a feeling God? (part 3)

Some more thoughts on the issue of a 'feeling God' - you'll find previous musings here and here.  It's worth reading the comments, too.

On a personal level, when looking at this topic, as with so many, I want to know what is real - not what is fashionable.  I'm aware, to an extent, we are all fashion vicitims - influenced by cultures then and now.  And it probably is a muddle of mindsets that we inhabit, inherited hotch-potches of various kinds of thinking.  We may disagree on how far those influences extend and emphasise some over others - but I think we'd all agree that influences are there, whatever side of the fence we're coming from.

I do believe in the unchanging nature of God.  I do not want in any way to imply anything different.  But when we are told not to grieve the Holy Spirit of God, the one who intercedes for us with 'groans we cannot express' I cannot get away from a picture of a dynamic God who responds to us in grace, listening and speaking, showing grace and compassion.  His nature is steadfast, his love unchanging.  But I do not think this necessarily means that God looks upon us and 'feels' nothing.

That word 'feeling' - so all encompassing, so hard to compartmentalise.  There is no doubt that language has its limits.

Neither do I claim that this 'feeling' is the same as the human variety - could it not be possible that there is a divine equivalent?   Do we equate human emotion with the feelings of God?  Are then, these human descriptions of divine realities?

Think of all the questions we could ask!

Of course, I haven't even touched on the issue of 'does God change his mind?' - I'll save that for another post.  

Happily dabbling in conjecture, now.  Feel free to dabble with me.

happiness is a decision

...part of the catchphrase of the movement called Action for Happiness. I caught this on the news yesterday, reporting on the launch event in London.

Happiness is now a science. People are deciding that it's good to be happy and that - gosh - this is not bound up in material possessions. In the BBC report page it says: 'On joining the organisation, members pledge to produce more happiness and less misery.' According to the promotional video below, doing good things for others makes you feel good about yourself. And guess what! Happiness is contagious. One spokesperson said:

"Rejecting a societal focus on materialism and self-obsessed individualism, the movement instead prioritises healthy relationships with others and meaningful activities as a means to happier living." (from BBC report)

And it's good for our mental health (which I suppose means it's nicely economical, too).


They're saying that happiness is a decision - a skill to be learned. Which puts me in mind of the apostle Paul saying 'I have learned to be content in all circumstances' (my emphasis).  I'm not sure that Action for Happiness would mean it quite in the context he says it, however:

I am not saying this because I am in need, for I have learned to be content whatever the circumstances. I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want. I can do all this through him who gives me strength. - Philippians 4:11-13

Paul's framework is that of a person - the one who gives him strength, rather than contentment for the sake of it. Neither does he do good to make himself feel good - it's about God's approval, not man's.  

So, is contentment the same as happiness?  And what about joy - especially when it comes to rejoicing in suffering?

People are trying different things to make them feel happy - be it meditating, writing a thank you note, making someone a cup of tea.  BBC Breakfast have even started a 'Happiness Challenge'.

This ties in a little with the government's interest in measuring well-being.

Is this partly in reaction to a time of economic difficulty?  That we need to find something other than the material to define ourselves? I'm certainly not arguing with that, by the way.  I just find it all fascinating, even if I do sound tongue-in-cheek about it.  Although making happiness the saviour of the world is a bit much (join the movement - be the change!).  It hardly addresses the real problems that so many face.  Sticking a 'happy' plaster on a gaping wound of despair?  Hmm.

How do you measure well-being?  Or happiness?  And how exactly do you define happiness?

Sitting in the library on Monday morning in a pool of sunlit silence and exercising my brain I felt a rush of pure...happiness, contentment, whatever you want to call it.  So, I guess that's one of the things that makes me 'happy'.  But others would be bored out of their brains.

So go on, tell me.  What makes you happy?  And just how important is happiness?







Image - Willow Tree figurine 'happiness' - photographer unknown

a feeling God? (part 2)

I'm grateful to Doug Chaplin (Clayboy) for re-clarifying the context of the post I quoted yesterday; the discrediting he mentions is that of a clear gulf between Hebrew and Greek thought

... by the time we get to Jesus. There are different histories and different cultural perceptions, but they have been exaggerated and too much tied to ideas of language and the biblical text.

