I'm a product of my environment, upbringing, education, social class, and birthplace. So much about my surroundings and environment shape who I am. It's difficult to think outside this sphere I live in. What's even more interesting, is how I put God within this sphere as well. I can't help it. It's a part of how I was created. I have to think in terms of my sphere.
I say this to give a reason as to why I think the way I do. I have a version of God that I have found "liveable" and within the possibility of relational. This has been a difficult task for me over the last 7 years. I have often been angry at God, or just denied his existence. Scripture doesn't make this any easier. There are things in Scripture that point to a version of God that I don't like. It's one that I have difficulty accepting, or at least the general interpretation of Him.
So here's my question, do you think it's okay to live life this way? Is this irreverant? Should I just accept the standard knowledge and practice of what's around me and fall in line to a picture of God that is very likely to be true... even though it upsets me to the point of anger and frustration? My version of who God is doesn't deny what he's told us about himself in Scripture, it just chooses to look at him though a different lens than normal. It's a lens that allows me to trust, to build a relationship upon. It isn't heretical, and it isn't ignoring scripture, it's just different.
3 comments:
I would be interested in the picture your lens defines. How you get there isn't nearly as important as where you arrive.
Good 1ce
heretical? who knows. that we have to think within our spheres is a given... our reality tunnels as Timothy Leary used to call them. that we recognize that our sphere is ours alone and that anything we put in that sphere is no longer itself but is our interpretation of our perception of that thing.
"the map is not the territory" as the old saying goes. there is an old story of the student who keeps going to the master with an example of what the Tao might be and each time when trying to define the Tao, the student is met with a "it's not that..." by the teacher. In essence - once you put a definition on the Tao... or God... or (insert name here) you have missed the point.
and that is where arrogance begins to come in. to believe that we limited beings could in some way shape or form "define" or understand that which is well beyond our capacity is arrogance and begins to put our selves in a box as well. Once defined - i no longer need to do the work to understand. Convictions do cause convicts. It is a different way of saying (i forget who said it) i heard it once that isnt it interesting that God hates the same people that i do...
i absolutely share some of your concerns and questions, however, what gets me thru is the knowledge that my "sphere" today is too small to hold the full answer and, with time, that sphere grows and changes and i understand more. in that way, i disagree with anonymous here - it isnt the destination... it's the journey.
I can see a valid point to both sentiments on journey vs. destination. On one end, arriving at nothing or not choosing to act because of ambiguity towards life doesn't seem right.
On the other hand, i can't be certain of anything. Therefore, assuming I've come to some "conclusive" or definitive thought or truth doesn't seem right. I can know that I KNOW something for certain... or that I certainly believe something, but outside of that, it seems as though faith has much more influence over my thinking than I once gave it credit.
I'm still mulling over this topic so please continue the dialogue. Thanks both of you for adding.
Post a Comment