Wandering Sheep V

The Parable of the Lost Sheep, continued.

Don: Can we know, can we hear, can we understand the voice of God? Matt 18 and John 10 assert that the sheep can recognize the voice of the shepherd and that the shepherd knows their names.

The Book of Samuel suggests that recognizing the voice of God is not always intuitive, but God is persistent in bringing his voice in front of the person with whom he wants to communicate. On the other hand, Elijah’s experience shows that how God chooses to manifest his voice is purposefully unpredictable. Throughout the scriptures God speaks with people in different ways.  Rarely, and only when he has a very specific mission in mind for someone, he speaks in an audible voice. More often he speaks through nature (cf. Psalms 19), and sometimes even supernaturally.

A common way God speaks–manifests his voice–is through the inner light, or an inner feeling that one is instructed or led by God, or perhaps the “eternity” which God has “set in the human heart” (Ecclesiastes 3:11). The eternity is perhaps some sort of implanted resonator or tuner that resonates with or tunes in to God. But yet (Ecclesiastes continues) awareness of the eternity in us does not completely divulge God to us. The eternity, the voice we hear, might not be so much about what God is doing, but about what we should be doing; about our responsibility toward our fellow man.

Why do we want to hear from God? There is an intuitive sense that if we hear the voice of God, our lives will be better, we will suffer less, that he will put us on the right road. David suggested last week that if God wanted to communicate he would make it clear and not confusing, as it was with Elijah. Jasmine said that she had never heard the voice. Is it possible that in a sense God wants us to hear his voice but doesn’t want us to know that he is the one speaking? In other words, could it be dangerous for us to have a sense that God is speaking to us or through us? The experience of Paul on the road to Damascus is a dramatic intervention, but that is very rare. It seems that God doesn’t want to talk too directly with us. Is it even possible that God cannot do it?

David recalled Vickie’s remarks last week about the problem of people who hear voices and go on to commit atrocities, and her question: How we can tell the difference between that sort of voice and God’s voice? David pointed out that when the sheep hear the voice of God, then all they can understand–all they can know–is that this is a voice of someone who will lead us into green pastures. That’s it. There is nothing more. The shepherd is not telling them how to lead their lives; only to follow him. The metaphor (dumb sheep, smart human) leads to the conclusion that we could not possibly understand the words of God any more than the sheep would understand the words of the shepherd if he chose to talk with them about the weather, but we should be able to recognize the voice itself.

Jason agreed, and thought that God would not want us to understand him because we could do so at best partially and that could lead to trouble. The prophets, who by definition must have heard the voice of God, generally led pretty uncomfortable lives.

Don thinks that God intentionally obfuscates; that he does not want us to understand him because we could understand only partially and imperfectly, and a little knowledge is a very dangerous thing: We perceive knowledge as power, and our self-centeredness would lead us to abuse the power [of believing we understand some of God’s words, of thinking we know the mind of God] at the expense of others. So the sheep/shepherd metaphor is strengthened in that the sheep do not hear instructions for living; they hear only a sound representing a source of security. That is not accidental. When God confused Elijah, it was purposeful—Elijah thought he had God’s cellphone number after the burning altar incident, so God had to disabuse him of that notion. His only instruction to Elijah was simply “Get back to work on behalf of your fellow man.” [Get back to the pasture? – DE]

David thought there was a paradox here. What’s the difference between hearing the word of God in our heads and reading the word of God in the Bible? In the parable, the sheep only have to recognize the voice, not the words, and the only message is one of faith that the voice you hear is a voice. The sheep know they should follow the Being with the voice, but they cannot hope to understand it. We take our Bibles and Korans as detailed instruction manuals from God, but if the metaphor is true, is it valid?

Jason suggested that the words of the Bible can be misinterpreted just as a voice in our head can be misinterpreted. The Bible is just one of God’s tools for knowing his voice, not for understanding his voice. Just as Dr. Singh reminded us last week that nature helps us know the voice of God. These are all just tools that God uses to help humanity to know, not to understand, his voice.

Don agreed that the word of God is easily misinterpreted. And when someone believes that their interpretation is correct and insists on it, then it becomes dangerous. What this all says is that we need a large dose of humility. There are many errors of science, measurement, of history, etc. in the Bible, but the Bible is a conversation that helps us sharpen our thinking—Psalms specifically tells us that this kind of discussion is like flint on iron. [Should this be Proverbs 27:17—“As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another”? – DE.

Dr. Singh said that when God created the Earth he made the seed of everything. Humans can make technology, but he cannot make seed. So you can see God in nature, but you will not find him in human technologies—including language.

Jay thinks that the Bible sharpens not some notion of what God is telling us to do [not our understanding of the language of God—DE], but only to sharpen our voice recognition. We tend to want to sharpen the former so we can prove we are in the right.

Don suggested the Bible sharpens our faith that God is indeed leading us, that we are part of a plan that indeed is not clear to us. The Bible simply directs us back to serving our fellow man rather than serving our own ego by thinking we are God’s mouthpiece and assume his power.

David said we’ve all met or been aware of the very opposite type of person—someone who has the inner glow, who humbly goes about doing good [God’s] work to help fellow humans. Even people who have never been exposed to organized religion or its texts can be like that. Goodness/God is an evolutionary imperative. There could have been no evolution without it. Even people from 50,000 years ago would have understood, and recognized, and acted out of, Goodness. [The message is so simple even a caveman would have got it, to borrow from a recent clever advertising campaign.]

Don recalled Hebrews 1-2: “In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son,…” This substantiates the metaphor of a simple message of faith, of dependence, of humility. Such a voice is the voice of Jesus, and therefore the voice of God. So discussing and exchanging our thoughts on these subjects is productive and perhaps important in helping us to hear these messages.

David wondered whether God would rather we be out helping the homeless rather than sitting here discussing these ideas? The message is so simple, Follow me! Have faith! So what’s to discuss? Yet we all sacrifice something to come to these meetings? Why? Should we not be out helping our fellow man?

Don said it’s not an either/or. These discussions are necessary to remind us of the message, simple as it may be. History shows that we humans stray so easily. These sessions help bring us back, to unlearn the bad things we have learned. Of course, we cannot limit ourselves to wonderful intellectual discussions – we have to apply the message in daily life, and help our fellow man.

* * *