalf. We are intended to feel that we are able to approach God with confidence as well as appropriate awe. We are part of ‘the priesthood of all believers’, and do not necessarily need any mediators except Christ and the Holy Spirit. I would not, however, have the arrogance to claim that those who ask the saints to intercede for them are wrong, because we recognise that believers who have gone before us are still alive in another dimension, are part of our family and probably care about us. If there is an awareness among our friends and family in heaven of what is going on among people on earth, perhaps they do interceded for us. But surely in the dimension of God’s Kingdom, they have better things to do that watch out for us all the time, when they know that the Trinity are in charge.
If we are trying to help people worship God “in spirit and in truth” we need to help them worship and praise God for what they truly believe. Yet at the same time as we want to encourage corporate worship, we know that those in our congregations have different levels of experience and understanding and are of different ages in faith. So the content of our liturgies needs to be able to nourish the whole spectrum of those who are mature in faith to those who are new or just learning belief. We should avoid the individualism of thought, which in certain cases has led individuals and groups into heresies and false worship. Our Creeds and basic statements of belief liturgies need to be as clear as they can be. We should take into account a recognition that many of the tenets of the Christian faith have mysterious elements with are inexplicable and may be interpreted in different ways. The great quality of the Nicene Creed is that its statement of faith is clear but general, leaving the imagination to flesh it out. For example, it maintains that Jesus is God’s Son and that he gave his life for us, but does not try to explain what this means, Many traditional liturgies contain teaching about the tenets of the Christian faith in similar general phraseology, without attempting to interpret them too specifically. One aim in devising corporate worship, is to engage all and allow them to focus their own particular understanding of spiritually significant aspects of faith in worship and praise of God
In some ways we may be able to find God through praise and worship by expressing ideas about the nature of God that we have not yet experienced. We certainly will all find ourselves worshipping and praising God for things that we cannot hope to understand fully. In a church service, we hope that a newly committed Christian may encounter a wide range of theological details and beliefs. The richness of meaning in the content of liturgy is one way by which we learn what we believe. This one reason why we need to be so careful to be theologically nourishing and inclusive in the liturgical content and all the words and music that we use. We are designing liturgies that intend to help to teach people and develop a growing faith that will sustain them and help them to hold onto the God who they have found, amid the challenges of daily life.
We may find ourselves saying or listening to words and ideas in liturgy and teaching in a service that are new or challenging, or which open us up to new perspectives of understanding, and thus we develop to believe these things progressively. Similarly we sing so often that God loves us, sometimes well before many of us feel the sensation that we are loved by God. By believing that “God loved the world so much that God gave God’s only begotten Son Jesus Christ, so that whoever believe in him should not perish but have everlasting life” [Jn.3:16] we are already recognising that God loves humanity and loves us by extension. As in everything we do with faith, we need to accept that our understanding of God’s love, our experience of God and our feelings of trust can never be as complete as we might like them to be.
By meditating on Jesus’ death in the Eucharistic liturgy and by taking the Communion elements we are involving ourselves in whatever truth is within the Eucharistic meal and our union with Christ, as well as remembering, with our admittedly limited comprehension, the reasons and meanings behind his self-giving. So, as with other mysteries of faith, although we may not fully understand or yet be certain that we believe in certain things for which our liturgies and hymns praise God, we are in effect truthfully worshipping in the sense that “faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things unseen.” [Heb.11:1].
Jesus said to the Samaritan woman at the well: “You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know... The hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshippers will worship the Father is Spirit and in Truth. For the Father seeks such as these to worship him. God is spirit and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” [Jn.4:22-24]. He certainly believed that his followers would be led to know enough about God and have sufficient insight into God’s mysteries to be equipped for truthful worship. For this it is important to concentrate on the content of liturgies and sermons, not just let it wash over us, and study to develop our faith, so that we worship with meaning and truth, as well as allowing God’s Spirit inside us to guide, inspire and strengthen us in worship.
Worship does not always come easily, nor should it be something that we do half-heartedly. The Eucharistic liturgy calls worship, among other things a “sacrifice of praise”. St. Paul encouraged us to give ourselves wholeheartedly and humbly in praise, This included living our lives to God’s glory: “I appeal to you therefore, brothers and sisters, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship (or ‘reasonable service’). Do not be conformed to the world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds, so that you may discern what is the will of God – what is good and acceptable and perfect.” [Rom.12:1-2]
In finding the God who we worship, it is also important to try to recognise who we ourselves are in worshipping before God. Christians have a high calling. Although there is a lot of correct emphasis in scripture about being humble before God, scripture also calls believers ‘priests’, which demonstrates the importance of our role and function. Worship is not just the calling of an ordained priest. God’s people are ‘the priesthood of all believers’, intended to represent God before the world, and be able to approach God with the humble yet bold assurance that we are called to serve before God. The whole community of God’s people were intended to fulfil this calling: “You shall be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation, serving your God.’ [Ex.19:6; (Deut.14:21; 26:19); Rev.1:6; 5:10]. This role was then expanded to include all members of Christ’s Church: “You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people, in order that you may proclaim the mighty acts of him who has called you out of darkness into his marvellous light.” [1Pet.2:5, 9]. “Therefore, my friends, since we have confidence to enter the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain (that is, through his flesh), and since we have a great high-priest over the house of God, let us approach with a true heart and full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold fast to the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who is promised is faithful.” [Heb.10:19-22]. The writer of the epistle is using the imagery of priests purifying themselves before worship, then entering the presence of God with awe yet boldness, because they have been called to serve in worship. This now is the high calling of all Christians when we worship or intercede. If we keep this in mind, we are more likely to recognise the majesty and awe-inspiring aspects of God and respond with appropriate humility and responsibility.
The Hebrew prophets regularly criticised their contemporaries for hypocrisy and failings to fulfil the requirements of their religion. Some claimed that sacrifices and Temple worship were worthless when the priests’ and worshippers’ behaviour did not match the faith that they professed. Malachi especially stressed that even the most elaborate and generous sacrifices were futile if the priests’ and the people’s hearts and souls weren’t in them. Jesus attempted to reform the religious institutions and practices of his day by demonstrating that what was of primary importance in religion was not the sacrifices, paying Temple taxes, keeping the letter of religious Laws, or even elaborate liturgical practices, beautiful words and music. Far more than that was a truthful, obedient and righteous relationship with God and an approach to God that was “in Spirit and in Truth” [Jn.4:23]. A prophet speaking into the situations in our churches today might give a very similar message, criticising how far our practices are from God’s intentions. If we are worshipping wrongly, mistakenly or not ‘in Spirit and in Truth’, our image of God must also be in some ways incorrect.
When Jesus said ‘Tear down this Temple and I will rebuild it in three days” [Matt.26:21; 27:40; Mk.14:58; 15:29] I don’t think that he may have been just prophesying about his bodily resurrection, as has been the main interpretation of this incident since the Gospels were written. Jesus could also have been encouraging the Temple practices and the authoritarian religious leaders to lose the idea that they should dominate society in wrong ways. God should always be the main focus, not a religious leader, be they Pope, archbishop, bishop, archdeacon, parish priest, elder, famous evangelist, preacher, healer, worship-leader, choir-member, religious artist, musician or any member of a congregation. It is easy for those leading worship to forget that they are humbly coming before the greatness of God to help the congregation find their place in God, rather than the presider feeling that they themselves are a central focus. A dominant leader, famed preacher, or elaborately mannered presiding minister or musician can draw worshippers’ attention away from the main emphasis of divine worship, which should always be on God, the Holy Trinity. All our worship, prayer, lives, ministries and actions are intended to bring people individually and corporately into the more intimate relationship with God as caring ‘Father’ and awe-inspiring power. A major role of the Church is to allow its members to worship God freely and to develop in their relationship with God, not to subjugate any the way that Hebrew religion had developed to do during Jesus’ time. It is part of the role of all priests to enable all in the priesthood of all believers to fulfil their priestly callings in worship, ministry and mission.
There are many different ways to focus worship and to find God in that worship. Like prayer we need to find the combinations of different forms of worship that nourish us and enable our communication with God to be ‘in Spirit and in Truth’. They include adoration, penitence and confession, a sense of humble obligation, dependency on God, praise, thanksgiving, silent recognition of God’s presence and actively working for God. The ways we worship change according to our character or circumstances, but worship should never be primarily about our feelings towards God, or what we get out of it, it is about what we do for God. Liturgy literally means “the work of the people”. As well as personally worshiping, we worship on behalf of the community in which we live, recognising our unity with other believers, but also being responsible to bring our world and lift our community in prayer before God, recognising that all are included in God’s provision. We are meant to be longing for, praying and working towards the establishment of God’s Kingdom. I sometimes wonder how many of our church-goers are committed to this.
