During Lent, I get a Catholic daily video by Mathew Kelly on things to consider concerning spiritual issues. One received a week ago was especially concise: what, it asks, is your vision of God? What was it when you were a child? A teen? The upshot being that one’s image of God affects one’s relationship (or non-relationship): if it has not grown along with maturity, then what of that relationship or lack thereof?
A good workshop thing to do, and I paused to consider: as a child, I saw God as a giant eye always looking down upon me, judging. This would be creepy had I been an adult, but as a child, what else was new? Weren’t grown-ups always looking in and judging? God’s benevolence, or at times lack of it, was that of my parents, and less so, of other authority figures.
As a teen, this outlook changed dramatically. I was drawn into Eastern philosophy and religion, and tended to see God as a non-entity, a mystical void that held together the universe. There was no longer an “eye,” and no longer direct, human-like communication with this invisible force. Rather, I was left on my own to look outwards and marvel at the things I did not understand. Morality as I had been taught no longer held sway outside of the big social no-no’s. I was more or less free. It was a 60’s thing which allowed one to do as one wished inside a very loose parameter, perfect for my desire to experience the world in ways beyond the boundaries of the former “eye.”
Age has taught me that morality is a more coherent net than I had hoped for, for the effects of certain actions often carry far beyond those actions. Casual sex leads to unwanted pregnancies, STDs, and emotional turmoil; drug and alcohol abuse lead to bad health, really, really stupid decisions and actions, and failure in general; and excess concerns over worldly success and acclaim lead to anxiety, insecurity and a general, persistent unhappiness.
What then of that image now? The Big Eye was immature, but (perhaps) more right than I had thought. If basic moral rules were meant for us to lead to a better life overall, that meant that God was not a non-entity who only persisted as a kind of mystical glue, but rather something that wished well for humanity. Yet, the eye will not do either; as one learns more of the vastness of the universe, one could not confine “IT” to the reproachful gaze of the schoolmarm.
What then? Perhaps “IT” is a mystical benevolence? But what of the bad in the world? Why would a caring God allow the daily horror that we all see on the news, and sometimes experience ourselves?
All told, the image of God is what this blog often must confront, for that is the image we all look for (or away from) when something comes to us from out of the blue. This includes those who believe they believe in nothing, for we all ask: why do good or bad or weird things happen when there appears to be no reason for them? Why, in fact, is there anything? Our image of God, or lack of it, ultimately directs how we experience any experience that cannot be readily explained.
Modern novels stipulate a nonsensical world replete with synchronicities that somehow are connected but that make no sense – expressing the feeling that there IS a force in the universe but that it is not approachable or comprehensible, something like the Big Eye that, in contrast, does NOT care either emotionally or intellectually.
One might say that this no more incomplete than other images we often have. The trouble is, this new perception of God in the arts throws away former images of God while refusing to embrace anything new that is substantial. This is a conceit, much like the complaints of Doubting Thomas. Here, the baby is thrown out with the bath water. It would be better, rather, to give credence to the well-worn views of God, understanding that none are ever complete unless we, ourselves, are complete, for God cannot be found in pictures, words or logic. We must then stride for a personal relationship with God, vaulting beyond whatever image we have taken from those classical views. The rest is up to us and to grace, for God can only be fully known personally. In the end, no image will ever fill the complete bill.
We might say that God is both impersonal and personal, both the glue of the universe and the eye that watches over us; but “IT” is forever so much more. We will always complain about this incomprehensibility but shouldn’t, because we desperately need a frontier that can never be conquered. This is in our nature, for it drives us towards the personal God that is also, always, beyond us, enticing us with new lands, with dangers and promises, and with the fullness of what it means to be alive. Enticing; leading us on beyond the image. FK
A good workshop thing to do, and I paused to consider: as a child, I saw God as a giant eye always looking down upon me, judging. This would be creepy had I been an adult, but as a child, what else was new? Weren’t grown-ups always looking in and judging? God’s benevolence, or at times lack of it, was that of my parents, and less so, of other authority figures.
As a teen, this outlook changed dramatically. I was drawn into Eastern philosophy and religion, and tended to see God as a non-entity, a mystical void that held together the universe. There was no longer an “eye,” and no longer direct, human-like communication with this invisible force. Rather, I was left on my own to look outwards and marvel at the things I did not understand. Morality as I had been taught no longer held sway outside of the big social no-no’s. I was more or less free. It was a 60’s thing which allowed one to do as one wished inside a very loose parameter, perfect for my desire to experience the world in ways beyond the boundaries of the former “eye.”
Age has taught me that morality is a more coherent net than I had hoped for, for the effects of certain actions often carry far beyond those actions. Casual sex leads to unwanted pregnancies, STDs, and emotional turmoil; drug and alcohol abuse lead to bad health, really, really stupid decisions and actions, and failure in general; and excess concerns over worldly success and acclaim lead to anxiety, insecurity and a general, persistent unhappiness.
What then of that image now? The Big Eye was immature, but (perhaps) more right than I had thought. If basic moral rules were meant for us to lead to a better life overall, that meant that God was not a non-entity who only persisted as a kind of mystical glue, but rather something that wished well for humanity. Yet, the eye will not do either; as one learns more of the vastness of the universe, one could not confine “IT” to the reproachful gaze of the schoolmarm.
What then? Perhaps “IT” is a mystical benevolence? But what of the bad in the world? Why would a caring God allow the daily horror that we all see on the news, and sometimes experience ourselves?
All told, the image of God is what this blog often must confront, for that is the image we all look for (or away from) when something comes to us from out of the blue. This includes those who believe they believe in nothing, for we all ask: why do good or bad or weird things happen when there appears to be no reason for them? Why, in fact, is there anything? Our image of God, or lack of it, ultimately directs how we experience any experience that cannot be readily explained.
Modern novels stipulate a nonsensical world replete with synchronicities that somehow are connected but that make no sense – expressing the feeling that there IS a force in the universe but that it is not approachable or comprehensible, something like the Big Eye that, in contrast, does NOT care either emotionally or intellectually.
One might say that this no more incomplete than other images we often have. The trouble is, this new perception of God in the arts throws away former images of God while refusing to embrace anything new that is substantial. This is a conceit, much like the complaints of Doubting Thomas. Here, the baby is thrown out with the bath water. It would be better, rather, to give credence to the well-worn views of God, understanding that none are ever complete unless we, ourselves, are complete, for God cannot be found in pictures, words or logic. We must then stride for a personal relationship with God, vaulting beyond whatever image we have taken from those classical views. The rest is up to us and to grace, for God can only be fully known personally. In the end, no image will ever fill the complete bill.
We might say that God is both impersonal and personal, both the glue of the universe and the eye that watches over us; but “IT” is forever so much more. We will always complain about this incomprehensibility but shouldn’t, because we desperately need a frontier that can never be conquered. This is in our nature, for it drives us towards the personal God that is also, always, beyond us, enticing us with new lands, with dangers and promises, and with the fullness of what it means to be alive. Enticing; leading us on beyond the image. FK
RSS Feed