Please read the rest of his comment on yesterday's post for more.  I feel I did not represent this clearly enough and probably applied it out of context.  Apologies.

I confess I am not at this stage going to comment at length on this - I'm far too theologically rusty to make a good job of it. Rather I'll continue with my main (segmented) post for now.

That's the thing about reading others' blogs - they spark off topics in your mind and before long you're halfway round a different block with your own thoughts!

In my original post, I was going to quote Doug again - I will do so because it was another trigger in my head, but then I'll stop (mis?) quoting him!

In another post on this subject, he says of the biblical emotive language that

I interpret it as the metaphor by which the narrative characterises the changing and developing relationship between God and his people, and part of the process where God’s people grow into a deeper understanding of God. I do not see us as being obliged to refer the narrative metaphors to eternal characteristics.

And off I went round the block again, pondering as I went.  (I like going round the block.  I can get quite addicted to those 'thought sparks'.)

Here is where I struggle.  I do not  disagree that metaphor is heavily used when talking about God - in fact how could it be otherwise?  But I believe nonetheless that it is trying to say something about God.

(There are many tangents and byways of course, easily sidestepping into the nature of scripture, inspiration and the nature of language - is it, as some would say, eternally self-referring? Can language be reliable? I'll pull myself out of that tangent before I get onto a new topic entirely.)

If God does not grieve, mourn, or sympathise, if he does not react in any way, if he does not respond to us in anyway, how does he relate?  Can a relationship be static?  Do we not claim that God is three in one?

And what about passages that express the joy of God - such as in Zephaniah 'he will rejoice over you with gladness, he will delight / exult over you with singing' - I'm not proposing he would literally sing (feel free to discuss), but am I then to say that this verse is obsolete, that there is no delight experienced by God, because it is what we would call a feeling?   

Is it simply a way of saying God approves - but then how do we define approval?  And if we say God is pleased do we take it not as literal pleasure - what then, does it mean?  Is it simply that we think he is pleased and thus interpret it thus?  (Hence, it is all about what we think of God and not true of God at all?)

And does the fact that someone feels change their character? Indeed he is the Father of the heavenly lights,who does not change like shifting shadows (James 1-17)....surely this is a testament to the unfailing, unsteady, utterly reliable character of God who does not do things on mere whim but always acts in line with his character - just, true, loving and holy?  The context of the verse is that he is the source of all giving, and that every perfect gift comes from him, and then goes on to talk about the purpose of God - not the feelings of God.  James later encourages his readers to 'draw near to God and he will draw near to you' - surely a verse of cause and effect?  Of God responding  to humanity?  Not a static idea. (Interestingly, just prior to this verse he quotes a scripture which reads 'God yearns jealously'...)  

Of course, we all probably  come from different traditions;  I'm not an Anglican, for example, and I probably place a little less emphasis on tradition than some.  Plus, writing blog posts like this still makes me feel like I am swimming without armbands on, so please forgive any foolishness or stupidity!


I'm also aware of our own tendencies to navigate towards that which we are most comfortable with (whatever that may be).  But more on that, later.

PS The placement of the emoticons is not in relation to the text - merely corresponding to the main topic!  Just in case you thought I was having mood swings throughout...

a feeling God? (part 1)

A few gentle musings on a hefty topic, which is far bigger than my tiny hands.  After throwing out a whole lotta words, I've divided it up a bit into a series of posts, which I'll put up at certain points.  Otherwise, it would be an eye ball roller¹.  Of course, this means I won't cover all points in one go and have to resist the urge to clarify everything at once - which, being me, I'll find quite difficult, as I hate being misunderstood!

In my gentle blogging the bible over at Thirsty Ground, I tend to stick with the story and not widen it into big theological conundrums - but that is not to say I am unaware of wider issues of how we read and interpret the bible, nor am I uninterested in such discussions.  In fact, I'm regularly going off on tangents in my mind, connecting ideas and themes with other things I'm reading or thinking about.  (The joy of being able to think - to perceive, to compare, to relate - does anyone else ever find this startling?)

In looking at the story of God's interaction with Noah, I am doing what I have decided at the start - reading the story and commenting on the story, not trying to squeeze things into categories or make them 'fit' with certain frameworks or, in some cases, make them more palatable.  That's not my purpose.  I'm reading the text as story - looking at the words themselves, applying, i suppose, the kind of technique when reading and reflecting on any story. I do this within the belief that this is of course, not just any story.