Approaching God in a spirit of praise and thanksgiving can make worship especially positive and attractive. St. Paul used thanksgiving as an encouragement to Christian lives. He encouraged those for whom he felt pastoral responsibility to give thanks at all times and in all situations: [Phil.4:6; Col.3:8; 1Thess.5:16; 2Thess.2:3]. He often began his correspondence, (and claimed that he prayed regularly for his correspondents,) by giving thanks [Rom.1:8; 1Cor.1:4; Phil.1:3; Col.1:3; 1Thess.1:2; 2Thess.1:13]. We may remind ourselves of aspects of God when we praise and thank God for specific things, but praise can also be overall expressions of gratitude and excitement for all that God is, does and has done. We ‘adore’ all the meaning and mystery that is contained within the concept of “the Name of God”. Many churches attempt to encourage praise by stirring music, but our praise and thanksgiving need to be rooted in inner thanksgiving, awe and wonder, which we are able to express as much in silence and personal devotion as in extrovert, corporate praise.
Mystics have written that the centre of worship and prayer is ‘adoration’, a form of dedicated an absorbed prayer that is offered to God alone. Adoration, like praise and thanksgiving may be acknowledging aspects of what God is and has done but it is primarily a holistic acknowledgement of the absoluteness of all that God is, both what we believe we know about God and the vast amount that remains unknown to us. Thus a mystic might say that we do not adore God particularly for divine characteristics, power or goodness, but for the fact that God is supreme, infinite, holy and is the numinous mystery that surpasses all things. Adoration recognises that God is sublime: the mystery who makes all recognise our smallness and inadequacy by comparison. Yet it is amazing to still be able to believe that God can still regard us with grace and love as of high value, and wants a relationship with us. Kant defined the sublime as “that which is above all (or beyond comparison) great.” Kant believed that human beings have an inner need to reach towards, adore and relate to something that is absolute and incomparable. Schleiermacher believed that God’s absoluteness reminds human beings of their need of ‘absolute dependence’ and the need to respond with an appropriate absolute response of adoration. The response of adoration in scripture was often described as ‘to fall down before God and worship’ [‘proskuneo’Matt.28:17]. Later mystics like Teresa of Avila expanded the idea of this response to giving oneself in absolute self-surrender to the one who we adore, and to lose oneself in wonder and love and contemplation. It is claimed by some that when we do so, we come closer to God and reflect in small ways the image and glory of God. Perhaps that could be an interpretation of the mountain-top experience of Moses [Ex.24:15- 18; 34:29-35] Mystics believe that spending time in adoration helps Christian growth, as in it we draw close to the mystery of God.
Several Hebrew and Greek words in the Bible with varied connotations are translated as ‘worship’: ‘Leitourgeo’, from which our word ‘liturgy’ derives, literally means ‘the work of the people’. It was not menial, servile service but important high service for a supremely important master, as was the Hebrew word ‘šārat’ / ‘to minister’. ‘Ergazomai’ suggested that worship is ‘appropriate work for God.’ The Hebrew term ‘ābad’ or ‘āboȏdȃ’ and the Greek translation ‘douleuō’ was originally the service of a ‘slave’ or ‘servant’ [‘ebed’] for their master, suggesting that we share commitment as servants to the Lord. There is a significant difference from the relationship of slaves of servants of a human master: Through our covenant relationship with God we choose to serve freely and are no longer slaves [Gal.4:7; Philem.:16]. Other common Hebrew words for ‘worship’ imply reverence and awe. ‘Hāwȃ’, ‘Shachah’, ‘sāgad’ or the Aramaic ‘sĕgĭd’ all imply ‘falling or bowing down’, ‘submission’, ‘kissing the feet’, recognising their master’s, high position and acting accordingly. ‘Yārē‘’ suggests ‘fear’ of God’s power and judgement though also ‘awe’ and ‘trust’ in God’s strength power, nature and covenant promises. The origin of the Anglo Saxon term ‘weorthscrp’ which transmuted into our word ‘worship’ is not just about recognising or praising God’s ‘worth’. It more particularly related to God being ‘worthy’, and responding to God with ‘dignity’, ‘respect’ and ‘honour’.
The most common Greek term for ‘worship’ - ‘latreia’ - meant ‘service’ for the good of another. Rom.12:1 calls us to offer ourselves in worship as ‘living sacrifices, holy and acceptable to God’... which is our reasonable service’. It came to also represent the ‘adoration’ that was given only to God, as it was due to God for all that God is. The term was used of the priests’ service of God in the Temple, as well as the human ‘duty’ of creatures to their Creator. Scripture describes believers as ‘a kingdom of priests to our God’ a ‘chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people... called out of darkness into his marvellous light...” [1Pet.2:9] So the role of all of us is a high privilege of coming into God’s presence in worship [Heb.10:19].
Recognising ourselves in the context and presence of God, the ‘sublime’ and the ‘absolute’ also leads to confession of our failings to live up to the absolute’s expectations of us. Confession has always been an important part of worship and liturgy. Confession may also help us on the path towards finding God, since it reminds us of our dependence on the qualities of love, grace and forgiveness in God. Similarly in our intercessions for others and our more personally-directed prayers of petition we recognise ours and the world’s dependence on God’s powers and interventions. We remember God’s care for all creation, asking for God’s love and power to especially reach out towards those for whom we care and ask. Theoretically intercession and petition should not seek to change God’s will, nor are we reminding an omniscient God of divine responsibilities: Such prayers seek to better understand God’s will and align our wills with God’s will. But our human wills are strong, and inevitably we often wish for what we feel is best, without seeing all with the infinite breadth of God’s perspective. Surely an omniscient God must understand our wishes fully already. However Jesus did remind his followers that much more than us will “our Father in heaven give good things to those who ask him” [Matt.7:11]. Finding God includes remembering that our omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent God knows already what we need and what is best for us. Scripture assures us that God also wants us to be involved in the divine work in the world by our relationship though prayer. We try to trust God to answer prayer in the ways that are best, and seek to align our wills to the will of God, not attempt to get God to follow our will.
The most common New Testament term for worship is ‘proskunéō’ (literally ‘to kiss towards’), This could mean both physical ‘kissing of the ground’ and ‘inner adoration’, ‘obeisance’, ‘reverence’, homage’ [Matt.4:10; Jn.4:21-24; 1Cor.14:25; Rev.4:10]. True worship therefore includes directing towards God our ‘love’, ‘respect’ and ‘reverently valuing one we love,’
Holistically the many different aspects of worship show that true worship involves:
- Recognising that we are in God’s presence.
- Approaching God with reverence, awe and humility.
- Expressing praise, thankfulness and love.
- Prayer and intercession.
- Living by holy obedience.
- Recognising ourselves in God’s perspective, confessing our sins and need of God, but also recognising that God values and loves us.
- Recognising that Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are working for us and interceding for us [1Tim.2:5; Heb.5:7; Rom.8:26-27, 34].
- Meeting God through the Spirit, individually and corporately.
- Being attentive and opening ourselves to whatever spiritual experience God gives.
- Letting God’s Spirit move us; responding, being inspired and helped by God’s Spirit.
- Separating ourselves for a while to concentrate our minds and actions on God.
- Focusing on God in ways that widen our perspective, challenge our insights and clarify and broaden our understanding of what is revealed about God’s character and truths.
- Expanding our understanding of what scripture says God.
- Declaring the qualities and greatness of our Creator.
- Recognising our weaknesses, being challenged to obedience, repentance and learning obedience.
- Being open to the potential of God communicating with us.
- Receiving God’s blessing.
- Dedicating ourselves to God’s service.
- Offering oneself, one’s gifts and one’s worship as a responsive sacrifice.
- Serving God as trusted stewards as a high, priestly calling.
- Trusting God.
- Reflecting the character of God by our lives.
- Recognising that we are worshipping alongside the worship of heaven and communal worship of the worldwide Church.
- Proclaiming and teaching about God in ways that help people recognise God’s presence, worth and expectations.
- Personal devotion.
- Communal devotion.
- Meditation on God’s truth.
- Contemplation of God.
- Remembering what God has achieved for us.
- Affirming God’s mercy.
- Adoration of God.
