penetrable

There are, I suppose, two incompatible thoughts of god which dictate human existence. At least, they may be found incompatible in our particular uses (or understandings) of them. The first is to believe that god is a mighty fortress which cannot be infiltrated. And the other is that god is so interested in our lives that he can be summoned over the slightest murmur of a prayer. In modern day evangelicalism I do not see a healthy connection of these ideals. Perhaps this is because we do a rather poor job of acurately living this out. Our church spaces are most likely the best indication of this: either we have spaces that are truly contemporary but display little (if any) sense of reverence and awe or we have spaces which are stately and majestic but which make it difficult to approach god on terms other than white-collar, upper-class, management terms.

An interesting situation.

However, a solution might be approached if we realize that god is not an impenetrable and ineffable mystery before which one bow down to the dust, overwhelmed by mystical emotions but one who is intimately involved with every aspect of his creation. When Scripture speaks of his mindful eye it makes a profound statement that God is actively caring for all he has made. What is more, all that he has made is given an incredible position of being able to call out his name.

An interesting solution.

The notion of this god being available leads to the biblical position of god being moveable. Although many systematicians claim that god is not able to change (despite things such as the incarnation), Scripture is very clear and forthright about praying as though prayers make a difference! All of this leads to a god who has opened himself up to the risk of being hurt all so that he might have a genuine love and relationship with his people. This does not sound like an impenetrable force.

An interesting vantage point:

Since we are enamored with the biggest, strongest, best, etc. . .we cannot help but have pictures of might color our view of God. Even after he has demonstrated not a love of power, but a power of love (see blog. And given his position as creator and sustainer, it is not a question of whether or not this god exists as one who cannot be dethroned, but rather what kind of god is this that would risk rejection and a thwarted will (at least, in part) that he would enter into this world.

And as the creator, sustainer, and foundation. . .one must not worry about his lack of mighty strength (cf. Isaiah 40)




*gratitude to: Artur Weiser, The Psalms (Louisville: WJK, 1962), 467-472.