INTRODUCTION
People feel God is distant, far away, absent.
People run from God, are estranged and separated from Him.
People feel God is their enemy, that He hates them.
The challenge of relational intimacy is illustrated in the famous American short stories, Sherwood Anderson’s “Unlighted Lamps”.[1] In it, Anderson depicts a small town in America circa 1908, and the relationship of a father—the town doctor—with his eighteen-year-old daughter. Late on a Sunday afternoon, the girl decided to go for a long walk, thinking about her father’s recent comment, that he was a victim of heart disease and might die at any moment. Anderson adds,
With these words the Doctor had turned and walked out of his office, going down a wooden stairway to the street. He had wanted to put his arm about his daughter’s shoulder as he talked to her, but never having shown any feeling in his relations with her could not sufficiently release some tight thing in himself.
During her walk she reflects on her lack of intimacy with her father. She had no real relationship with her father or with anyone in this small town for that matter. He not only buried himself in his work, but was also, obviously, a man closed off to close relationships with anyone, which appears to be why his wife left him years earlier.
Before her return, the daughter and the father on their own resolved to reach out to each other. The daughter “resolved that the night should not pass without an effort on her part to make the old dream come true,”[2] the dream of an intimate loving relationship with her father. At the same time, her father on a house call actually said out loud, “Tonight I’ll do it. If it kills me I’ll make myself talk to the girl.”[3] This promise of resolution is palpable and right within their grasp. However, the story closes with him ascending to the top of the stairs to find his waiting daughter, but he suddenly then falls backward down the stairs, presumably the result of a heart attack, and dies.
Sherwood Anderson often contended that not only was small town Americana extremely romanticized, but its citizens were as well. They were full of flaws and inabilities to cultivate intimate relationships, so flawed that he labeled them “Grotesques”. And while there is truth in his assessment of early 20th century Americana, the Bible clearly declares that every human who has ever lived (and will live) is a grotesque. This malady is evidenced not only in their relationships with each other, but also with God Himself. From Adam and Eve’s fateful choice to disobey God, human capacity for intimacy with their good Creator has been deeply flawed. What is the source of these flaws, this estrangement, these barriers? How can we understand them in order to draw near to God? Let’s look at the backstory in light of these questions.
INTIMACY WITH GOD: THE WAY IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE
The capacity for intimacy with God begins with His creation. Unlike the father in Anderson’s short story, God has always initiated intimacy with Him. In fact, it is a reflection of His very own nature as the Triune God. Creation is not only the act of the God, the Spirit and His Word (Gen 1:1-3; John 1:1-3; Col 1:16-17) as individual members of the Godhead, but the act of “Us” (Gen 1:26).[4] This creative interaction has set the pattern for the active relationship God has with His creation.
God instilled the capacity for intimacy in humans themselves. He made man and woman in His image as the capstone of His creation. Von Rad rightly observes that when the text of Genesis 1:26 notes “the announcement of a divine resolution: ‘Let us make man’ . . . God participates more intimately and intensively in this than in other works of creation.”[5] The resemblance men and women have to God is found at minimum in the companionship and complementarity they have for each other. Hoekema aptly adds, “In this way human beings reflect God, who exists not as a solitary being but as a being in fellowship.”[6] The active intention of this is when God shares His dominion over the rest of creation with them. We might wonder whether God and Adam and Eve were discussing the management of His creation during their walks in the Garden (Gen 3:7).
Furthermore, built into the created order is the intimacy of humankind patterned after their Creator. Part of this dominion has been to fulfill the mandate to be fruitful and multiply (Gen 1:28), an aspect of their one-flesh marriage union (Gen 2:24). What follows is a simple summary description of their open and safe relationship, “And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed” (Gen 2:25). This is strategically placed in the narrative at the end of their creation in chapter 2 and preceding the description of the Fall in chapter 3. It describes the pattern of human intimacy and its subsequent distortion. Thus central to understanding the nature and relationship of God and His creation is the intimacy within the Godhead itself and the profound capacity for human intimacy with God and others.
UNIVERSAL ESTRANGEMENT: NOT THE WAY IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE
This designed capacity for intimacy with God was severed at one moment in history. The Fall was the result of the serpent’s test and twist of the thesis that the man and woman’s relationship had been based upon an honest open sharing between them and God. The serpent deceived the woman into believing that God indeed had not been sharing everything with them. Why hadn’t He allowed them to experience the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? Had God really said that about it? It appears Eve at that very moment was to either trust God because of the intimacy of their relationship up to that point, or go and make a trusting connection of intimacy with God. In other words, why not simply ask Him? But instead they both rebelled and ate the forbidden fruit.