Hypocrisy develops when our lives and actions fail to reflect God, or fail to follow the claims we make in our worship and the requirements of our faith. For Jesus, as for the Hebrew prophets, service needed to include love and obedience. We cannot say we love God yet fail to live according to divine principles. If we live hypocritically, our love is false and our public and private worship is invalid. Faithfulness in worship therefore entails keeping true to the principles of faith and giving appropriate and true responses to God. The faithful worshipper needs to be worthy of a holy God. Worship is not a substitute for inadequate lifestyle: “What does the Lord require but to love mercy, do justice, and walk humbly with your God.” [Mic.6:8; Deut.10:12 Prov.21:3; Isa.56:1; Hos.6:6; Zech.7:9]. Worship and spirituality are meaningless if the truth of our life and lifestyle do not match our faith. “Faith without works is dead” [Jas.2:14-26]. To worship faithfully one should come before God worthily and openly, with clean hands and a pure heart [Ps.24:4], which is why confession and acceptance of forgiveness are such important parts of liturgy. The worship of none of us seems sufficient to glorify so great a God, yet the mercy of God regards us as worthy for such a relationship.
The early Christian community were exhorted to be ordered and disciplined in their worship [1Cor.14:40]. They were warned against self-imposed and self-promoting piety [Col.2:23], disorder, the wrong use of freedom and inappropriate actions [cf. 1 Cor.11:27, 33-4; 14:9-12, 26-30]. Paul wanted congregations to enjoy spiritual freedom but to be moderate, discerning and disciplined, giving a truthful witness to God. “All must be done for the strengthening of the Church.” [1Cor.14:26].
Worshippers come with a wide variety of spiritual, emotional and physical needs. In designing worship, we aim for their encounter with God to be as real as possible; that they will not be distracted nor feel alienated or isolated, but feel included in God’s mercy. Worship should not be narrow or exclusive; it should represent the breadth of God, be spiritually truthful, enhance faith, focus many towards God and help disciples live the authentic Christian life. In worship we should feel joined in unity as God’s people; if we are dis-unified our worship may be less valid. The Church is the gathered people of God, brought together not just for a ‘social’ or ‘aesthetic’ event or ‘entertainment’ but with a purpose to meet God and acknowledge God’s nature and activities.
Worship should not be escapist; it is not to satisfy ourselves. It is not true worship if we stir up worshippers inauthentically, sentimentally, or create false feelings. Worship should be true. To be truthful and encourage hope and trust in God it needs to be meaningful and realistic. Worship is not about feeling fulfilled and elevated ourselves, though this might come as a consequence of worship. It should help us adore, articulate our personal feelings towards and about God and should help us feel that God is close in whatever situation we find ourselves, good or bad. We come to worship, recognising that we are in God’s presence. Faithful worship is directed towards God, perhaps with a desire to meet God, but not necessarily expecting to do so. Worship involves ‘work’ because God deserves putting our minds and bodily selves wholeheartedly into whatever we are doing. Jesus’ summary of the law included loving God “with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength” [Mk.12:30].
Most worship entails an element of ‘sacrifice’ (Gk. ‘thusia’). In Rom.12:1-2 Paul encouraged believers to put their whole lives and energies into their worship and discipleship: “I appeal to you therefore, brothers and sisters, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship (or ‘reasonable service’). Do not be conformed to the world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds, so that you may discern what is the will of God – what is good and acceptable and perfect.” Christian sacrifice and the sacrifice of worship do not mean (as is sometimes suggested) ‘appeasing God’ or ‘giving up our personal life’. Christ achieved freedom through his self-giving in a way that achieved redemption “once and for all” [Rom.6:10; 1Pet.3:115; Heb.9:28]. Our sacrificial acts do not help bring about our salvation, but are expressions of our feelings about God. The term ‘sacrifice’/‘thusia’ in Rom.12:1 in the context of worship is more concerned with ‘offering’ ourselves in the ways that we concentrate on God. Paul called worship a ‘duty’, ‘our reasonable sacrifice’. That word ‘reasonable’ (Gk. ‘logikos’) implies that worship is a rational response to our duty of ‘service’ and ‘adoration’ (‘latreia’) towards God for all the truth that God represents (known and unknown). We put our reasoning faculties, thought and intelligence into it. Faithful Christian worship is not superstitious or irrational ritual. We mentally and socially consider what is true about God and offer ourselves, our thoughts and our praise to God in love. It is our ‘duty’ as thinking human beings to be concerned with the truth.
Truthful worship raises the profile of God in the world by expressing the qualities of God: “God is enthroned on the praises of his people” [Ps.22:3]. The picture language of some psalmists and prophets [Ps. 65, 89, 93, 98, Isa.44:23; 55:12; Hab. 3:10] implies that all life glorifies God by living and fulfilling its role in the universe. By living our human life rightly and flourishing we glorify the one who created life. This itself is a form of worship: All that we do in good, righteous living demonstrates God’s ‘worth’ in creating us, so a holy life is itself ‘worship’ of our Creator. Keith Ward wrote: “Worshipping God is not telling some very powerful invisible person how good he is, in the hope that he will pat you on the head and give you eternal life. It is the reverent awareness of the Being of God, as God truly is.” [Images of Eternity p.3] None of us actually ‘understand God as God truly is’ but worship and contemplative prayer do not try to ‘understand’ those aspects of God’s mystery that have been revealed. Our worship is a response to the amount of truth we perceive and the realm of mysteries beyond what we do not understand. Worship will always entail an element of mystery since our understanding of God is limited and provisional [1Tim.6:15-16]. We do not understand the God we worship, nor have we seen God, yet we worship with a certain understanding that there are truths within what has been revealed of God, particularly by Christ [1Tim.3:16].
The most appropriate human music, eloquent words, elaborate liturgy or beautiful setting are surely pale reflections of what we believe to be the worship of heaven. Our role is to give of our best as our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving. Faithful communal or individual worship is not easily achieved, it entails expenditure of energy, thought and giving. It is the sincerity of our worship in our hearts and minds that matters, not its length, beauty or correctness of form. How each of us worships most meaningfully will vary for all, since our characters and spiritualities differ. We need to find the forms of worship which help us draw closest to God “in Spirit and in Truth”. But we should not necessarily remain stuck to one form or just follow what is comfortable. The Church is formed of a rich diversity of people and we can flourish, develop and grow through exploring varieties if understandings of God. There is room for many styles of worship in the Church: we broaden our spirituality and response to God more holistically if we open ourselves to different traditions. Not all of these may be helpful to us but we build on those that expand our minds and worship. If we just read favourite scripture verses, repeat favourite hymns or always follow the same form of worship, our appreciation of God’s immensity and richness won’t grow. Expanding our perspective widens faith, extends our understanding of mission and discipleship, and broadens our ability to communicate faith. Faithful worship calls us to focus our thoughts on the huge expanse of God and recognise the breadth of God’s qualities, truths, love and provision.
THE FINDABILITY OF GOD THROUGH THE SACRAMENTS
I intend to explore this issue in greater detail in a further study, as it has been a point of contention between the Orthodox Church, Roman Catholics and Protestants of various types for centuries. The very idea of what a ‘sacrament’ is has been defined, re-defined and argued over. Some churches have over-extended their veneration of certain sacraments, as in the elaborate, richly ornamented monstrances designed for adoration of the Eucharistic bread. The Roman Catholic service of ‘Exposition of the Holy Sacrament’ can sometimes make the Eucharist seem like an idolatrous activity. Raphael’s fresco in the Vatican Stanze shows symbolically a glorious crowd of saints in heaven surrounding an altar displaying a monstrance. Christ is represented enthroned above the altar and the host of heaven are glorifying him for the salvation Christ achieved through his self-offering. But the fresco is also a propaganda image to emphasise the doctrine of ‘transubstantiation’ or the concept of the ‘real presence’ of Christ in the Eucharistic elements. It is right to recognise in the bread and wine the spiritual reality of Christ being present among us as we share Communion. It is more than a symbolic memorial meal: in some mysterious way we believe that we are specially joined together as Christ’s body when we share in the Eucharist. Otherwise, why would St. Paul need to warn participants about failing to discern Christ when sharing Communion together? “Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord. Examine yourselves and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For all who eat and drink without discerning the body eat and drink judgement against themselves.” [1Cor.11:27-29]. Paul does not clarify exactly what he means by this, so we should not try to explain the mystery of Christ’s presence too precisely as some Catholic theologians have been tempted to do. The quotation ascribed to Elizabeth I is significant: “”. We need to be careful not to over-state the role of the Mass/Eucharist/Communion in any ways that might make it an idolatrous pursuit. To the other extreme, neglect of the Eucharistic meal and the emphasis of some Protestant churches on the elements of Communion being just a symbolic sharing of fellowship, do not do justice to the significant meaning of sharing the elements. Christ’s words “Wherever two or three are gathered in my name, I am there in the midst of them” [Matt.18:20], then his institution of the Last Supper as a sign of his continued presence with them in the bread and wine [Matt.26:26-29; Mk.14:22-25; Lk.22:15-20] demonstrate that he intended the sharing of this meal to be a corporate spiritual and physical demonstration of our union with him. We are intended to know that Christ is especially present when we share in the Eucharistic rite, but we should not over-define how he is present, since it remains a spiritual mystery.
