In reviewing the comments that have been made regarding this post, I came to the conclusion that an addendum to my post was in order. Ultimately I realized that I needed to explain a few of my comments in a bit more detail and to clarify my overall intentions with the piece.
It was not my intention to directly reference the will of God concept in the piece. I felt it necessary to point out the over-arching disconnect and to explain that God has called us to something much better. The piece ended up unintentionally opening the door for a discussion on that topic. I wasn’t aware when I started writing the piece of how closely connected or more accurately put, how interconnected these two concepts really are. In my life, I’ve always seen these as independent constructs, but my thinking has changed recently. I promise to pick this portion of the topic up soon in a later post.
My description of the surrender and submission concepts that I referenced in the post was not as complete as it should have been. Please allow to me clarify, many people believe in a mindless form of these ideas, or feel less than if they have questions or concerns about what is being asked of them by God. Let me be clear, mindless blind submission isn’t what God is calling us to, and it isn’t something I subscribe to at all. It is normal to have questions and concerns. It is incumbent upon the believer to test what is being asked of him or her to determine source and to thoughtfully and prayerfully count the cost prior to submission. Blind obedience without taking into consideration the nature of it or its cost is in my view idiotic and not Biblical whatsoever.
Many followers of God in the Bible had questions prior to submission. Moses spends quite a bit of Biblical real estate with his questions prior to accepting God’s will and divine appointment. Abraham spends a chapter questioning God about the fate of Sodom and attempts to bargain an equation whereby Sodom could be spared. In the midst of a pummeling, Job is permitted to question God. If these men can question God, it stands to reason, that God allows us to question him, allows us to probe his plans, and allows us to kick the tires before submitting to it.
The slogan, “God said it, I believe it, that settles it”, is a misguided over-simplification of obedience. It is ripe for abuse by unscrupulous leaders, that the Bible calls “wolves in sheep’s clothing”. It seeks to short-circuit the brain God gave us and render our will impotent. If God wanted that kind of submission why grant us a cognitive organ? Why grant the human casement sentience at all?
The kind of surrender and submission God is after is a thoughtful, deliberative, calculated kind. God invites us to taste and see that the fruit of his vineyard is good. God challenges us to probe his plans for us in detail prior to their implementation in our lives. At the risk of repetition, he asks us to count the cost, before acceptance. Anything less, denies the gifting of intellect, and free-will granted to all by God.
Submission and surrender must be in context as well. The must flow out of a context that is defined by an intimate relationship with him. It is only in this one on one relationship that we can test and approve his will for our lives. Out of context obedience is foolish and leads to a lip service, fire insurance type of faith. It leads to a place that obeys the words, but fails to grasp their meaning, import, or impact. It fails to be a true form of obedience.
The context of this relationship is influenced by man factors. For some, it is very rigid and liturgical. For others, it is a casual free-wheeling sort of situation. There is nothing wrong with either expression, provided the relationship at its core is genuine and authentic. If the expression reveres God and is characterized by the fruits of the spirit being made manifest in the life of the believer, then there is nothing wrong with it at all. The style and form of it will vary from individual to individual. No two instances of the same relationship will be identical, nor should we expect them to be.
That was the crux of the problem with my attempt to answer the question in the first place. As each person’s relationship with God is different, as each person’s understanding of God is different, there wasn’t a uniform mechanism / formula to exposit as a recipe to answer the question broadly. I could tell someone how to handle this, but if their instance of the relationship is different from mine, if their relational flavor isn’t like mine, it won’t help them. I could have articulated principles, scriptures, and core concepts, but that would miss the point and lead people into an unthinking obedience, which isn’t at all what I wanted for them or for anyone.
The only option to answer the question is to call the individual to heed the requirements of their relationship with God, as they understand it. It is only in the context of that relationship that obedience is truly possible. It is only when God is given freedom by the individual believer through the ebb and flow of their contact with the divine that the radical transmogrification can occur. As such what seems like the weakest possible response rhetorically speaking is the only one that will work for them.
Writer Clark D. Goble started this blog as a means to chronicle his imperfect walk with a Perfect Savior and invites you to join in on the conversation. He also invites you to check out the links to his work. Most often, Clark writes about Jesus and theology. He also enjoys writing fiction in a variety of genres.
Todd French is an information technology professional and a resident of Columbus, Ohio; where he shares a humble abode with his darling wife and beautiful daughters. His interests run the gambit from reading voraciously all forms of fiction to rooting for the Cleveland Browns.