Skip to main content

God is Subtle

I have occasion to return to one of my favorite books, Pilgrim at Tinker Creek, by Annie Dillard.  It is a book that blows away my mind.  She develops what I tell the students is a nature spirituality.  She sees things in the world to which I am oblivious.  She hears things whose airwaves somehow miss my ears.  She smells and touches when apparently I am more inclined to turn up my nose and ignore.  I don’t remember whether she tastes things.

Her book is replete with wonderful one-liners.  She is eminently quotable. But what makes it even richer is a wide-ranging acquaintance with authors whom I have never read, or with whom I am only marginally acquainted.  When I read her book, I feel like I stumbled into an entire library and the goodies keep tumbling my way.

An example of this kind of quotation hit me within the first few pages of Dillard’s book.  She is talking about the magnificence of the created world.  It all starts with a look at a small, non-descript creek she calls Tinker Creek.  Of course, that is part of the title of the book, so you get the drift of where she is going.  Her reflections ease into a deeper place of analysis and then came this tiny sentence that stopped my brain in its tracks.

“God is subtle,” said Einstein, “but not malicious.”  That is the kind of sentence to which I want to yell, “Amen,” and I am not even sure where this affirmation originates.  Somehow Einstein’s insight resonates with a deeper truth in me of which I have not previously even been aware.

That God is subtle is eminently clear to me.  Whatever experiences of God I have had---and I would claim to have had some---they are not very dramatic.  There would be no reason for drums, cymbals, and trumpets.  My divine experiences are less spectacular that that.  If they were to be announced, it would not be with these noisy musical instruments.  It would be more a whisper.  It would be more like the old E.F. Hutton commercial.  You remember “When E.F. Hutton speaks…”

So God is subtle.  That is why God and the workings of the Divinity are so easy to miss.  When God is so subtle, it is easy to conclude God is not present, God is not at work anywhere that we can see.  And when we conclude God is not present---at least not present doing visibly good things---then we are vulnerable to bad things.

No one can live in this world very long and not know there are bad things.  Some of the bad things are nearly unspeakable.  Cancer ravages bodies.  Bombs kill kids.  It is way too easy to add to the list.  And for too many folks, God is to blame.  But I like Einstein’s insight: God is not malicious.
I think Einstein is correct.  If God is subtle, God’s working is hard to discern.  But if the bad stuff is so obvious, so palpable, why are we tempted to run to a conclusion that God is malicious?  Why would God be so unobvious (subtle) with good stuff and so obvious (malicious) with bad stuff?  It makes little sense to me.

I am going to stick with Einstein.  We know he was smart.  Perhaps, he was also very discerning of the Spirit of God at work in this world.  Part of why I want to align with Einstein is because he offers me the realistic way of looking for God and engaging with that Divinity Who is subtly at work in our world with its rich tapestry.

I think most of us have the capacity to become aware of subtle things.  However, American culture is not very attuned to subtly.  We are more geared to the noisy, flashy, bombastic approach.  No wonder we cannot discern the subtle.

At some point the noise subsides.  The flashy burns out and the bombastic erodes.  And what is left is the subtle.  And that is where we will find God…and subtly be found by God.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I-Thou Relationships

Those of us who have read theology or, perhaps, those who are people of faith and are old enough might well recognize this title as a reminder of the late Jewish philosopher and theologian, Martin Buber.   I remember reading Buber’s book, I and Thou , when I was in college in the 1960s.   It was already a famous book by then.   I am not sure I fully understood it, but that would not be the last time I read it.   It has been a while since I looked at the book.             Buber came up in a conversation with a friend who asked if I had seen the recent article by David Brooks?   I had not seen it, but when I was told about it, I knew I would quickly locate and read that piece.   I very much like what Brooks decides to write about and what he contributes to societal conversation.   I wish more people read him and took him seriously.             Brooks’ article focused on the 2016 contentious election.   He provocatively suggests, “Read Buber, Not the Polls!”   I think Brooks puts

Spiritual Commitment

I was reading along in a very nice little book and hit these lines about commitment.   The author, Mitch Albom, uses the voice of one of the main characters of his nonfiction book about faith to reflect on commitment.   The voice belongs to Albom’s old rabbi of the Jewish synagogue where he went until his college days.   The old rabbi, Albert Lewis, says “the word ‘commitment’ has lost its meaning.”    The rabbi continues in a way that surely would have many people saying, “Amen!”   About commitment he says, “I’m old enough when it used to be a positive.   A committed person was someone to be admired.   He was loyal and steady.   Now a commitment is something you avoid.   You don’t want to tie yourself down.”   I also think I am old enough to know that commitment was usually a positive word.   I can think of a range of situations in which commitment would have been seen to be positive.   For example, growing up was full of sports for me.   Commitment would have been presupposed t

Inward Journey and Outward Pilgrimage

There are so many different ways to think about the spiritual life.   And of course, in our country there are so many different variations of religious experiences.   There are liberals and conservatives.   There are fundamentalists and Pentecostals.   Besides the dizzying variety of Christian traditions, there are many different non-Christian traditions.   There are the major traditions, such as Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and so on.   There are the slightly more obscure traditions, such as Sikhism, Jainism, etc.   And then there are more fringe groups and, even, pseudo-religions.   There are defining doctrines and religious practices.   Some of these are specific to a particular tradition or a few traditions, such as the koan , which is used in Zen Buddhism for example.   Other defining doctrines or practices are common across the religious board.   Something like meditation would be a good example.   Christians meditate; Buddhists meditate.   And other groups practice this spiri