The meaning of the sacrament Baptism has been watered down in many churches. Christening in the Anglican Church particularly is often regarded by families as a social event with very little or no regard to its spiritual function and intention. I have attempted to prepare non-church-attendant parents beforehand to consider the meaning of the vows that they are making, and found they have no interest in God or don’t believe, but they still want their child baptised. Godparents, though they need to have been baptised themselves, similarly rarely want to attend preparation sessions and are often chosen because they are friends of the family or have social influence that might help the child in future years, rather than having any intention to spiritually influence the child’s nurture. Where this happens it makes a mockery of some of the most significant vows that any believer can make in decisively committing to aligning themselves with God and following God’s ways. Churches might often be accused of adding to this hypocrisy, since congregations are asked to make vows of commitment to support the child or adult being baptised, but do nothing after the initial service to support and nurture the person in fulfilling the vows that have been made.
There can be a similar desecration of the sacramental act when couples go into marriage unprepared and with little commitment to the spiritual union that they are undertaking. Again, I have met many couples who have no wish to prepare for the ceremony by exploring its meaning. Many just want the social event and the number of broken marriage vows and splits between couples demonstrates how little their spiritual union means to some people. Of course we can expect some marriages to break up, particularly amid the pressures and dangers of contemporary life. But I don’t think that the divorce level would be so high if the sacramental commitment and human commitment of a couple to one another was entered into more seriously. The idea of them being joined together in indissoluble ways by God is not taken seriously enough. It is possible that couple might ‘find God’ in the truth of their relationship with one another in marriage.
One problem is that in today’s society, and in the Church itself, the spiritual meaning of sacraments has often become diluted. The idea that they are “an outward and visible sign of an inner spiritual reality” should make us approach them with awe, not just as a regular, relatively insignificant event. The same should be our approach to God in prayer. Both prayer and the sacraments are huge privileges, in which we draw closer to God and are intended to find God through what we are doing. Though I belong to a Protestant church, I must admit that when Protestant churches reduced their idea of what is sacramental to the Eucharist and Baptism they partly added to this decline in the meaningfulness of sacraments. The Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches have a wider sacramental tradition, regarding Confirmation, Marriage, Confession, Absolution, Ordination and Extreme Unction as sacraments. I can understand that Protestantism differentiated the Eucharist and Baptism from the others as they are notionally the acts that most clearly unite us to God. But one could say that each of the other traditional sacraments are actions which promise union with God. In Confirmation and Ordination deeper commitments to God and to following God’s ways and mission than may have been made at baptism are being confirmed. We are praying for the Holy Spirit to particularly empower those who are being confirmed or ordained, so this is an intended definite encounter with God. In Confession, Absolution and Extreme Unction we are praying for divine forgiveness to remove the barriers that life and sin form between us and God, opening us up to a renewed fellowship with the spiritual realm. As this forgiveness can only come through the action of God, not ourselves, in our prayers we are again spiritually encountering God, so these too are definitely sacramental activities. Marriage in church, as already mentioned, is not just the commitment of two people to one another: In the service we are praying for God to unite and bless them; for God to be active in their home, their lives and in deepening and nourishing their relationship together, and for God to be active in blessing and nurturing their family, should they have children. We call a priestly calling ‘sacred’ and a marriage relationship ‘secular’. But in spiritual terms there is not much difference between ordaining a priest to fulfil their spiritual duties in the church and in the world, and in marriage ordaining a couple to fulfil their spiritual commitments to one another and their duties to the world in which they are to live. There is a sacramental element to all these activities, and in them we are meant to be able to find God. We certainly paying in trust that God is present and active, asking God to be involved in all of these traditional sacraments.
THE FINDABILITY OF GOD THROUGH PRAYER
Similarly when we place ourselves before God in prayer, either corporately of individually we can come to recognise that we are in the presence of whatever the truth of God is. Personally, when I pray or contemplate I rest in the assurance that I wish to communicate with whatever the truth of God is. I don’t imagine God as ‘Father’, ‘enthroned emperor of all’, ‘loving shepherd’, or any of the multiple metaphors for God mentioned in scripture to help us reach towards aspects of God. I simply feel that I am here, opening myself up to, speaking to, or in silence with whatever is spiritual truth.
Often we do not need words. I personally do not usually find difficulty in articulating prayer or devising prayers and intercessions to be used in liturgy. I don’t know this for sure, but suspect that this may be one reason why I have never been blessed with, or apparently needed, the gift of spiritual tongues, though I am open to receiving anything that God offers. Often when I pray I open myself to God in silence, trusting and believing that God knows my needs, knows my thoughts, is aware of what is on my mind and understands my wishes and longings. There is no need to bombard God with words. However, we also need to remember that Jesus used the parable of the persistent widow and the judge [] to remind us of the importance of sincere intercession. In that teaching he reminded us that God wants us to be involved in the process of answered prayer.
It is through our prayer-life that we come to trust that God is involved in the world and in our personal lives. We don’t see God and often we don’t recognise precise answers to our prayers. In fact, sometimes events happen which may seem contrary to what we asked for: family and friends may not be healed or reconciled, dictators may not be overthrown, peace may not come to places of conflict, and those in need may not be satisfied. But our persistence in prayer may help to remind us, or confirm that a power is at work which understands the world far more than we do, and we can trust God for doing right. This in itself can be a way by which we come to recognise a little more of aspects of truth about God.
If the God who orthodox Christian doctrine espouses is true, as I believe, we can trust that we are guided by the truth, in a relationship with what is true, and that following the ways that Christ teaches can bring us the best life possible. We do not need to know every aspect of truth in order to believe certain things, just as scientists know that they do not need to know everything before they follow certain tested principles and aims. Philosophy of science accepts that there is often much more that we do not know than what we know at present. Yet scientists believe certain things are true. It is similar in theology, worship and in prayer: we believe that there is far more to God and the invisible spiritual dimension than we perceive or understand, yet we still trust that what has been revealed in Christianity is rooted in truth and can be followed practically, for the benefit of all. We pray to our invisible God in trust of this.
Prayer, of course, includes many different forms and approaches, though its common feature is that we believe that prayer is a point of connection to God. This spiritual connection is a practical way of maintaining our spiritual health. We recognise ourselves in the context of something far greater and more constant than ourselves and can feel linked to the source of life that can sustain all needs.
There are multiple forms of prayer and worship, and it is important to find the forms or combinations of types of worship that suit our spirituality, personalities and are available to us. A busy business-person, carer, or someone bringing up a demanding family cannot spend the same time in prayer and contemplation of their faith that may be available to a monk. Just because a group may share a particular religious calling does not mean that the ways of prayer that satisfy our personal spirituality will be the same. We need to find and develop the forms of personal prayer and worship that are most meaningful to us, connecting us to God ‘in spirit and in truth’. As an ordained minister I made commitments to regular daily worship and prayer. I felt guilty at first that I found reciting a daily Anglican office from the book of Common Worship spiritually unsatisfying. It seemed as though I was just reciting words that, though admittedly theologically rich and full of meaning, yet were not engaging my spirit as much as when I am involved in corporate worship. The daily practice did not yet feel as though I was worshipping “in spirit and in truth”. I needed to augment this by finding other ways of daily engaging with God that were most truthful to my mind, spirituality and character. I found that nourishment in my daily theological writing, contemplation and drawing or painting about my faith. This often led into studies like this present one, preparing sermons or talks, poetry or just working through thoughts in the presence of God.
As well as spending time in intercession for those for whom you have committed yourself to pray, many find useful a ‘Quiet Time’ with scripture, as I learned in my Evangelical youth. The catholic practice of Lectio Divina is a similar discipline. We are nourished by reading a passage of scripture daily, often reading through a book consecutively, thinking through the meaning and relevance of a passage and turning that into prayer. That was my practice for years and I am grateful for its discipline, since it grounded me in my knowledge of the Bible, which is so important for the thinking Christian. Gradually my ‘quiet time’ morphed into ‘Lectio Divina’ which is a slightly less prescriptive form of meditation and contemplation of scripture, often leading my thoughts in broader, less determined directions. While the meditation element of Lectio Divina involves study, thinking and challenge, the contemplation element reflects less cerebrally, seeking the guidance of God’s Spirit to peacefully settle the meaning of the passage into our spirits. By silently asking God to open up to us the application of what we are is reading, we may be more open to discovering or receiving new insights which more rational, focused thought might miss.