The consequence of this sin did not bring about “the promise of divine enlightenment,” but “mistrust and alienation replaced the security and intimacy they had enjoyed”[7] not only with each other, but also with God Himself. The self-conscious nakedness and inadequate attempt at self-protective covering underscore the destruction of their intimacy. Furthermore, the previous pattern of their walking with God in the Garden in the cool of the day (3:7) was interrupted forever. God calls for them, asking, “Where are you?” in order to draw them out of their hiding. Universal estrangement had begun. Because they both did not trust in God’s revealed law or will concerning the source of wisdom from “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil,” the LORD God declared clearly that the consequence would be becoming in a most perverted way “like Us, knowing good and evil” (3:22). It appears, then, that the ban from the Garden, the wandering of Cain, etc. are examples of this universal estrangement playing itself out, and the Tower of Babel, Jacob’s wrestling with God, etc. are just some of the examples strewn along the path of man’s vain attempts to restore intimacy with God on their own terms (cf. Rom. 1:21-23).
The Apostle Paul personalizes this universal estrangement by describing humanity as God’s “enemies” (ἐχθροὶ, Rom 5:10). The human mind is set on the flesh and practices “enmity” (ἔχθρα) or open hostility toward God and His will (Rom 8:7). What concept describes the recalcitrance and relational distance and discord more vividly than this? That is why it is so significant that Christ’s atoning sacrifice not only provides forensic justification to the believing sinner (Rom 3:24-26; 4:5; 5:1), but also the complete removal of the boiling wrath with which God reciprocates the enmity and replaces it with reconciliation (καταλλάσσω) (Rom 5:10-11)! Forensic justification is the foundation for this restored intimacy, because “having been justified by faith we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom 5:1).
INTIMACY WITH GOD: CONTINUING BARRIERS OF THE GROTESQUES
We humans are truly “grotesques.” Further investigation into what the Scriptures have to say about our universal estrangement from God reveals continuing barriers to intimacy with Him. These barriers are cultivated in the human heart and mind, and yet, external forces also play into this relational discord. Let’s look at a sampling of certain key results of the Fall that cause this human-divine estrangement.
Spiritual Adultery
James 4:8 is one of the clearest passages in the Bible exhorting believers to keep close to God. In this case, God’s people are to draw near to Him. James, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, promises, “Draw near to God and He will draw near to you.” However, this is not a promise without significant conditions. The aorist active imperative (ἐγγιεῖ)[8] not only describes the privilege to draw near to God, but additionally shows that failure to do so is, at minimum, disobedience.
The most striking feature of this exhortation is that it provides a cure for two specific cancerous destroyers of intimacy: spiritual adultery and Satanic opposition. First, James calls out his readers for their unfaithfulness to God. His people who are selfish, envious and quarrelsome (4:1-3) will not only see their prayers to God go unanswered, but will find themselves acting as His enemies. Friendship or intimacy with the world and its materialistic values is nothing other than spiritual adultery (v. 4-5). There could be no more horrific and painful image that James could use to describe this kind of sinful breach of intimacy with God.[9] On this drawing near, Davids notes, “This term normally indicates an activity of worship: All their church’s worship is not a coming near, for their community disharmony rooted in preoccupation with worldly success makes it unacceptable.”[10] The cure for this first barrier is plainly given: humble repentance before God.
Satanic Opposition
The second destroyer of intimacy with God in this passage comes from Satan’s opposition. James calls his readers to cease succumbing to Satan’s desires to separate them from their intimate relationship with God.[11] In verse 7, James calls them to “resist the devil and he will flee from you.” Then he exhorts them to draw near to God. It is at that point that He will draw near to them. The flow of thought is as if James was reflecting on Satan’s role in the Fall of humanity. He had caused Eve and Adam to doubt their close relationship with God, and now seems to have this same strategy for all believers. God must be holding out on us and so we shouldn’t trust him with our needs and wants. Thus, estrangement is cultivated.
The cure for this relational cancer is clearly again humble repentance in refusing to listen to the Devil’s lies about how to fulfill one’s desires. This humble repentance assumes that spiritual and emotional cleansing of this Satan-inspired adultery needs to take place. This is because James immediately exhorts the offender in verses 8b-10: “Cleanse your hands, you sinners; purify your hearts, you double minded. Be miserable and mourn and weep; let your laughter be turned to mourning and your joy to gloom. Humble yourselves in the presence of the Lord, and He will exalt you.” Moo aptly describes this image, “Those who sincerely repent and turn to God will find him, like the father of the prodigal son, eager to receive back his erring children.”[12] God is open to intimacy, but not as if He was a sort of jovial Santa Claus. We must understand the seriousness of our sin and the damage it does to our relationship with God. We must seek to make things right with Him, rather than arrogantly assuming He will “forgive and forget” the hurt He experiences.
