God in Nature - Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4
Last time we looked at Robert’s initial thoughts on God’s revelations with the first section titled God in Nature. Today we’ll begin looking at one of two angles she offers under this umbrella term with the first angle being Omnipresence and the second, which we will eventually visit, God Immanent in Nature. Beginning with the first angle she says:
Omnipresence
“”All Present” or “Everywhere” throughout creation. Since there is no place God is not, God is no place in particular. God fills all space, cannot be pointed to, or become a visual object of focus. This is an Imageless, all pervasive “seeing” apart from what appears. Because this revelation lacks the particular, it is global in nature, a non particular presence, more in the order of an experiential knowledge than a discrete “experience.”
Because It defies being seen as an object or as residing any “where,” this mystery seems to be more present in open vistas than in enclosed places. Our initial encounter with this Omnipresence is thus tied to the more formless elements in nature - earth, sea, and sky - rather than any particular form in nature - flower, rock, or whatever. At times it may seem to be the mystery “in” which all things exist; at other times, it seems to flow “through” all that exists.
Then again, Its prominence may be such that nature becomes but a backdrop for Its Presence. But these are subtle distinctions for which everyone will have their own report.”
There are four main elements that strike me with today’s text. They are 1) God is no where in particular, 2) God is not a visual object, 3) the mystery as open vistas, and 4) distinctions. As to God is no where in particular, if you grew up in a church setting then the idea that God is everywhere is not foreign to you. An everywhere God is a basic in the foundational doctrine of the Christian church. What I don’t think is distilled is the nuance of “since there is no place God is not, God is no place in particular.”
What do I mean by nuanced? The understanding that God is no place in particular bucks against the theological doctrine and dogma that focuses on God is in all places. My sense growing up in the church was that it was possible to apprehend the nature of God and, in fact, God itself. Some distortion in the teaching seemed to say that God is everywhere AND could be identified. The correct teaching is closer to something like God is everywhere, but don’t try to apprehend where that everywhere is. How the distorted understanding was to work makes no sense to me now, but it certainly shaped my view of the God I was to meet one day
What follows on the heels of that first point is the second, “God is not a visual object.” Once you find out there is actually no way to apprehend (grasp) God it can be somewhat deflating. In some ways all that can happen is that God grasps us and, in fact, has done so all along. As Jim Finley is fond of saying, “we are the generosity of God.” That we cannot see God in any way, shape, or form takes a lot of getting used, and, in old fashioned language, a certain faith must take hold in the heart. This faith helps us traverse a seeing that is an “experiential knowledge” and one that Roberts has talked a lot about.
Moving to the third point, and given God “defies being seen as an object or as residing any “where,”” it makes sense that “this mystery seems to be more present in open vistas.” I really love this point that she makes and have not heard anyone say it quite like this before, it makes my heart sing. I think this resonates so deeply because throughout life there was always a deep intuition within me that That which I felt when out in nature was actually the thing I sought. Unfortunately that That in nature had not really been named God within the confines of the church, so I never knew what I was experiencing or what to call it. Now I know Love was present all along.
The last point is this idea of “subtle distinctions.” The concept of distinctions as it relates to God was unheard of in my church environment, although now I’m aware that Mystery’s subtlety is a known and documented fact in the mystical literature of many Faith traditions, as well as in spiritual schools like The Diamond Approach. Frankly, it had never before dawned on me that you could know Mystery from an “experiential knowledge” let alone that there were many subtle layers to that Mystery that could be experienced. With and over time, the subtleties of Love continue to unfold me.
After reflecting and writing on these four points I ask myself what invitation(s) are offered? What do I notice in the stirrings? What comes to mind is both the unexpected nature of the journey and the realization that there has been a slow, steady unfoldment of my being. As to the journeys unexpected nature, I was completely unaware that there was such a journey, both into myself and Mystery, which fills me with compassion and gratitude. As to the slow, steady unfoldment of being, well, let’s just say, it’s beyond what I can really understand yet I know it is happening.
What the words speak to my heart is to stay the course, to continue practicing, seeking, noticing, reflecting and surrendering. While God may be no where in particular, objectless, sensed in open vistas, and infinite in dimension there is a certainty, even an experience, that Love is everywhere, dynamic, and always inviting me (us) home.