Both active and more passive forms of studying scripture are of course important, as is disciplined formal worship. But these are no substitute for also being able to just sit in God’s presence in silence, seeking to make oneself aware and open to the Spirit. Sitting in silence may move or guide us in ways that we could not imagine, or may just supply a needed, refreshing rest. The importance of any form of prayer and study is primarily to know that we belong to God and God is there with us, caring about us and about our needs. We may be sitting in adoration, interceding in trust, thinking and reasoning. But at times of exhaustion, pain or difficulties, it may just be a time to rest in a secure place, which in itself can be refreshing and build strength. Very often when problems are on our minds we churn them over and over, rather than trying to relieve the tension by resting and finding peace. It is often in rest that we resolve problems and find that we are able to trust in God’s presence with us. Praying regularly and committedly for a person, situation or subject spiritually unites us with them as part of the Body of Christ. It also links and unites us with God’s care for them.
Prayer is a direct form of communication with our source of life. I have heard several religious people say that all life is prayer in this sense: By living, acting, thinking, we are living out the lives that our Source of Life has created and relating to God. This is no doubt true, but its meaning can be very vague. To pray is to more directly aim to address God and acknowledge God’s place in our individual and corporate lives.
There are some situations that we pray for where we are asking for specific requests, but very often we do not know what to ask in prayer, since we do not know the best solution to a problem or issue. In such cases it is often best just to rest the situation in God’s hands, trusting that the divine solution is the right one. For example, this can sometimes be the case when someone has been diagnosed with a terminal illness... Of course we pray for healing, but at the same time, realistically we entrust the future into the care and wisdom of God. Some pray in difficult situations with understandable scepticism or doubt, not expecting the answer they want, or perhaps any answer at all. We should be careful not to mistrust, since faith is about trusting God and having hope. We are encouraged to pray without doubt [Matt.14:31; 21:21; Mk.11:23; Lk.24:28]. Jas.1:6 especially expects us to “ask in faith and not doubt, for how can the doubter expect to receive anything from the Lord.” But doubt is natural to any thinking mind in our enlightened world. God will understand our questioning and hesitancy to believe. Doubt is only disabling if it prevents us from trusting and alienates us from God..
We sometimes talk of ‘wrestling in prayer’. This is rarely so much struggling like Jacob for a blessing [Gen.32:22-32] but more usually working through personal uncertainty. We can importune God in our desperation, but the truth of what is right is in the wisdom of God. Prayer may involve experimenting in our mind with our ideas and wishes before God. We rarely know exactly what is right, what God wants or the exact direction to follow. Sometimes it is useful to experiment with different potential answers, as when Gideon laid down his fleeces [Judg.6:32-40], or trying a variety of doors, asking God to just unlock the right way for us. I have often lain prostrate on the floor, not knowing what to pray for, but asking for God’s truth to come about and for God’s Spirit to intercede through me.
Contemplative prayer or transcendence does not try to understand God but to sit in awareness that a mysterious reality exists and appreciate and adore God for who God is. One of the contemplative practices in Hinduism is to achieve a state of inactive bliss, reflecting that of Brahman (god). You renounce all goals of action in order to achieve a ‘cave within the heart’ where one might apprehend the inactive, blissful calm and unchanging consciousness that is at the deepest level of your self, bringing you to oneness with the root of all things. Such bliss is considered in Hinduism to be the state of god, (Brahman). Christian prayer seeks peace and the satisfaction of God’s Kingdom, but is not so inactive or disassociated from the world. In Hinduism the world is regarded as only part reality; greater reality is at the heart of the Brahman, and it is believed that one can only get close to this condition by detachment. Christianity has a stronger attachment to reality, since it is considered that creation is part of the active will of God and we are living towards the establishment of God’s Kingdom within reality. So when we contemplate silently in Christian prayer, we are not seeking a state of disconnected bliss in God’s presence; we are asking God to help form the divine Kingdom through the relationship which God is building up in us and with the world.
Different personalities with varying experiences will have very different expectations when they approach God in prayer. It is too simplistic to just quote Jesus’ saying that “if we had faith the size of a grain of mustard seed” we would see miracles as a result of our prayer [Matt.17:20; Mk.4:31], or that if a group of believers agree on something and pray, God will make it happen [Matt.18:19]. Some have become disillusioned with faith as a result of not seeing the answers that they wanted. I feel sure that Jesus’ teaching on prayer intended us to increase our expectancy, trust, belief and dependency on God, but not to make us naïve. He was realistic: In Gethsemane he prayed that he might be spared suffering yet concluded: “Father, not my will but yours be done!” [Matt.26:39, 42; Lk.22:42], recognising that God would know the best holistic solutions.
We should not be superstitious in our attitude to prayer. When Jesus asked us to pray “in his Name” [Jn14:13], I don’t think he intended us to ‘evoke’ his Name or pray “in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit” as a spiritualist or magician might recite magical words considered to have supernatural power in themselves. Rather praying ‘in God’s Name’ suggests that we trust all that God truly is to be active, and we trust God to respond to our prayer in the ways that supreme wisdom knows is best for all Creation and all concerned in the context of eternity. Prayer should be an attempt to align our thoughts and wills to accept and follow God’s aims, not a desire to twist God’s arm for God to act in the ways that we wish. Praying ‘in Jesus’ name’ was a way that the early Church linked Jesus with the Father’s divinity: previously Jews would only pray ‘in the name of God’. Praying ‘in God’s name’ or ‘in Jesus’ name’ is largely for Christians asking “may all that you are act as you know to be right.”
Richard Hooker taught that we come to comprehend God through Scripture, Reason and Christian Tradition. These and other ways by which we understand God can also apply to prayer. If we sensitise and make ourselves open to God’s Spirit living in us and interacting with our life-experiences we can align our thoughts towards God’s aims. Multiple prayer traditions and teachings of different faiths may help broaden our approach and openness to God. Prayer can also include reasoning with our thinking minds and interpreting life events and belief. God communicates with us as much in our thinking, reasoning and creative imagining, as in the openness of our senses in prayer. ‘Listening’ to God includes using all our faculties, senses and reasoning. Intuition and imagination, the creative parts of our minds, can reach far beyond what we see and reason, and open us further to being guided by God’s Spirit.
Intuitive prayer can sometimes feel more spontaneous and heart-felt, but a traditional or carefully formed, theologically deep liturgical prayer, or silence before God, can be just as truthful. To be faithful in prayer, what matters most is not its form, not the beauty and eloquence in our approach to God, or the time spent in prayer but the spirit and truth in our minds as we relate to God as we pray. That is the true “prayer of faith” as Jesus and St. Paul taught.
THE IDEA OF UNION WITH GOD IN CHRISTIAN TRADITION
Within mystic contemplation the idea of union or oneness with God and harmony with God’s will is sometimes regarded as a goal. Teaching about mystic union with God is included in writings and practices of several mystical writers including Dionysius the Areopagite, Catherine of Siena, Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross. When asked what he would like to have as a reward for his work Thomas Aquinas is claimed to have responded to God,: “No reward but you yourself, Lord.”
In the Hebrew Scriptures God’s people are described as joined ot God in a covenant relationship. They had consequent responsibilities to remain in allegiance to God, worship and follow God’s ways. But the difference and distance between God and God’s people was significant, as seen in those passages about the incomprehensibility of God discussed early in this study. New Testament Scripture speaks more frequently about believers being united to God. We have God as ‘our Father’, we are part of God’ ‘family’, united as the ‘body of Christ’. With Christ as our friend and brother we are no longer just servants [Jn15:14-15]. Christ has reunited humanity with God and united people who were once strangers to God and strangers to each other within his body the Church.