Arrogant Self-Sufficiency
A related example of a barrier to intimacy with God is the effect that arrogant self-sufficiency has on our relationship with God. David provides us a window into this malady. In a moment of candor when reflecting on the Lord’s deliverance, he described his own self-deceived satisfaction. He had allowed himself to think he was fully responsible for his safe and prosperous lifestyle in Jerusalem. However, the Lord allowed it all to be taken away by rebellion of his own son, Absalom. It was at that point that he saw his sin’s connection to his feelings of estrangement from God.
Now as for me, I said in my prosperity
“I will never be moved,”
O LORD, by Your favor You have made my mountain to stand strong;
You hid your face,
I was dismayed (Ps 30:6-7).
He had made the illogical leap to surmise that his prosperity (shalu-ease) was a sure sign of his enduring rule and safety. His assumed enduring stability[13] was born out of his wrong-headedness. It is because of this that the Lord concealed or covered (sathar) His very warm, supportive and intimate presence. This brought David to a point where he felt his life was in complete ruin.
David should have known this from Saul’s life. The Lord was deafeningly silent when Saul was arrogantly self-sufficient. The infamous witch of Endor incident is one such case in point (1 Sam 28). The Lord was already displeased with him, and refused to be some sort of genie at his beck and call (v. 6, 16). His lack of closeness with the Lord was in stark contrast to David, “the man after God’s own heart” (1 Sam 13:14).
We must remember that taking on an arrogant self-sufficient attitude is characteristic of the wicked[14] (cf. Ps 10:1, 6). We are assuming that we are ultimately responsible for any successes we have, or perhaps that we cannot be moved from our stable position in any aspect of life (cf. James 4:13-17). The Lord takes this as a show of contempt or a spurning of Him and His gracious presence (Ps 10:3). He then blocks not only our ability to see Him and to enjoy His gracious presence, but also withdraws His blessing of personal peace and stability.
Distraction
Often distraction is a barrier to intimacy with God. The familiar account of Mary, Martha and Jesus in Luke 10:38-42 is a great example. Martha welcomed Jesus into her home, but became distracted with her hostess preparations and became worried and bothered. Mary was in the deeply intimate position of sitting at Jesus’ feet and listening to his teachings. Martha’s distraction caused her to miss a marvelous opportunity simply to be with the Lord. It drove her to resentment rather than reclining in the Lord’s very presence. She even blames Jesus for allowing such cultivation when she exclaims, “Lord, don’t you care that my sister has left me to do all the serving alone? Tell her to help me.” Jesus, however, does not get sucked into Martha’s distraction, but simply states, “Mary has chosen the good part.” He affirms her choice to spend time with Him when she could have been distracted.
The Fall has introduced into the human race the skewed value of doing good things at the sacrifice of the best. Many of us get so busy and then notice, “Where’s God?” It is like drifting in an inner tube from the beach. The joy of floating distracts from the wisdom of staying close to the shore. Relaxing in the sun lulls one into distraction from the drifting. Suddenly, the shore is no longer visible. Martha probably should have recognized at that moment her humble, and maybe even seemingly humiliating, need to admit her being distracted from the most important person who has ever walked this earth. Like her, we must not allow ourselves to become distracted and drift away from sitting at our Lord’s feet and hearing His voice.
Suffering
On a different level than the previous barriers, the Fall has brought suffering that somehow hides God. The feelings of helplessness, hopelessness, and being alone often come in these times. The transparency of David in the Psalms, for example, allows us to see into the heart of a believer who experiences the inner turmoil of the Lord’s perceived absence in the very midst of devastating trials. He cried out in Psalm 27:7-10,
Hear, O Lord, when I cry aloud;
be gracious to me and answer me!
You have said, “Seek my face.”
My heart says to you,
“Your face, Lord, do I seek.”
Hide not your face from me.
Turn not your servant away in anger,
O you who have been my help.
Cast me not off; forsake me not, O God of my salvation!
For my father and my mother have forsaken me,
but the Lord will take me in.
The Lord’s hidden face appeared to be the worst possible result of the circumstance. In Psalm 69:17, David called this a “distress,” the binding, cramping, or besieging feelings of an inescapable trial (from tsarar). He knows God’s expressed desire for close fellowship with him, but he has to remind the Lord and himself that separation and feeling alone and abandoned are not the way their relationship is supposed to be. He saw himself as the Lord’s servant (cf. Ps 102:2). Logically, the Lord should move His ear, as it were, closer to them and quickly answer His suffering servant’s calls for help.
These trials may seem like they will last for an eternity. Repeatedly David cried out to the Lord in Psalm 13:1-2,
How long, O Lord? Will you forget me forever?
How long will you hide your face from me?
How long must I take counsel in my soul
and have sorrow in my heart all the day?
