Yesterday
my sister asked me to read an article in the New York Times written by
an anthropologist who studied an evangelical community in Chicago, and
found that numerous persons claimed to hear God speaking to them with
their ears. My sister wanted to know what I thought of this work. I
share my reply, which is a hastily written note, and not intended as a
final or polished word. Perhaps it can provoke a good question or two.
Dear Jeanie,
Thanks for sharing the anthropologist's piece. It is well written and fair, I think. She does not dismiss the auditory experiences out of hand, but nor is she simply gullible.
I cannot say too much about the anthropologist's research (methodology, conclusions), other than that she seems to be open-minded, and I commend her effort to deal with the phenomenon of auditory experiences attributed to "God."
But then, knowing me, I could add a few other comments, and think that you may be eliciting them (to some extent) by sending the article. So I will be brief, and invite comments or questions if you wish.
Various religious traditions are familiar with divine voices, revelations, images, and so on. The claim that one heard God speaking externally would be less common for sure, and perhaps appears more in folks who may not know the clear difference between internal and external "voices." Or again, perhaps these folks did indeed hear some voice; but to credit it to "God" would be an act of faith, without certain knowledge. When divine experiences occur, they usually require faith in the recipient, not certain knowledge (gnosis). They leave one puzzled, or wondering, or questioning. But there are exceptions. Remember, in the book of Acts, three times the author (the evangelist Luke, a disciple of Paul's) describes Paul's encounter with the Risen Christ on the way to Damascus. Details by Luke vary in the 3 accounts, but the basic vision is recounted thrice. (By varying the details, it shows what is really important, I would say). In these accounts, "Saul heard a voice from heaven," and the question is asked, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?" Luke tells us that Saul/Paul says, "Who are you, Lord [kyrie]?" "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. Arise and you will be told what to do." (See Acts 9, for example). That event is decisive in early Christianity, as you know. Internal or external?
The apostle Paul recounts the matter differently. He does not refer to external voices, as Luke does. (But Luke is a fine story-teller, and using external voices and lights flashing communicates to everyone, whereas more grounded, experiential analysis may fall flat in the hearer/reader, or be good for philosophers, but not for more simple souls.) Paul distinctly makes the event internal to consciousness, something I have often pointed out in writing and in preaching: In the opening of Galatians he writes that "God was pleased to reveal his son in me [en emoi]." "En" can mean "to me," but "eis" would be far more common; and elsewhere when Paul talks about Christ, he clearly uses internal language: "The Lord said to me in a dream..." Or "We have the mind (nous) of Christ." Some language is ambiguous, and could be physical or internal, but I surely take it internally (a divine-human participatory movement in consciousness): "Have I not seen the Lord?" or "Christ appeared to Kephas (Peter).... and last of all to me." In any case, the letters of Paul and the Acts of the Apostles have numerous accounts of spiritual encounters with Christ. Note that the term "Father" is employed for divinity beyond what is experienced--something that evangelicals seem to miss. When the divine is personal and speaks to one (internally, I would say), it is called "Christ" by the early Christians. When the divine presence is felt as love, joy, peace, forgiveness, and so on, it is called "the holy spirit," with spirit a neuter in Greek, and translating the Hebrew ruach. Spirit is impersonal, “Christ” is God’s personal presence in and to a human soul.
As you know, the Christian tradition has numerous saints and mystics who have recorded remarkable spiritual experiences. Surely St. Francis "heard" the Lord speak to him, but I do not recall him ever writing (or his disciples claiming) that he heard a voice with his ears. Francis' initial experience, by the way, is the one that I think helped inspire the present Pope to choose the name "Francis." In prayer at San Damiano, a run-down Benedictine chapel, Francesco "heard" the Lord speak to him "from the cross," as I recall: "Francis, rebuild my church." As you may remember, Francis took the command literally, and rebuilt the chapel, and then it dawned on him that "rebuild my Church" had another meaning, a much more demanding and beneficial one. And if anyone "rebuilt the church" in his time, it was San Francesco. Did he hear with ears or internally? Or both at once? I don't know, but perhaps a good Franciscan scholar has studied this issue with regard to Francis.
In truth I do not know, but it is not impossible, I would say, for one to believe that he/she is hearing a voice from God with their ears, or see a "vision" with the eyes. But I have little doubt that accounts of internal processes are much more common. Recall the over-arching wisdom of St. Thomas Aquinas: "God works through secondary causes." So if a voice is heard, what was the cause? Surely I have “seen” the God looking at me through beings and Ikons, but I am aware that the secondary cause is the particular being (such as a kindly dog), not eyes of God inside the animal!
