Skip to main content

I Am Not In Control, But I Am Safe

 If you spend any amount of time reading the news, you will become aware that human beings live a tenuous and fraught existence. Death is always close at hand, but in our comfort and blessing, we can almost pretend that it is not.

When people realize they are not in control, things can go two ways: either a person becomes irretrievably anxious about their lack of control, or they come to know that the One who is in control has them securely.

I have been made master of a few things; I have plenty to eat and drink, and I can choose whatever thing I want. I'm quite particular about my clothing, and I have a favorite shirt. I have a pair of "happy pants" that I'm quite fond of. Yet maybe my tendency to become upset at the utterly inconsequential things of life is an occasion to reflect on the ways that I still seek control which I do not have.

If we are simply chasing money, or influence, or any number of things, the emptiness of it all is readily apparent, eventually. That is, after the distraction of mindless amusements has faded away.

God loves me. This truth invades my daily existence. Sometimes I have struggled to believe that my life has a purpose, or that anyone would care, if I were no longer here. In another respect, these thoughts are utterly irrational, because I daresay few are more well-liked than me. Still, we all face these thoughts, from time to time. God loves me. It is the sort of thing that makes you wonder if God is crazy, but then, it's a mercy, to be able to think and laugh about the possibility that God is crazy. Maybe He is, but I have seen enough of the world's view of "sanity" that I'm quite willing to take the chance.

You can ask God why He loves you, and he simply replies, as if he's repeating it back to you: Because I love you. It is both maddening, and delightful, to talk to God. Somehow, I touch the essence of my existence; the center of my experience as myself. And yet, the journey is only partially into myself. It is also outward and upward, into the royal realms for which I am destined. The Kingdom of God is the presence of God; His comfort and care touch my greatest needs.

Knowing that existence itself is so capricious and tenuous, why would I want to be in control? Whatever control I claim to possess is an illusion.

God not only intends to redeem us from the worst versions of ourselves; he also wishes to redeem us from our worst imaginations of ourselves. We do not control the narrative. God has established my inherent dignity, quite apart from his offer to me to live forever in that dignity, in His presence.

What do I say for myself? I find in myself no right to disagree with God's appraisal of my value. My doubts and self-hatred are in a sense illusions, no less than the control I thought I possessed.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un