In my most recent blog entry entitled simply, Now. I discussed at a very high level the essential Now nature of God. And also how that impacts the individual believer. The intent was to deal with the big picture on the subject. As the intent was to deal wit or operate at a very high level, it caused me to gloss over in summary form at least one crucial item.
One requirement for a proper interface on this issue is functional stillness. My previous entry glossed over this for a couple reasons. The first I have already stated, the best I could do was make a passing reference in summary form as it was not the primary focus of the overall piece. I did not want to distract from the broader point I was making to give the subject the sort of depth it deserved.
The other reason I held back was based on a general dislike I have. Typically when authors exposit and expound upon most spiritual topics, they operate in declarative formulaic fashion. The tend to say things in a tightly focused fashion that the item they are describing looks like this and anything else is heresy. This methodology works well for binary state Biblical truth. THings like Jesus went to city X and performed miracle Y lend well to this.
For spiritual concepts that have a fuzzy construction in scripture. Ones that are not fundamentally transparent, And ones that are ultimately open ended based on individual implementation, it tends to be counterproductive. In other words, if I say this seed when planted will produce corn, and it results in watermelon growth instead, the original statements retard future growth rather than foster it.
On this subject, functional stillness has been described ad nauseum rather descriptively, and these descriptions have always hindered me. They fail to take into account the individual. The are on balance about as useful as David trying to fight Goliath in Saul’s armor. They fail to be tailored in the vital fashion required to be useful for the individual.
For me, on this subject, and a great many others for that matter, I have adopted a supreme court justice’s description of indecency. “I will know it when I see it.” The individual in their walk and relationship with God ultimately have to work this out with fear and trembling. Any suggestions I make in relation to this, or any other spiritual discipline for that matter, must be seen in that light, as suggestions.
For me, functional stillness has more to do with setting aside time for God than anything else. How I get there is specific to me. It shouldn’t be repeated by others just because it works for me. Each believer should focus in on the tone and tenor of their quiet time with the Father. From there allowing God to speak. Anything more specific is a waste of energy.
My supposition for this is based on the following.
-God wants to an active and vibrant relationship with those that follow him.
-God eagerly desires to be a dedicated part of the believer’s life.
Lastly quiet time alone with the Father is the only way to realize those items. The interactions of the Father with the individual will vary as to method and functional process.
The believer should trust that God is waiting and ready for them to interact with HIM. If God can use a burning bush or a talking ass as vehicles to communicate through, the believer should expect God to find the method that works best to reach them specifically. For some, rather traditional and liturgical methods of arriving at functional stillness before God will work. FOr others this may not work ell if at all. The believer should focus in on what works rather than some prescription that fails to take them in account.
If traditional methods don’t work well for you, allow me to confess this, you are not alone. They rarely work well for me either. Personally, more often as not I have to unpack the concept, and tear it down to its most fundamental components, and rebuild it based on what will work for me. Being left handed this has been the story of my whole life.
One requirement for a proper interface on this issue is functional stillness. My previous entry glossed over this for a couple reasons. The first I have already stated, the best I could do was make a passing reference in summary form as it was not the primary focus of the overall piece. I did not want to distract from the broader point I was making to give the subject the sort of depth it deserved.
The other reason I held back was based on a general dislike I have. Typically when authors exposit and expound upon most spiritual topics, they operate in declarative formulaic fashion. The tend to say things in a tightly focused fashion that the item they are describing looks like this and anything else is heresy. This methodology works well for binary state Biblical truth. THings like Jesus went to city X and performed miracle Y lend well to this.
For spiritual concepts that have a fuzzy construction in scripture. Ones that are not fundamentally transparent, And ones that are ultimately open ended based on individual implementation, it tends to be counterproductive. In other words, if I say this seed when planted will produce corn, and it results in watermelon growth instead, the original statements retard future growth rather than foster it.
On this subject, functional stillness has been described ad nauseum rather descriptively, and these descriptions have always hindered me. They fail to take into account the individual. The are on balance about as useful as David trying to fight Goliath in Saul’s armor. They fail to be tailored in the vital fashion required to be useful for the individual.
For me, on this subject, and a great many others for that matter, I have adopted a supreme court justice’s description of indecency. “I will know it when I see it.” The individual in their walk and relationship with God ultimately have to work this out with fear and trembling. Any suggestions I make in relation to this, or any other spiritual discipline for that matter, must be seen in that light, as suggestions.
For me, functional stillness has more to do with setting aside time for God than anything else. How I get there is specific to me. It shouldn’t be repeated by others just because it works for me. Each believer should focus in on the tone and tenor of their quiet time with the Father. From there allowing God to speak. Anything more specific is a waste of energy.
My supposition for this is based on the following.
-God wants to an active and vibrant relationship with those that follow him.
-God eagerly desires to be a dedicated part of the believer’s life.
Lastly quiet time alone with the Father is the only way to realize those items. The interactions of the Father with the individual will vary as to method and functional process.
The believer should trust that God is waiting and ready for them to interact with HIM. If God can use a burning bush or a talking ass as vehicles to communicate through, the believer should expect God to find the method that works best to reach them specifically. For some, rather traditional and liturgical methods of arriving at functional stillness before God will work. FOr others this may not work ell if at all. The believer should focus in on what works rather than some prescription that fails to take them in account.
If traditional methods don’t work well for you, allow me to confess this, you are not alone. They rarely work well for me either. Personally, more often as not I have to unpack the concept, and tear it down to its most fundamental components, and rebuild it based on what will work for me. Being left handed this has been the story of my whole life.
RSS Feed