One characteristic of what I would call "a divine experience" as distinct from some other type is simply said in words, but understood in the process: the event--heard or seen or smelled or whatever--comes with an intensity and authority that penetrates the mind/soul, and really gets one's attention. If it is a dream, for example, it "burns in" to the soul, so that one does not forget it. To be honest, I have had a number of these, and they are simple, clear, and very powerful, and unforgettable. What I am noting here is the kind of "authority" or overwhelming truth-force, if I may borrow a term from Gandhi, that leaves the recipient aware that s/he has received unmistakable communication. It is not certainty that one is "saved," or "knows God." I would say, on the contrary: the divine experiences, even with their truth-force, makes one vividly aware that there is far more of the divine beyond what is experienced. Hence, they incite search, questioning, rather than "possessive knowledge" (gnosis). They draw or entice, as Plato describes so well using the Greek very helkein, to draw. One experiences oneself being drawn (Plato) or moved (Aristotle) into divine-human mutual participation (methexis, as I recall, is Aristotle's term). In his 7th letter, Plato refers to a spark igniting a fire in one's soul. Internal processes.
External? Let's conclude with a good quote from "Hamlet," in which Hamlet tells his friend: "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
*****
Dear Jeanie,
Thanks for sharing the anthropologist's piece. It is well written and fair, I think. She does not dismiss the auditory experiences out of hand, but nor is she simply gullible.
I cannot say too much about the anthropologist's research (methodology, conclusions), other than that she seems to be open-minded, and I commend her effort to deal with the phenomenon of auditory experiences attributed to "God."
But then, knowing me, I could add a few other comments, and think that you may be eliciting them (to some extent) by sending the article. So I will be brief, and invite comments or questions if you wish.
Various religious traditions are familiar with divine voices, revelations, images, and so on. The claim that one heard God speaking externally would be less common for sure, and perhaps appears more in folks who may not know the clear difference between internal and external "voices." Or again, perhaps these folks did indeed hear some voice; but to credit it to "God" would be an act of faith, without certain knowledge. When divine experiences occur, they usually require faith in the recipient, not certain knowledge (gnosis). They leave one puzzled, or wondering, or questioning. But there are exceptions. Remember, in the book of Acts, three times the author (the evangelist Luke, a disciple of Paul's) describes Paul's encounter with the Risen Christ on the way to Damascus. Details by Luke vary in the 3 accounts, but the basic vision is recounted thrice. (By varying the details, it shows what is really important, I would say). In these accounts, "Saul heard a voice from heaven," and the question is asked, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?" Luke tells us that Saul/Paul says, "Who are you, Lord [kyrie]?" "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. Arise and you will be told what to do." (See Acts 9, for example). That event is decisive in early Christianity, as you know. Internal or external?
The apostle Paul recounts the matter differently. He does not refer to external voices, as Luke does. (But Luke is a fine story-teller, and using external voices and lights flashing communicates to everyone, whereas more grounded, experiential analysis may fall flat in the hearer/reader, or be good for philosophers, but not for more simple souls.) Paul distinctly makes the event internal to consciousness, something I have often pointed out in writing and in preaching: In the opening of Galatians he writes that "God was pleased to reveal his son in me [en emoi]." "En" can mean "to me," but "eis" would be far more common; and elsewhere when Paul talks about Christ, he clearly uses internal language: "The Lord said to me in a dream..." Or "We have the mind (nous) of Christ." Some language is ambiguous, and could be physical or internal, but I surely take it internally (a divine-human participatory movement in consciousness): "Have I not seen the Lord?" or "Christ appeared to Kephas (Peter).... and last of all to me." In any case, the letters of Paul and the Acts of the Apostles have numerous accounts of spiritual encounters with Christ. Note that the term "Father" is employed for divinity beyond what is experienced--something that evangelicals seem to miss. When the divine is personal and speaks to one (internally, I would say), it is called "Christ" by the early Christians. When the divine presence is felt as love, joy, peace, forgiveness, and so on, it is called "the holy spirit," with spirit a neuter in Greek, and translating the Hebrew ruach. Spirit is impersonal, “Christ” is God’s personal presence in and to a human soul.
As you know, the Christian tradition has numerous saints and mystics who have recorded remarkable spiritual experiences. Surely St. Francis "heard" the Lord speak to him, but I do not recall him ever writing (or his disciples claiming) that he heard a voice with his ears. Francis' initial experience, by the way, is the one that I think helped inspire the present Pope to choose the name "Francis." In prayer at San Damiano, a run-down Benedictine chapel, Francesco "heard" the Lord speak to him "from the cross," as I recall: "Francis, rebuild my church." As you may remember, Francis took the command literally, and rebuilt the chapel, and then it dawned on him that "rebuild my Church" had another meaning, a much more demanding and beneficial one. And if anyone "rebuilt the church" in his time, it was San Francesco. Did he hear with ears or internally? Or both at once? I don't know, but perhaps a good Franciscan scholar has studied this issue with regard to Francis.