Varieties of concepts about union with God or gods or the spiritual world may have developed as responses to a common psychological need in human beings to develop a relationship with what we consider is beyond our own dimension. Several Christian mystics explored ideas of making a spiritual journey towards spiritual union with God through progressive stages. This seems in several ways a step further than the union described in scripture. There are similarities and differences between Christian ideas of union with God and Eastern religious concepts of journeying towards spiritual union. Some Christian mystics regard ‘union’ as the final stage (sometimes the third stage), of a spiritual journey sometimes called ‘the unitive way’. The initial ‘purgative way’ seeks to help one release oneself from attachment to worldly things and appetites that are not useful. One recognises of one’s spiritual and physical inadequacy and weaknesses, adopting self-discipline and sometimes mortification of the senses in order to prepare oneself for a relationship with one who is perfect. The second stage of the journey is the ‘illuminative way’. This encourages contemplation and the development of inner knowledge of God. This illumination is different from the process of building up of knowledge of God through study, as Aquinas encouraged. It perhaps takes for granted that the Christian has a mental knowledge, but involves reducing the domination of one’s intellect, one’s orientation to oneself, the domination of our wills, desires and self-consciousness. One focuses on God by quiet contemplation, recognising oneself as being in God’s presence and making oneself open to God. The third step on the mystical journey is achieved by fewer who follow the way. In the final ‘unitive way’, mystics talk of the human soul finding itself in an ecstatic union with God. This is not regarded as being achieved by one’s will, reason or intellect, but by the soul being transformed by God’s grace alone. The believer is said to become linked to the unknown ‘darkness’ or mystery of the wholeness of who God is. The ‘unitive’ way reminds us that God is so much more than those aspects of God that are encountered through the scriptures and is a mystery so much greater than our comprehension. John of the Cross described the progress through the purgative, illuminative and unitive way in “The Dark Night of the Soul”, where he beomes caught up in the mystery of God.
Similar to the unitive way, some mystics describe a way of union called ‘apatheia’ (‘absence of passions’) in which it is believed that the soul aims to regain its original state as intended by God before the Fall, and enters into communication with God in pure prayer. Apatheia seeks to relax and impassively open ourselves to God, mastering one’s passions. Not all passions may be considered bad, but they are regarded as distractions. By neutralising our passions, proponents of apatheia believe that one can become closer to the peace of a loved relationship with God.
While ideas of union with God through the unitive way and apatheia attract some, the concept of union with God may not attract a number of Christian believers. Some of the language of union may seem a step or more too far towards Eastern or New Age ideas and not what Jesus meant by his prayer that we may be ‘one’ with himself and the Father [Jn.17:21-24]. The traditional Christian interpretation of being at one with God seems to be more about being reunited in covenant fellowship by the salvation achieved by Christ, moving away from self-centredness and sin, following the path that God intends for us, and being united in will and action to God. Such union with God is not conceived as either being caught up in God’s mystery or being absorbed into God’s being, in the Eastern religion sense.
The biblical idea of union with God in most of the passages about unity and union in the New Testament is describing believers being brought into God’s family and being part of the community of Christ’s followers as the corporate Body of Christ, rather than about some transcendental or mystical experience. The Epistles talk of being united with Christ [Rom.6:5; 1 Cor.6:17; Phil.2:1Eph.1:10] and in union with the Spirit [Eph.4:3; 1Pet.3:8]. But in most cases the idea is that we should regain a loved relationship with God and act in unity of purpose with the one who has reconciled us to God. Very few experiences that might be called ‘transcendental’ are described in scripture. The two mysterious disappearances of Enoch and Elijah [Gen.5:24; 2Ki.2:11] are not explained sufficiently to be conclusive. St. Paul’s describes being caught up into the third heaven [2Cor.12:2], and the writer of the Apocalypse describes many visions of heaven. In most experiences of visions of God or heaven described in scripture, the one who is united with God remains earthbound. It is not imagined that even those great figures of the Hebrew Bible, Moses, Elijah and the prophets were caught up in mystical union with God during their visionary experiences, though MOsews is described as talking with God as one might talk to a friend. In the great visions of God in Isa.6; Ezek.1; Dan.7; Ex.24:9ff; 33:18ff and the book of Revelation the person having the vision appears to look on from earth, rather than having an apotheosis or being transcendentally transformed or transfigured. So the descriptions of union with God as described by mystics seem rather different from the idea of unity described in scripture.
We all have different personalities and backgrounds, different needs, varied spiritualities which nourish our varied characters, so will have various ways of encountering and relating to God. Transcendental experiences may be true for some. Rationalisation and study may be how others are nourished. Emotionalism in faith and other passions may be positive for some and negative for others. Occasionally stirring up emotionalism in believers through preaching, prayer or praise can encourage false senses of spirituality. Yet our emotions are also often the medium through which we experience or express truths about God. Some relate to God primarily through the intellect, some through emotion, some through traditional liturgies etc. Most of us deepen our relationship with God through a combination of many several forms of worship, prayer, study, contemplation and varied responses to the changing experiences of life.
All true forms of relating to God are intended to lead, not to a selfish self-fulfilment but to build in us a sense of love, awe, friendship and stewardship towards our Lord and Source, as well as a multitude of other responsibilities which we have towards God and God’s people as mentioned in scripture. Jesus said of the disciples “I no longer call you servants, but I call you friends because I have made known to you all that I have heard from my Father” [Jn15:15]. This friendship is not just an emotional relationship; it includes obedient action “You are my friends if you do what I command you.” [Jn.15:14] If one seeks a closer walk with God one needs to develop love and trust through a combination of faithful, active obedience to God’s will, working for God’s Kingdom, and a unitive life of prayer, meditation on scripture and the life and teachings of Christ, and contemplatively resting in the peace of that relationship with God that Christ achieved for us. Union with God is both active and passive, missional and contemplative, having faith and actively practising it.
It is through practising our faith in the many ways described that we develop a sense of certainty of the love of God for us and recognise God in the world and in God’s actions towards us. God is found through praxis, not so much through just sitting and trying to think about faith. If one has been following God’s way one senses that one is following God’s will, one may feel close to God and sense a fellowship with the mystery of God [Eph.3:9]. But this is still not the same as being ‘one’ or ‘united’ with God, as some mystics describe it. The terms used by mystics to describe union are closer to the descriptions of Eastern transcendental meditation. Eastern meditation has a different aim of being absorbed into the power or essence of God; Christian meditation and contemplation recognise that we are very different from God but can find fellowship with the divine by aligning ourselves with God’s will for us, accepting God’s love for us and living authentic lives as Christ taught and as the Holy Spirit guides us.
The methods of contemplation suggested by several mystics suggest that one can come into a state of recognition that one is in God’s presence. Some describe it as being surrounded by light, others as a sense of profound silence or peace, others as a sense of being surrounded by intense love. I have never experienced this in the intense way that some of my contemplative friends describe, so I do not feel qualified to assess it personally. However I have often felt a sense of being in the presence of truth, love and peace. After centuries of medical and spiritual experience humanity still has so much to learn about our physiological, psychological and spiritual experiences. It is known from experience that fasting and deprivation of the senses can lead to intensification of the feeling that people are having spiritual experiences. The deprivations and suppression of the senses practised by some mystics may account for some of the intensification of their spiritual experiences. Some who have been revived from death recall what they describe as being in the presence of a bright light or a long tunnel with light beyond. Whether such sensations are actually true spiritual experience of entering the presence of God or responses in the mind to the death process, we cannot be certain, but it convinces some that they have had a spiritual experience. Similarly it is unclear whether all Christian mystical sensations received through contemplative prayer are truly the result of being ‘in union’ with God, or ‘one’ with God, though interpreted as such. We may only be sure if after death we find ourselves in such union. It is sometimes hard to confirm other supposedly spiritual experiences, like reports of Pentecostal occurrences and manifestations in others’ lives. We need to be spiritually discerning, being careful neither to be over-naïve or negatively sceptical, when seeking to discern truth in spirituality.
It is hard to understand how beings of such different substances as humans and the divine might be truly united while we are still alive. The Christian idea of union with God is not one of being absorbed into the divine essence, as represented in Eastern religious thinking. If we are in some ways ‘in the image and likeness of God’, as Genesis 1 suggests, those spiritual aspects that we share may have been ‘united’ or ‘reunited’ with God through Christ’. But we are so different from God in so many other ways that even our senses cannot perceive God. Any idea of ‘union’ must therefore regard our relationship as in some ways more like a bond of friendship or marriage between two unequal natures, just as ‘covenants’ between God and people were always an agreement between drastically unequal parties, yet nevertheless expressions of union.
