Fish out of water

That's what I've been feeling like lately.

It seems a lot of my friends are in a space in their lives where they're questioning what they believe. Now, I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. I hope that they're questioning with the purpose of finding some answers, and not just questioning as an end in itself. I've been in the place of questioning myself. And while I'm currently questioning the form and function relationship of what I believe, I do feel like I have some pretty firm foundations at the moment. Sadly, I get the feeling that my "lack of uncertainty" is threatening to some. Some might even consider me arrogant for even thinking I know anything of who God is.

*sigh*

I was sitting around with some of these friends a while ago, listening to some of the things they are questioning, and the processes they are using. I bit my tongue, because I knew I couldn't explain the stuff I've been reading that's been so life-giving to me lately. Part of me wished I could somehow download these books by Francis Schaeffer right into their brains because it's just a bit too much for me to communicate on my own. My fear, from what I've been hearing, is that these friends may be heading down the road of existentialism in order to settle their conflict. And worse, that they may not be able to recognize it or the logical conclusions of that path.

One thing I have noticed is that for several of these questioners, their search seems to have begun out of a place of trauma. A place where God didn't behave the way their theology seemed to indicate He would. And so the search begins for something that will line up with the world as it really is. I've been there. There was a time in my life when the pain of infertility was so bad that I was taking scripture and arguing that God was, in fact, NOT good! However, when I hit the bottom of the agony and had no answers I had to say "I don't understand, but I know too much to walk away." I held on by my fingernails and waited for God to do whatever it was He needed to do. Kicking and screaming all the way.

Kind of like Job.

Which brings me to another point... a little thing that's just been irking me.

A friend posted something on his blog about Job being the personification of faith because" he understands that all theology is blasphemy". And then the quote goes on to reference Kierkegaard, the father of existentialism - both secular and religious. Of course Kierkegaard would say that you cannot understand God! He separates faith from knowledge as though the two can never have any relation. His faith is not in the God who is there, it is in "faith". That's just not a road I want to go down.

Not only are we dealing with a God who is there, we are dealing with one who is not silent. What possible purpose could He have for having communicated with us about who He is and having interacted with us, thus showing His character, if He didn't want us to understand anything about Him? It makes no sense! Don't get me wrong here, I'm not saying that we can ever know EVERYTHING about God, but I don't think this is an all or nothing kind of thing.

For instance,(okay, I realize that this is a weak analogy, but it's the best I could do at this hour of the night) those of you who are married would probably say you know your spouse pretty well. I'd like to think I have a handle on who mine is. You spend time with them and notice how they respond in certain situations. You could probably generate some basic principles of how they operate. But every now and then they surprise you. They react differently. They don't follow the pattern you expect. Do you not know them? Do you have to throw out your expectations? I don't think so. Odds are, you probably have a pretty good handle on who they are - but you don't know everything. So... you talk to them. Find out how this new thing fits with the old structure. It probably does - you were just missing some perspective. Where the analogy is lacking is that your spouse is growing and learning and inconsistent as a human being, while God is unchanging. (yes, I realize this can open the debate on dispensationalism - but I'd prefer not to go into that one just now, my brain is already on overload.)

I guess my point is that just because you can't know everything about how God works, doesn't mean you can't know anything. Fact is, Job questioned God. He told Him that he didn't deserve this. He wanted answers, too. And, if I read correctly, it was Job who got blasted by God - not his friends. Yes, there is mystery to God. He is bigger than we can comprehend. But He has chosen to reveal Himself to us. Can we just throw that away because it's too big and complicated? I hope that's not what I'm seeing.

Please indulge me in another Schaeffer quote. I hate taking him out of context, but I'd have to publish the entire book to give you the full scope, so I hope this will speak somewhat clearly. This is from "He is There and He is Not Silent", the chapter is on the moral necessity(philosophically) of God being there and not being silent:

"Evangelicals often make a mistake today. Without knowing it, they slip over into a weak position. They often thank God in their prayers for the revelation we have of God in Christ. This is good as far as it goes, and it is wonderful that we do have a factual revelation of God in Christ. But I hear very little thanks from the lips of evangelicals today for the propositional revelation in verbalized form which we have in the Scriptures. He must indeed not only be there, but he must have spoken. And he must have spoken in a way which is more than simply a quarry for emotional, upper-story experiences. We need propositional facts. We need to know who he is, and what his character is, because his character is the law of the universe. He has told us what his character is, and this becomes our moral law, our moral standard. It is not arbitrary, for it is fixed in God himself, in what has always been. It is the very opposite of what is relativistic. It is either this or morals are not morals, but simply sociological averages or arbitrary standards imposed by society or the state. It is one or the other."