The serious and sometimes satirical reflections of a priest, poet, and pilgrim —
who knowing he has not obtained the goal, presses on in a Godward direction.
“a clear-sighted companion.... If you are passionate about the vitality of today’s church, I encourage you to accompany him on his mystagogical excursion into the liturgical landscape. You will rediscover a familiar place rife with fresh provisions planted by the God who longs to feed our deepest hungers and hopes.” —Jay Koyle, chair, Faith, Worship and Ministry of The Anglican Church of Canada
Your words are yours but I reserve the right to cite them or refer to them in other contexts
I will not post comments that are irrelevant or offensive.Note that Blogger limits comments to 4,096 characters.
Posts
12 comments:
An arrogant absurdity, indeed. And yet, a good many words have been spoken and written seemingly attempting to do just that.
For what man knows God's counsel, or who can conceive what our LORD intends? For the deliberations of mortals are timid, and unsure are our plans. For the corruptible body burdens the soul and the earthen shelter weighs down the mind that has many concerns. And scarce do we guess the things on earth, and what is within our grasp we find with difficulty; but when things are in heaven, who can search them out? (Wisdom 9:13-16)
Thanks, Mimi.
Yes and Amen, Tim, I thought of that. Also of Jesus' words to Nikodemos, "If I have told you about earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you about heavenly things?" Ultimately true wisdom begins with acknowledging the edge of one's knowledge!
Tobias,
The conundrum for me is that God is limitless and so as soon as we try to speak about God we have limited God. Knowing that, how can any perosn claim to know the mind of God?
... as both sides of every religious debate frequently say to each other...
Thanks Fred. It's the old "comprehending the incomprehensible" paradox.
Erika, a bit like the warring armies both convinced that God is with them and their cause is just, eh?
It isn't just arrogant; it is the very instantiation of taking the Lord's name in vain.
I do feel a little uneasy about this.
We DO confidently claim to know a fair bit of God's mind. We have the 10 Commandments to guide us regarding the principles of living together he wants us to adopt.
We have Jesus' teachings of love in action to show us.
Yes, there are borderline issues and they tend to be the ones we squabble over endlessly.
Like whether same sex love comes under the heading of immoral sexual relations or committed marriage. But the reason we argue is BECAUSE we know broadly what God wants for us. We just have different interpretations of how to achieve that.
And when I am absolutely certain that God does not like the bonded labour of children, I really don't think I'm taking his name in vain.
Okay, if we can put aside fundamentalist abuses (and maybe some here can't), can we approach John 1:18 and begin the humble, yet confident, process of speaking because we have seen, and heard.
"No one has seen God at any time" it begins, but then goes on to say "the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him." John 1:18 NAS
Whatever level of confidence you think there is in the New Testament about the possibility of a Christologically enabled way of speaking about God, it is a significant level that should IMHO move us out of certain comfortable forms of apophasis, that can masquerade as humility, and see how there has been a revelation, a self-identification of God on the world stage in Jesus, a certain overcoming of our limits, so that we can, and are commisioned to, speak and think, with, again, a strong level of confidence. Scandalous? Yes, but the scandal of the gospel.
Thanks, Paul A.
Erika and Anonymous (please i.d. yourself even with a pseudonym; thanks) I think you are carrying my thought in directions I did not intend. Note the important word "fully" and also my intended contrast between claiming full knowledge of the supernatural while not even possessing anything approaching full knowledge of the natural! So I take both your points, which converge on the notion that God has revealed certain aspects of the mind and will of God, most especially in the person of Jesus. Folks, I'm not claiming we need to be agnostic, but am warning against a gnosticism that claims a full understanding of the divine.
Is that better...?
A similar thought, attributed variously to Confucius or Buddha, neither of whom chose to be pressed on matters of the Great Beyond:
If a man cannot know all there is in the world we can see, why ask about the world we cannot?
Thanks, Mark. It also reminds me of the legend of Augustine of Hippo and the angel by the seashore.
Post a Comment