In truth I do not know, but it is not impossible, I would say, for one to believe that he/she is hearing a voice from God with their ears, or see a "vision" with the eyes. But I have little doubt that accounts of internal processes are much more common. Recall the over-arching wisdom of St. Thomas Aquinas: "God works through secondary causes." So if a voice is heard, what was the cause? Surely I have “seen” the God looking at me through beings and Ikons, but I am aware that the secondary cause is the particular being (such as a kindly dog), not eyes of God inside the animal!
One characteristic of what I would call "a divine experience" as distinct from some other type is simply said in words, but understood in the process: the event--heard or seen or smelled or whatever--comes with an intensity and authority that penetrates the mind/soul, and really gets one's attention. If it is a dream, for example, it "burns in" to the soul, so that one does not forget it. To be honest, I have had a number of these, and they are simple, clear, and very powerful, and unforgettable. What I am noting here is the kind of "authority" or overwhelming truth-force, if I may borrow a term from Gandhi, that leaves the recipient aware that s/he has received unmistakable communication. It is not certainty that one is "saved," or "knows God." I would say, on the contrary: the divine experiences, even with their truth-force, makes one vividly aware that there is far more of the divine beyond what is experienced. Hence, they incite search, questioning, rather than "possessive knowledge" (gnosis). They draw or entice, as Plato describes so well using the Greek very helkein, to draw. One experiences oneself being drawn (Plato) or moved (Aristotle) into divine-human mutual participation (methexis, as I recall, is Aristotle's term). In his 7th letter, Plato refers to a spark igniting a fire in one's soul. Internal processes.
External? Let's conclude with a good quote from "Hamlet," in which Hamlet tells his friend: "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
*****
Part II of blog on “Hearing God’s voice.”
Jeanie, I still find some thoughts rattling around my mind on the issue of “hearing God” externally. I will tease out a few more of these thoughts.
Recall that in the previous note I referred to awareness of being “looked at” through another creature, or through an Ikon. I could add the experience of being “spoken to” through a human or animal voice. But when these occur, I do not think that “God is speaking” in the voice of the human being or bird or whatever. Rather, I am aware that I am interpreting the external action (such as words) as having divine source, whether known or unknown to the speaker. It is the act of interpretation that is decisive. Through faith one may “hear” the unknown God speaking through a human being; but someone else may hear nothing but the human words, and not be moved to think of God at all. Recall the incident in the Gospel of John (chapter 12, if I am not mistaken), in which Jesus prays and “a voice” is heard from heaven; but, notes the evangelists, “some thought it thundered.” Sounds heard differently, and in the case of openness or lack of openness to God, the difference can be a voice from God or mere thunder.
On a second point: The people who believe that they physically hear God’s voice may not, as I noted, understand the difference between internal and external processes. They may be like the young boy, Samuel, being raised by the elder priest, Eli, in the Temple (Book of Samuel). The young boy thought that he was being called by the old priest, and ran to him in the night. This happened several times, and then the old priest realized that God was addressing the boy. And the priest told him something such as this: “Next time you hear the voice, say,`Speak, LORD, for your servant is listening.’” The author tells us that “Samuel was not yet familiar with the LORD.” Hearing the “call” of the Lord in the soul or mind is common throughout the Israelite and Jewish prophetic tradition. Prophets such as Jeremiah give very detailed accounts of their encounters with God, and the “word of the LORD” is usually “heard” (interiorly, I think is understood) or “seen” in visions using the prophet’s imagination moved by “the spirit.” Unless and until one is more accustomed to spiritual experiences, it is understandable that one assumes that the voice “heard” (in the mind) is outside, through the body. But one should ask: How does one know if the voice “heard” is simply in the mind, or in the soul from God, or “God speaking” outside in space-time?
Again I refer to Aquinas, that “God works through secondary causes.” One may well hear a sound, or words, externally, but to ascribe them to God directly, without any “secondary cause,” seems contrary to the nature of God. That is my guess. The divine can use anything, I presume, but physical phenomena work by natural causes. As I must remind fundamentalists from time to time, “God has no body, no voice, and his words are not physical phenomena.” There is much confusion here, grounded, it seems, on equating Jesus with God, as distinct from recognizing the unknown God in the person of Jesus.