At the heart of Christian mysticism needs to be the humble recognition that we are not being initiated into unknown mysteries or secrets, or absorbed into the essence of God, in the same way that ancient ‘mystery religions’ or sects taught. Christian mysticism recognises that the mystery of God’s love for us has now been revealed through Christ, and Christ has opened up to God’s gift of salvation. So in many ways certain parts of God’s nature and activity are no longer a mystery or secret. Those have been declared to us by Christ, but much more about God, even the nature of who Jesus Christ is, still remains obscure. Christian Mysticism is therefore more about coming to recognise that the mysterious God is available and accessible for us, cares about us and acts for us. We come to realise this through a living relationship with this truth. We accept that much of the rest of God remains mystery, but we build our trust in God and adore God for what is mysterious as well as what has been revealed. We meditate on, contemplatively rest in, and sense that we are in the care of God. Union with God in this context is therefore a state of recognising God’s love for us, recognising that God is active for good, and in our covenant response making sure that our lives and actions are aligned with God’s will, then finding and feeling the peace that can result from this relationship.
I have noticed a sense of superiority in some who believe that their spiritual experiences are more mature or blessed than others. There should be no room for arrogance in true Christian mysticism or any form of Christianity. We are all so much lower than God and so imperfect in our actions and thoughts that we should remain humble. The satisfied fulfilment, peace, or feeling of being loved by God which Christians feel should always be balanced by humility. We should recognise that our relationship with God and God’s love are totally dependent on God’s grace, not on ourselves or anything that we have done. Some Christian leaders I have encountered have seemed smug or arrogant, as though considering that their position, their calling, their activities or their spiritual gifts are on a higher level than others. Such attitudes and behaviour contradicts Jesus’ teaching that we should serve, not lord it over others and should consider others better than ourselves [Mk.10:43; Lk.22:24-27; Phil.2:3]. St. Paul reminded us that we should give greater honour to those parts of the body that seem less honourable or appear to do the less honourable work [1Cor.12:22-23]. Paul called Christians to strive for greater gifts [1Cor.12:31] but such gifts are not given to raise us over others: they are to be used for others, for advancing the work of Christ through the activity of his body the Church. There is no room for arrogance or one-upmanship in true Christian discipleship, spirituality or mysticism. False arrogance tends to swagger in its knowledge of God, and believes that one has deserved God’s love and blessings for everything that one is doing for God. True Christian mysticism will recognise that we know hardly anything about the Source that loves us so much and acts for us. We should accept that we don’t deserve this privileged relationship with God into which we have been brought by Christ. Nothing that we have done, either in our actions or our practices of prayer unites us with God; our union with God is totally the gift of God’s grace.
CONCLUSIONS
Throughout the Bible figures are described as having relationships with God in different levels of closeness or understanding. The varied relationships between God and Jewish tribal and national leaders, prophets, seers and more humble individuals are described in scripture, sometimes as examples, sometimes as warnings. There can be no doubt that the Christian scriptures claim that God intends to be known, and reveals and communicates enough for us to relate to God. God’s self-revelation through Jesus of Nazareth is supreme among these forms of divine revelation, showing us the way by which we can develop our relationship with God. Christ and the Holy Spirit enable our relationship with the Father.
However, nowhere in the Bible is the journey towards knowing, relating to and understanding God described as easy or comprehensive. God is invisible; our ability to communicate depends to a great extent on our openness to study and listen, our obedience in disciplining our lives, minds and actions to follow God’s ways and how much we are committed to seek and relate to God and find and live by truth. Scripture teaches that we are dependent on God to self-reveal; it is not something we can bring about by our own wills, spiritual practices, studies, mystical processes or actions. The histories of the Church and the Jewish nation sadly demonstrate that following God’s truth has not always been a priority, aim or practice of religious and political leaders, or their people.
If God is real and the Christian faith is true, our beliefs should, and need to be able to, stand up to all forms of searching, questioning and doubts. Basically true Christian faith is rooted in a search for truth, even though we may never ultimately find totally convincing evidence or be able to prove our beliefs In this life “Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things unseen” [Heb.11:1].
There is an understandable tension between the Bible’s claim that God desires to develop relationships with people and the philosophical recognition that God and the spiritual world are of such different dimensions and natures to ours that they surely cannot be known sufficiently using any physical or intellectual forms of human perception. Though the Bible describes much about God’s nature, character and activity, it also contains admissions that no human beings can know the majority of what God is, since God’s being is described as infinite and God’s activity is so varied and widespread. The dichotomy between ideas of the knowability and unknowability of God will never be resolved sufficiently by reasoning or study. Many have tried to form proofs for God’s existence, but the evidence collected is most often subjective, and we do not believe that it will ever be possible to develop empirical evidences to proofs that would convince the world. Despite this frustration, Christians have a responsibility towards mission, so we need to develop an apologetic that can explain our reasons for faith as convincingly as possible.
Even if we could develop universally convincing evidence, proofs do not in themselves necessarily lead to encountering God or developing a relationship with God. Faith in God and relating to God in scripture, traditions and in the believer’s daily experience are based on trust far more than mental reasoning. Our own spiritual experiences may not always be sufficiently convincing proofs for other questioners. However feeling personally assured by our experiences and as sure as possible that the evidence that we have for our faith is rooted in truth can gives one the confidence to work on developing one’s relationship with God.
It is claimed that only God can open us up to divine revelation; we cannot do it on our own. Yet, as Aquinas asserted, our study of our faith is an essential part of knowing God. If we want to find God, knowing our Bible can give us as holistic an understanding of the possibly infinite enormity of God as possible. We should not just rely on our favourite aspects of God, like love, forgiveness, care, healing etc. To know someone in relationship we also need to know all other aspects of them, even those that may not make us so comfortable, like God’s expectation of perfection form us, justice, judgement etc.
Believers may sense that they have found God is various ways. We know most about the Christian God through the medium of the various books of the Bible. Christians probably find the fullest account of aspects of God through the Bible’s stories and teachings, most of which may have been initially shared orally, written down, edited brought together over centuries and eventually brought together as a compilation. Through many different genres and literary forms the Bible describes, among other things, God’s interaction with human beings and explores the nature of God’s character and expectations of believers and followers. Christians also believe they can find God in traditions, doctrines, teachings and aspects of belief that have developed among religious people and churches over nearly two millennia of the Christian era, and several millennia previously during which the Jews developed their understandings of God.
A wide variety of useful methods of prayer, meditation, contemplation, study and forms of discipleship are on offer to Christians. They are designed to deepen our relationship with God, but we need to find what combinations suit us at different stages of our Christian growth. Many of us have different ways of learning. However, ultimately the findability of God is not based on a method; it grows from honesty before God and dedicatedly seeking truth with all our hearts, minds, souls and strength, and opening ourselves in the ways that make us most receptive spiritually.
The Christian Church itself is intended to be a place and community that nurtures faith and Christian practice in a wide variety of different people. We are intended to help all to find God through our love, teaching, scriptural readings, studies, teachings, liturgies, inclusivity, community spirit and other practices. We ought to be able to recognise aspects of God in the people who follow the ways taught by God, though this may often be marred by human sins and frailties. By general grace we may also recognise good things about God through all creation, including those who do not believe in God or follow God’s ways, but may in some aspects reflect God to us. Visionaries believe that they have encountered God or God’s messengers more directly, in particular situations. Contemplatives and mystics believe that they encounter God through various forms of prayer activities. Some mystics believe that it is possible to grow to experience unity with God. Other believers imagine God as beyond comprehension yet are content with the understanding that we cannot perceive God with the physical senses, yet our faith may nevertheless trust and believe in an inner sense that God is present.
The spiritual experiences of millions of believers over nearly two millennia of the Christian era, and for many centuries before in the experiences of the Hebrew peoples, seem to be confirmations and evidence that God is present, though invisible in this world, and that a meaningful and spiritually fulfilling relationship with the divine is possible. However, as Ecclesiastes reminds us there will always be frustrations in how much we are able to understand of the spiritual dimension. In practical terms it may be said that despite many frustrations over what we cannot know, the Christian faith is personality and socially helpful and satisfying to a huge number of people. Though the Christian Church has often been regarded by critics as over-negative in its attitudes, due to its emphasis on sin, our faith is largely positive. True Christianity can be mentally, spiritually and intellectually satisfying and peace-giving. In practice many believers find that though they cannot adequately prove, see or define God, we are able to develop a meaningful relationship with God. We often broaden our minds and perceptions by thinking through the mysteries of faith and imagining God through the metaphors used to describe God in scripture. Nevertheless we know that our understanding will always be incomplete and in some ways insufficient.
Following God’s ways, as taught in scripture not only helps us live good lives, we believe the promise that it opens up our relationship with God. It is certainly fulfilling to live by the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth, since, as Jesus himself said: He and his teachings are “The Way, the Truth, and the Life.” If we follow the ways taught be him we are more likely to live abundant, useful lives and find God in the practice of our daily life.
