----------------------------------- Arythmael Wed Jun 20, 2007 1:56 am Re: Using Prayer In the Wrong Way? ----------------------------------- Perhaps it would be helpful to look at this topic philosophically for just a moment. Our first problem is that God cannot be understood by using the terms and concepts which have naturally developed within what is now pretty much a culture shaped by the entire Western Civilization. Not because it's western, of course, but because it is simply not centered in a common and deep Christian experience. Just consider the various concepts of the word "love" that we have to contend with. Our concepts of things like awe, respect, friendship, what a buddy is, or an authority, a judge, and so on ... all of these have been solidified through a long series of experiences and relationships that we've had with other humans -- not with God directly. So we have friends, but not many friends who are also our primary authority. We have met people we are in awe of, but not many of these were also exceedingly kind and attentive to us, as well as intimately familiar with our innermost thoughts and feelings. Some of us have stood before a judge and known (or at least sensed) a kind of fear because of the power to remit punishment upon the accused, but few have felt this also knowing that the judge had laid down his life and given up his right to command and demand respect ... all for the purpose of preventing the accused from having had to stand there in judgment in the first place. So there is a problem which those of us who have felt the rod of God's correction for many years now tend to see in the viewpoints of younger, albeit zealous and earnest Christians. And that is that they get caught up in a reactionary kind of eagerness to zero in on what the truth is about God. The reaction is too often an overreaction that sees the wrongness in such ideas as God as a "tyrannical power-monger" and attempts to put a nail in that wrongness by consistently asserting the opposite characteristic ... that he is our "friend" and "buddy". The trick to getting this right is to go carefully, and assert all of the things that are true about God, in equal amounts (conceptually), without reacting to any one of them by quickly jumping on all the baggage that our human relationships have associated with those things which aren't true about God. So we say "Yes, He is our ultimate judge who has the right to convict and punish us for our sins." But we avoid the temptation of feeling like we need to assert to all listening "... but that doesn't mean He doesn't love us!" Such reactions tend to get repeated by certain folks with every opportunity -- to make sure they are not being handed the flawed and human form of judgment, which often does come with tyranny and a lack of love. After a history of overreacting this way, people tend to settle comfortably in their concept of God which is highly-focused on God's friendliness and brotherly affections for us. But this bias in thought and speech about the nature of our relationship with God is more of a coping mechanism than it is the truth. If we look at the Apostle Paul as an example, we see lots of focus on God's intimacy as well as lots of focus on His holiness. But the central theme which Paul seems very biased about is adoration, I would say. Whether intimate friend or intimidating authority ... God is foremost worthy of our adoration. And this is what we see the angels in heaven focusing on as well. I think we would do well to do the same. In summary, I think that we have to understand the underlying problem that makes discussing just what is the nature of our relationship with God so difficult. When we understand this, we can spend less time arguing about which characteristic should be focused on. I think everyone contributing to this topic so far agrees that we need a balanced view of God, and that applies as much to His level of intimacy as it does to any of the other myriad qualities of our relationship with Him. What has been happening in this discussion so far is that one person says they think it's great that we think of God as our "best buddy", then another warns that we must also not forget that He is our awesome Creator and judge. Those on the first side of the fence defend their position by asserting that God is not all of those power-hungry, ego-centric things that some folks make Him out to be but rather loving, friendly, etc., to which the other responds by reminding us about how much care is needed to avoid taking this "friendliness" thing too far. And on it goes ... He is both: awesome judge and best buddy. He is none of those wrong things people make Him out to be: neither overbearing tyrant nor tag-along "yes-man" who just wants to please. We are all clear on this, I think. The question is one of expression. Do we think of Him more centrally and singularly as that "best buddy"? If we do we have to ask ourselves why that is our predominant perspective. Are we just trying to convince ourselves in reaction to not liking other things we've been told to believe? Likewise, if we are focusing on how fearful we should be and how unapproachable God is because of our low state in comparison, then the same question comes to bear: why this predominant focus? Are we in this case overreacting to a fear of being "too familiar" with God? The initial topic post simply focused on the fact that, for one person, prayer with God was not just constant but was about the most minute details of choices to be made in life. From there the focus turned to our level of intimacy with God and our need to grow in our "unspoken" following of the desires of God (i.e., without the conversational thought associated with prayer). Now the question should be: do we talk about God and think about Him in a way that truly reflects that balance of Him as Lord, Savior, judge, mentor, and friend. We now agree about the need for balance in principle ... but do our thoughts, actions, and speech actually reflect that balance? Arythmael