Nonetheless, I'm aware that some things, read in this way, will cause our minds to fizzle.  I note, for example, in this post that 'this is a story of a feeling God' which may cause problems for those who struggle with the idea that God has feelings, taking this to imply that God is subject to change.   I would say that I am reading it as story, and therefore am not trying to make a theological point about this.

But I do struggle with the belief in the impassibility of God - apologies to those of you who find theological jargon off putting and who do not like hefty blog posts (feel free to turn off or tune out)!  A couple of months ago Clayboy posted on his blog about this topic, saying

It is now quite common to find Christians believing that God has feelings.

He says that this idea, that God can be affected by what he has made - us - is based on what he calls a 'largely discredited' theory of 'static Greek essentialism' and 'some kind of  Hebrew dynamism'.  He talks about this in specific reference to the emotive language used about God in the Old Testament.  Obviously this is something I am particularly immersed in due to my journeying through Genesis, but I am also doing a more generalised 'bible in a year' reading, which I found helpful the first time I attempted it in 2009. 

I feel I cannot possibly approach the topic with any thing like the thoroughness and astuteness that he does, but I am still wary of the influence of Greek philosophical thought on classical Christian thought in this area, in spite of the suggestion that this has been 'widely discredited' - I'd have to examine that claim further in order to be able to comment on that, let alone argue against it.²  But was it not Aristotle who pronounced God as the 'unmoved mover' the one static source from which everything finds its motion? 

If God is moved by nothing, then why should he care, love, or even create?  I feel there must be degrees in this, that it is not merely one fence running through two fields - the passible and the impassible.  Why, I ponder, are we so ready to assume that because we say God must be such-and-such in order to be God (the more philosophical argument, I suppose), therefore he cannot be other than what we say?

I'm not the only one who feels that the image of God we conjure is influenced by a kind of dualism - in her post 'God in a Psychotic Rage?' Lesley notes that

...I am also aware that I tend to look at God through the lenses of the Greek dualism of the earthy being emotional, full of desire, changeable and grubby whereas the spiritual is beautiful, serene, knowledgeable and wise.

Lesley and I may choose to put different items in our wardrobes (see her post here) and we inhabit different traditions/denominations, but I appreciate her honesty, as its something I've always tried to be myself (honest, that is).

The Hebrew narratives feel rather muddier and more complex than our 'pictures of God'.  So, do we try and squeeze the biblical images to fit?  Or do we merely dismiss them?


I don't believe we should create God in our own image - it's the other way round.  I'm not saying God suffers from human feelings (aside from what he does in Jesus - hardly insignificant), thus implying that God feels like me (yikes!).  But I can't at this point condemn the language used as merely our interpretations of God.  Isn't that approach in itself an interpretation of God, open to exactly the same flaws?

More later!

A feeling God? (part 2)

¹Eye ball roller -  not, in this case referring to mere rolling of the eyes, but referring to posts so long that your eye balls dry up and fall out, rolling around on the floor.  Nice.

² I've not been clear here about what Doug meant.  Please see his comment on this post.  

music that resonates...

Do you have a particular piece of music that always evokes some feeling within you?

I have one - not particularly original as it's quite famous, but never mind. 

Beethoven's Piano Sonata No. 14. - aka "Moonlight". 

I can be reading, writing, travelling, washing up...not really paying much attention to the music gently playing in the background.  But then "Moonlight" starts playing.  However absorbed I am, it filters through and I look up and suddenly pause.  It makes immediate contact with something buried inside me.  I feel a rush of peace and happiness, and at the same time, a resonation with any sadness I might be feeling.  It always manages to find something in my mood to meet it - whether it's drawing me into a more peaceful state or meeting me in a place I can already be found. 

I have to take a breath, lean my head back and feel a rush of tingling emotion.  A reassuring familiarity and yet still with the capacity to freeze me in the moment. It's a sudden appearance of a beloved friend, if that's not too much hyperbole.

Then I carry on with what I'm doing, but I am properly listening to the music now, relishing its company.

I can't tell you why, but that's what it does to me.

I'd love to know if anyone else has that experience, and what piece of music evokes it.

***

Illustration from stock.xchng