Jesus taught that he was making God known and St. Paul became convinced that we come to know God through Jesus Christ. This eventually led to the orthodox Christian conclusion that Jesus was divine: God’s self-revelation through a human life. Jesus’ teaching claimed that he was speaking and acting as his Father was guiding him to do, and that in knowing him his followers would come to know God. He spoke as though he was not just physically born as a human child but had known the Father formerly in the dimension of heaven. He claimed that after he had left earth, the Holy Spirit would continue his mission by guiding people to know and follow God and commune with God. Thus the Christian Church believes that we find God in and through Jesus Christ and through the work of the Holy Spirit.
The dialectic debate of philosophers and theologians over how far God is ‘findable’ or ‘unknowable’, is far less important than helping to bring people to situations where they can live abundant, righteous, fulfilled personal and social lives. God is to be found in abundant life, as well as bringing us abundant life. It is a significant role of the Church to help people towards abundant life by following Christ’s ways authentically. We aim to find pastorally sensitive ways to help people find God and form positive relationships with God. Finding God is not just about what we believe in; it is primarily how well we live by the principles that Jesus and other parts of scripture taught. It seems that we build and strengthen an understanding of God as we build in daily life the sort of divine Kingdom about which Jesus taught. Finding God is possibly determined by how righteous we are in following God’s ways.
The huge variety of peoples and types of characters and personalities in the world should be enough evidence that there is not one but multiple ways of understanding God. As human relationships differ, so in worshipping God ‘in Spirit and in Truth’, as Jesus taught, many people will inevitably develop a variety of forms of relationship with God. Each human being is a complex combination of multiple characteristics, with a broad variety of aspects to our natures, backgrounds and lives. How much more mysterious and complex must the mystery of God be, who we believe is infinite, omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient! Yet somehow we believe that God, who is so different from us and exists in a dimension that we cannot perceive with the physical senses, wishes to communicate with human beings and enables a wide variety of relationships.
The concept of God being largely unknowable and incomprehensible is not necessarily a stumbling-block to belief. It can be useful, strengthening and positive, because it encourages believers to expand our ideas and broaden our perspective to more extensively imagine the transcendent, perhaps infinite, enormity of God. The imagination can help our understandings of God to grow, though we should be careful not to individualise our faith too far, which has often led in past Church history to spiritual mistakes and the formation of heresies. Christians should always check our interpretations of faith and scripture, by whether they conform to the ideas and principles taught by Christ.
The Bible provides an enormous amount of detail about the qualities and nature of God, upon which Christians build their faith and ideas of the God they worship. Inevitably many believers’ faith is based on experiences and understandings which might be considered subjective by many. Our ideas of the reality and nature of God are often dependent on and formed by our backgrounds and the traditions in which we have been brought up. Our understandings of faith will also be dependent on how we trust and interpret the content of scripture and the integrity and authenticity of its sources and writers.
Scripture implies that human beings reflect our Creator, but does not explain how, and interpretations of this have been debated for centuries. We may not know what aspects God might be connected with and found in human beings or are reflected in the created cosmos yet from the first chapters of the Bible it is claimed that there is ability within us to relate to God. There definitely seems to be a spiritual longing in human beings. While there is no empirical proof for any religious faith, it seems that most human societies and many individuals within them, sense an inner spiritual need to develop a faith that satisfies human questions about what is beyond us, and brings spiritual, physical, mental and social fulfilment. In the world’s multiple different cultures, this inner longing, or desire to make sense of mysteries that are beyond us, has led to the development of a huge variety of forms of religion and spiritual beliefs and practices.
Scripture implies that we are able to find ways of perceiving God, and that any true understanding about God is revealed by God, not by our reason, senses or even experiences. How individual Christians relate to God and find God will vary, since all human beings differ greatly. God communicates in the ways that best relate to us, often though our varying circumstances, personalities and ways of thinking. Theologians describe two essential forms of revelation: General Revelation and Special Revelation. General Revelation suggests that aspects of God can be perceived through nature, intuition and mental reasoning. Special Revelation claims that God self-revealed through scripture and particularly through Jesus Christ.
To be as true as possible in our concepts of God, it is important to try to worship God ‘in Spirit and in truth’. Contemplatives talk of God being found within ourselves and in prayer. Some believe that we find God in the words and practice of Christians worship and belief in traditions and doctrines. Karl Barth claimed that the Christian God can now only be found through our interaction with scripture and what we find of God in it. I understand his argument, but this idea seems very prescriptive, implying that our omnipotent God might be unable to choose to communicate with us in more direct or other ways. Surely an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient God could choose to communicate to human beings in any way God chooses.
In searching for God we need to be careful to look for truth, not be misled into superstition or wishful-thinking. It is very easy to find the sort of God that we want God to be, which will inevitably be more limited than the enormity and complexity of the concept of God derived from scripture. To be true in our Christian conception of God, we need to develop a holistic idea of God that takes into account the full breadth of all the biblical teaching and traditions.
Christians believe that Jesus of Nazareth was God’s most direct way of revealing the truth of faith and teaching how human life can relate to God. If we want to find the sort of God who Jesus revealed, it is important to consider all that Jesus said about God and live according to the life of the Kingdom that Jesus demonstrated. Throughout the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament it is made clear that to know God one needs to put faith into active practice in one’s daily life, as well as believing in God in one’s mind. Jesus exemplified God to us as well as teaching us about God. he also demonstrated how we can reflect God by our actions.
The Christian concept of God does not regard God as an abstract power but through anthropomorphic metaphors describes God as personal, loving, caring, creative, judgemental, righteous, forgiving and many other characteristics that have human parallels God must be very different and more perfect than any of these humanistic metaphors but they help us in our imagination to begin to comprehend the incomprehensible. However we should remember Thomas Merton’s qualification about any imagery used to conceive of God: “We should live as if we are seeing God face to face, but we should not conceive an image of God. On the contrary, it is a matter of adoring him as invisible and infinitely beyond our comprehension and realizing him in all.” [Thomas Merton Hidden Ground of Love p.63-64].
Although inevitably, enormous aspects of the invisible God must be recognised as incomprehensible and unprovable, my own experiences and my contact with the experiences of others, convince me that enough truth about God can be found to develop ways of relating to God in believers. It is not always as easy to find God as conventional evangelism claims, though God is equally findable to a child, an adult with learning differences, someone with a low or ordinary level of education, or to a learned Christian scholar. Neither faith nor our contact with God are dependent on our abilities: “Faith is assurance of things hoped for, conviction of things unseen” [Heb.11:1].
In a post-Enlightenment world, many people find that for intellectual integrity they cannot simply ‘believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and be assured of salvation’ as conventional evangelism once encouraged. Biblical research and analytical criticism have left many realising that for their personal intellectual integrity they cannot just simply accept and believe in the stories in scripture and trust the words of the Bible literally. Most of us need to confirm aspects of our faith through thinking-through personal difficulties in believing. Christians need to find ways of believing and understanding what are taught to be truths about faith that satisfy us intellectually, emotionally and spiritually and also be practical in our active daily life. This does not come easily, and is part of the long journey we take in developing as believers. Our personal apologetics and the ways by which we hope to convince others, need to recognise that there is no one way of believing, nor one sort if convincing evidence. Forms of assurance and convincing types of evidence or experience differ vastly among believers, since our individual minds work in so many different ways. For faith to be considered true it needs to be applicable to many different circumstances, cultures and experiences.
Therefore, since there is no ‘one way’ of finding God or knowing God, we need to be open to new evidences and experiences and try to be spiritually sensitive, while living as righteously as we are able. The search for God is not primarily an intellectual exercise; it is an inner search for keys that will keep our minds, imaginations and experiences open to whatever is true. Belief that the true God is probably infinite encourages us to try to open our minds to be willing to explore and expand our awareness, to encourage the fullest relationship with truth that can be possible.
The ways that people find God are admittedly inconsistent, though they partly depend on the sincerity of our search for truth. God is found by a child being taught to trust and pray; by an adult with learning-difficulties and the most learned scholar; by the artist, the musician, the gardener, the nuclear-physicist and the astrophysicist; the theologian and the philosopher. But we will all have different paths to understanding, different experiences, perhaps even different ways in which we trust God. As Arthur Holmes described, the Christian concept of God is so enormous that it embraces all that is true. Whatever our path to God or the ways that we tunnel into what is real, to find truths about God, we will only perceive a tiny fragment of the whole. If what we find is based on truth, it is sufficient to develop a meaningful, trusting relationship with God. Jesus Christ revealed, exemplified, taught and made possible that relationship. The Holy Spirit at work in our lives and minds enables and guides it.