Solenoid

"But from there you will seek the LORD your God, and you will find Him if you search for Him with all your heart and all your soul." (Deuteronomy 4:29)

There are several questions that approach the issue regarding why it seems difficult to know God? Why does it not seem "so bad" to do things that are spoken of with great distaste from God through the prophets? Is every "not-so-bad" non-believer really headed for hell? Why are we required to search for Him with "all" our hearts and souls? Why so much work? Why would not "most," or even "some," be all that's required? There are several ways to voice this apparent inconsistency in character between a God desiring all men to know him (1 Timothy 2:4), and yet who requires so much.

I suspect a sufficient response may be described in terms of the operation of a solenoid: a small switch responsible for triggering a larger switch. A human choosing to drink alcohol in the presence of others can display this effect. If one wishes not to become sexually involved with one with whom there is mutual attraction, the choice to partake in a substance that decreases one's inhibitions may effect all other choices while under such a state. The former choice effects the latter. Similarly, when driving over sloped terrain: the possibility of stopping at the top of the hill may diminish as one increases in speed moving towards the bottom. The frustrating response, "You should have thought of that before" comes to mind.

I think it entirely possible, even likely, that this principle may be present in the issue regarding why we must seek God with "all" of our hearts and souls in order to find Him. In the same way that our affinity to alcoholism is affected previous to our making any decisions at all, by virtue of our parents being alcoholic, our affinity to being numb towards things outside of the character of God may have been affected previous to our making any decisions at all.

Perhaps our hearts and souls were once undivided from His, and no amount of searching was needed for the finding. Perhaps after innumerable displacements from His character, one's entire effort of searching is required for finding. Perhaps it is not the magnitude of the distance which is the requirement, but the position of the destination (yes). Once the party has ended, and "home" becomes everyone's aim, some take more coffee than others for the drive, and some not at all. I propose "all" of one searching may not be so drastic an effort the more one has found Who God is.

Protect and Serve

The primary purpose of the Law is to protect others. It does this by condemning the offender. The Law proceeded from a just heart, as thought from the heart, words from the mind, the spoken from the unspoken, seen from the unseen. It is a snap-shot, a cross-section, a projection; the 2-dimensional from the 3-dimensional.

What is righteousness? What is right standing? We commonly (and appropriately) think of this within the context of the judicial system, according to the Law. But there is a fuller, deeper, richer, clearer understanding to be had of this. The right standing is according to the Law, yes, but it is to/concerning the Law giver. The end is not the Law, the Law is a just expression towards attaining to the heart of the Law giver: to stand, and this face to face. Yes, the heart of the Law giver is that we, His children, are made to stand before Him (which is our glory and to His praise). What is this end? The Father and His Children; the Husband and His Wife; Christ and His Church.

What components are necessary for this goal? The face-ward posture of both parties. If this goal is not reached, why is it not reached? Either or both parties must be hardened; must turn their backs and look elsewhere. If this goal is failed, it is not because God has turned aside, for by His own Hand has he accomplished the just requirements of the Law. We will stand because God is able to make us stand.

Beautiful Blindness

What is the attraction of a "blind faith?" I do admit to see some glimmer, though I must also admit I take it to be of the same sort as costume jewelry. I suspect that the majority of the instances where one comes across a claim to take God to be who you have not come to know He is (yet and/or yourself), stems from the claim-giver's fear and unbelief (for surely if one says a thing louder and more confident, it must validate its validity; to think so highly of your will as to insist it's potency can effect a truth; I now recall as a child feeling and acting as if to shut my eyes hard enough was to dissolve the obstruction to my will.) Is it not so clear that our projections of a Good God may go no further than the screen of our Imagination? Our God knows our minds; who we know Him to be. Surely there can be times where we can take Him to be both who He is and who we have not known Him (through experience) to be. And this is faith, and this is trust. But I ask, faith as what? Trust in whom? We have not trusted ourselves into our cultural context; we are born into Christian homes as others are born into Law homes. Why should we expect/desire to take our culture's word for who God is anymore than we should expect/desire other's to trust theirs? It is not trust in our doctrine that will fulfill the requirements of the law, neither trust in our parent's upbringing, nor our culture's accurate depiction of their creator. It is the definer, enactor, and fulfiller of the law that does Himself, and who knows our minds. Surely He does not now expect of us what we are not now?

What is the attraction of a "blind faith?" It is to propose and assume that our God desires us to know what we do not, to take Him to be who we do not know Him to be. And this is balanced upon fear; we resist challenging the assumption for fear it is true, for if it is, such challenging would negate its "blindness." This knowing is trusting. This trusting is incurred either associatively (concerning God's Being through other human beings) or experientially (concerning God's Being through our human being).

I reject blind faith. This is too strong, though. I reject that God desires our blindness of faith (even in Him). I must concede that it is a good thing to come into light by way of darkness, to sight by way of blindness (but, "by way of" might be better expressed "before"). It is a good thing to come to God any way one can, but once you find He is not hard of hearing, stop shouting. It is an insult to continue on playing Marco-Polo once you find your companion to have been waiting all this time at the table. Eat with Him.

If you do not will to know God is Good, you will not so know Him.
If you will to know God is Good, you will know He is so.
We come to know God by a cooperation of our wills with Truth.
We do not come to know God by an independence of our wills, which is a cooperation of our wills with Mis-Truth through maintained projection of our Imagination by our will.

How can one assist another to trust that God is Good? Not with clever rebuttals to ceaseless arguments (only a type of questioning and admittedly bias). How does one display that God is Good: by outwards expressions of actuated trust in His Goodness. Lead in following. Show how one follows well. But one must concede to not winning the battle in order to fight well.