How long shall my enemy be exalted over me?
Not only was he not experiencing the blessed nearness of His God, but he seemed also to be left with the conclusion that he had been forgotten, left on his own, and utterly humiliated by his enemies (cf. Job 13:24-28; Ps 39:12-13).
CONCLUSION
Humans truly are grotesques. We are broken and things are not as they should be. Yet we are fully culpable for cultivating estrangement from God. It is as if too often the fallen pull of our hearts polarizes away rather than pulls toward God’s heart. Beyond that, our suffering through the trials of life externally threatens our sense of His nearness to us. Where is He in the midst of losing a job, enduring a divorce, watching helplessly over a suffering child, etc.?
Any expectations for an easy, long lasting and unassailable intimacy with God do not reckon with the radical effects of humanity’s Fall. One might wonder if ideas in our culture about storybook romances and the unrealistic fantasy of living happily-ever-after have helped, in part, to create an inability to take personal responsibility for human movement away from God. In his incisive study, Thomas Bergler describes an aspect of the typical middle-class American church as having worship services where,
The congregation sings top-forty-style songs addressed to God and heavily peppered with the words “I,” “you,” and “love”. In the sermon, the pastor may talk about “falling in love with Jesus.” With or without the romantic analogy, the preacher will spend a lot of time on the topic of God’s love. Even in theologically conservative churches, you won’t hear much about guilt, suffering or judgment.[15]
This can lead to expectations of a sort of intimacy with God that are not based in repentant obedient trust in the holy Creator and Redeemer, but rather in a form of adolescent idolatry and self-deception. We may one day find ourselves looking at our “relationship” with God and find that He hasn’t delivered what we expected. Some may even break-up with Him.
Nevertheless, we are not without hope. James’ words continue to call us to “draw near to God” in humble repentance with the promise that He will draw near to us. Our calling from God is to trust and obey and to be loyal to Him as our Savior and Master. He is proven and trustworthy. In this damaged era before Christ returns, He ever invites us to experience true intimacy with Him. It is part of our calling as His servants and children to respond. We can enjoy the closeness of His presence. We can experience communication with Him and hear His voice through His Word prompted by His Spirit. We can see His face and sense the lifting of His countenance as we recount His promises and celebrate His blessings. We can know His care as we feel His hand of blessing and deliverance. The Fall can never fully separate us from God.
[1]Sherwood Anderson, “Unlighted Lamps,” Great American Short Stories, edited by Wallace and Mary Stegner,
[2]Anderson, “Unlighted Lamps,” 298.
[3]Ibid., 302.
[4]See Wenham, Genesis 1-12 (Waco: Word, 199), for a good summary of the evidence that these first person plural pronouns in Genesis 1 and 3 refer to God as more than one person, as opposed to the “royal ‘we’”, or God and angels views.
[5]Gerhard Von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary, Translated by John H. Marks (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961), 55.
[6]Anthony A. Hoekema, Created in God’s Image (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 14.
[7]Allen P. Ross, Creation and Blessing: A Guide to the Study and Exposition of Genesis (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988), 137.
[8]The only means for gaining intimacy with God in this age of salvation history is coming to God through His Son, Jesus Christ. There are several passages in Hebrews where Christ is the means to drawing near to God. Hebrews 4:16; 7:19, 25; and 10:22.
[9]For an extensive study of this biblical theme see, Raymond C. Ortland, Jr., God’s Unfaithful Wife: A Biblical Theology of Spiritual Adultery (New Studies in Biblical Theology), (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2003).
[10]Peter H. Davids, James, New International Biblical Commentary, vol. 15, (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrikson, 1989), 102.
[11]Douglas J. Moo, The Letter of James: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985), 148.
[12]Moo, The Letter of James, 148.
[13]The Hebrew term mot here shows he assumed his lifestyle would notfalter, give way, be shaken, or totter and fall.
[14]Wickedness is devastating to intimacy with God. Proverbs 15:29 declares, “The Lord is far from the wicked, but He hears the prayer of the righteous.” These “wicked” are rasha or criminally evil. In 15:26 they are known for their evil plans vs. pleasant words. In 15:27 they offer bribes. 15:28 provides a serious contrast by stating, “The heart of the righteous ponders how to answer,But the mouth of the wicked pours out evil things.” Since there were “believers” and “unbelievers” in the physical nation of Israel (Rom 9:6), the wicked here are probably unbelievers. However, it does imply that the Lord then is not only near to the righteous, but that because He is, He hears their prayers, and hears them close up, so to speak. What does this imply about our intimacy with Him when we dream or plan evil in our hearts and have unpleasant and evil words like the wicked?
[15]Thomas E. Bergler, The Juvenilization of American Christianity, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 1.