Now, for a contrary account. You may recall that young Joseph Smith claimed that one night, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit--three divine-human persons--came and stood in his room, around his bed. Even thinking of this “vision,” I spontaneously shake my head. Years ago I asked the philosopher Voegelin how one distinguishes between true and false visions. His answer: “They are true if they accord with common sense.” Seeing “God the Father” with a body (and he lives on a planet) surely does not accord with common sense, but is more like a small child’s understanding or misunderstanding of God. (Recall the 2-year old girl who climbed up on a neighbor’s roof to “look for God.” Well, one begins somewhere!)
In conclusion for now, I would say that a person with living faith may interpret external events as divinely moved, or containing divine presence. Such a stance may show a development of reason or common sense, in addition to faith. But to claim that one “hears God’s voice” externally, without an awareness that one is interpreting physical phenomena in a certain way, but that God is not literally “speaking” to their ears, suggests to me a considerable lack of mental development, that is, a lack of that “common sense” to which Voegelin referred.
But I shall give the matter more thought, and see what emerges.
Jeanie, I still find some thoughts rattling around my mind on the issue of “hearing God” externally. I will tease out a few more of these thoughts.
Recall that in the previous note I referred to awareness of being “looked at” through another creature, or through an Ikon. I could add the experience of being “spoken to” through a human or animal voice. But when these occur, I do not think that “God is speaking” in the voice of the human being or bird or whatever. Rather, I am aware that I am interpreting the external action (such as words) as having divine source, whether known or unknown to the speaker. It is the act of interpretation that is decisive. Through faith one may “hear” the unknown God speaking through a human being; but someone else may hear nothing but the human words, and not be moved to think of God at all. Recall the incident in the Gospel of John (chapter 12, if I am not mistaken), in which Jesus prays and “a voice” is heard from heaven; but, notes the evangelists, “some thought it thundered.” Sounds heard differently, and in the case of openness or lack of openness to God, the difference can be a voice from God or mere thunder.
On a second point: The people who believe that they physically hear God’s voice may not, as I noted, understand the difference between internal and external processes. They may be like the young boy, Samuel, being raised by the elder priest, Eli, in the Temple (Book of Samuel). The young boy thought that he was being called by the old priest, and ran to him in the night. This happened several times, and then the old priest realized that God was addressing the boy. And the priest told him something such as this: “Next time you hear the voice, say,`Speak, LORD, for your servant is listening.’” The author tells us that “Samuel was not yet familiar with the LORD.” Hearing the “call” of the Lord in the soul or mind is common throughout the Israelite and Jewish prophetic tradition. Prophets such as Jeremiah give very detailed accounts of their encounters with God, and the “word of the LORD” is usually “heard” (interiorly, I think is understood) or “seen” in visions using the prophet’s imagination moved by “the spirit.” Unless and until one is more accustomed to spiritual experiences, it is understandable that one assumes that the voice “heard” (in the mind) is outside, through the body. But one should ask: How does one know if the voice “heard” is simply in the mind, or in the soul from God, or “God speaking” outside in space-time?
Again I refer to Aquinas, that “God works through secondary causes.” One may well hear a sound, or words, externally, but to ascribe them to God directly, without any “secondary cause,” seems contrary to the nature of God. That is my guess. The divine can use anything, I presume, but physical phenomena work by natural causes. As I must remind fundamentalists from time to time, “God has no body, no voice, and his words are not physical phenomena.” There is much confusion here, grounded, it seems, on equating Jesus with God, as distinct from recognizing the unknown God in the person of Jesus.
Now, for a contrary account. You may recall that young Joseph Smith claimed that one night, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit--three divine-human persons--came and stood in his room, around his bed. Even thinking of this “vision,” I spontaneously shake my head. Years ago I asked the philosopher Voegelin how one distinguishes between true and false visions. His answer: “They are true if they accord with common sense.” Seeing “God the Father” with a body (and he lives on a planet) surely does not accord with common sense, but is more like a small child’s understanding or misunderstanding of God. (Recall the 2-year old girl who climbed up on a neighbor’s roof to “look for God.” Well, one begins somewhere!)
In conclusion for now, I would say that a person with living faith may interpret external events as divinely moved, or containing divine presence. Such a stance may show a development of reason or common sense, in addition to faith. But to claim that one “hears God’s voice” externally, without an awareness that one is interpreting physical phenomena in a certain way, but that God is not literally “speaking” to their ears, suggests to me a considerable lack of mental development, that is, a lack of that “common sense” to which Voegelin referred.
But I shall give the matter more thought, and see what emerges.
