Yes, No, Yes, No
A severely neurotic person constantly wanting to be
assured that he/she is loved and wanted, constantly wanting assurance
despite the fact that the one that says he/she loves them has invested
years in them—that person’s a burden. A beloved burden no doubt, but a
burden just the same. The years of "being there" aren’t enough, the
lover’s constant reiteration that he/she will always be there isn’t
enough. Who has difficulty seeing that this would be tedious—a wearing
experience? I suppose we’d finally acknowledge that such a poor soul is
sick. It would still be a burden but at least, if we believe that the
constant harping is a symptom of neurosis, it would make it a bit easier
to bear.
Does it wear on God that we must have ceaseless assurance that he is
for us? It’s hardly surprising that the assurance we want we want in the
form of specific prayers answered or favours granted or specific
answers to specific questions. If these don’t come (or don’t come as
often as we ask for them or don’t come in a form that we recognise) the
vaporous, ghostly doubts begin to take more solid forms. Any other form
of assurance lacks credibility. Biblical texts aren’t enough, even
biblical texts about God’s redeeming work in and as Jesus Christ.
Does it wear God down that when he reminds us that he has given us
his very own heart, his Son—that we say (in various ways), "Yes, I know
about the Christ and that was good of you, and that helps, but...I need
more than that"? Is that not an awful saying? Is there not in it the
implication, "Yes, it’s true that you have given me your own heart but
that isn’t enough"?
I don’t doubt that there are some intellectual difficulties and
puzzles attached to God and how he relates to us (is that surprising?)
but people have a hard time believing that our sin affects our ability
to think (compare Romans 1:21). Those who think that a person with a
huge lower lip, shaped by a magnificent pout, thinks well at that
moment—they need to think again. God help us, it isn’t only the ill
people that can’t be assured; the narcissistic among us have the similar
symptoms without the chemical imbalance. We must not only love them, we
must love them in the way that they have determined they should be
loved—if love is to have any "real" meaning, don’t you know.
Yes, but humans are sinned against and sinful, and it might be
hard for them to believe that One so exalted and holy would want them
or could go on bearing with them. This is certainly true, for there’s no
doubt that hosts of people have difficulty relying on the love of God.
We’re sin-sick, aren’t we? The explanation for such a condition is
complex, but obviously our own inability to be completely trustworthy
shapes our view of God and others. And our numerous experiences in life
with many that promised with blood-red earnestness that they had come to
stay and then walked off never to return—that has shaped us. The
problem doesn’t lie in God—it never did! In our bitter and cynical
moments we call all men liars—or at least, we think their "talk is
cheap"—and it’s in such a spirit that we glance in God’s direction.
Then, in addition, if our pet projects don’t prosper despite our fervent
prayers or some major crisis isn’t averted—again, despite fervent
prayers—our cynicism spreads heavenward. And that spirit gets around.
Our not-hard-to-understand disappointment becomes a whine and before
long everyone around us is whining in support.
"Blessed are the moaners, for they shall be heard."
"There’s no need to be sarcastic!" I wouldn’t dream of it and, more
to the point, neither would God! At least, not about people that have
something to beat on God’s chest about. As for the rest of us, maybe a
bit of well chosen sarcasm would get through where being too
"understanding" only gets a whine in return. It’s never good for a poor
high-strung soul for us to take their side against God. It’s perfectly
acceptable and understandable that we sympathise with them in their pain
and help alleviate it but to weaken their relationship with God by
making God out to be "the ultimate child-abuser" as one writer put
it—this isn’t part of our obligation one to another. I think I recall a
glorious man do a deeply distressed friend a huge favour by
"strengthening him in God." Yes, I’m sure I came across that somewhere.
I know that God knows very well that we’re sinful and that we make
sinners out of one another and as a consequence we can’t see him very
well—because it’s the pure in heart that see God and we’re a long way
from that—don’t you think? But God incarnate, in and as Jesus Christ,
found our lack of trust something to marvel at (Mark 6:6 and numerous
other texts that move in that direction). I’m not suggesting that
therefore he wants nothing more to do with us. Far from it! No, it makes
him want to cure us! But we need cured! It’s an ugly world that
looks at One that has eternally pledged himself in love to us, and with a
slight curl in the lip we say, "Well...maybe he does and maybe he
doesn’t."
However we explain our ceaseless demand for assurance, in the end,
the heart of God, seen in and as Jesus Christ, is acknowledged and
blithely passed by as if it were simply another good thing among many
that God has done for us. Other gifts will surely persuade us that God really cares for us—we think. But if his giving us himself in and as Jesus Christ will not persuade us, why would we think that other things would do it?
"Just one! One real sign that he hears me and cares what I have to
say. Just one indisputable sign and I’d need no more." Really? Hmmm.
The old timers used to say that the one that has God and everything
else has no more than the one that has only God. (What do you think of
that?)
The only God there is for believers is the one that relates to us in
and as and though Jesus Christ and if that’s not the one we want there
might as well be none for there is no other.
Be assured, even if you can’t be assured, God thinks you’re worth dying for.