So far, here's the most interesting thought for me, I think it comes from chapter 5 (it's an ebook so I'm not sure the exact page number):
"If we are to approach that density of understanding, we must first grasp just how powerful, within the ancient scriptures, this theme of God's sovereign, independent action really was."
And a bit later:
"Whatever else the ancient Israelites believed about their God, he was not a tame God. He was not the cool, detached God of ancient Epicureanism or modern Deism. But nore was he simply the personification of those forces of nature. He uses them, riding on the wind."
He goes on to talk about how one of the things that was so difficult for Israel was how often they were thrown off by God, how often they expected him to behave, respond, act a certain way and how often he didn't respond as they wanted or expected or wished. He was their God but he certainly couldn't be managed.
It is connected, for me, to Willard talking about how using the Lord's name in vein was really about trying to manipulate God into action by invoking his name so that he had to come through for his name's sake.
I wonder how often we have driven theology completely the opposite direction of this in order to calm people's anxieties? We say things like "God never changes," which is true, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he will always act the way that I want. It is good to not be anxious but that should be driven by the fact that God is good, not that he is predictable.
"If we are to approach that density of understanding, we must first grasp just how powerful, within the ancient scriptures, this theme of God's sovereign, independent action really was."
And a bit later:
"Whatever else the ancient Israelites believed about their God, he was not a tame God. He was not the cool, detached God of ancient Epicureanism or modern Deism. But nore was he simply the personification of those forces of nature. He uses them, riding on the wind."
He goes on to talk about how one of the things that was so difficult for Israel was how often they were thrown off by God, how often they expected him to behave, respond, act a certain way and how often he didn't respond as they wanted or expected or wished. He was their God but he certainly couldn't be managed.
It is connected, for me, to Willard talking about how using the Lord's name in vein was really about trying to manipulate God into action by invoking his name so that he had to come through for his name's sake.
I wonder how often we have driven theology completely the opposite direction of this in order to calm people's anxieties? We say things like "God never changes," which is true, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he will always act the way that I want. It is good to not be anxious but that should be driven by the fact that God is good, not that he is predictable.
I wonder if Israel's "falling" away and harlotry over the 2000 year period leading up to Christ had to do somewhat with their frustration with God. When God didn't "act" the way they expected they may have thrown their hands in the air with frustration (and probably fear). The next natural response would be to control their world through idol worship or whatever else the pagans were doing. Than add to the fact that the pagans may have been doing just fine without God (at least from their perspective). That actually gives me grace for Israel. Don't think that was the intent of the blog but it touched me that way.
ReplyDelete