My response was:

I think 1 Corinthians 13 can answer that great question quite well. It speaks of "now" and "then" - now being, well, now, and then being when we will embark upon eternity in the presence of God. We are described now as seeing only partly - as is a mirror, darkly. You can see things in a mirror and get to know them somewhat, but they never quite look real. (The last Narnia book describes earth this way after everyone gets to "heaven" - I'm sure taken from this scripture.) But the scripture goes on to encourage that when we are done with temporal things we will see God "face to face." I think that until we see Him face to face, without all the trappings of our sinful environment and our own tendencies to sin, we will always be longing for more - more of that very fullness of His presence and a better, fuller, picture of who He really is. We can only see a part now, likely because of the sin but also probably in part because of the design of God (i.e. for the building of our faith). It reminds me of knowing someone only through letters or phone calls. If you truly love that person – at least love what you are able to divine of them from that limited interaction – you will necessarily want more depth in that relationship, since you know that there is more to be had. You will want to know more of them and see them more, spend more time with them and get to know them better. I know that we have received God’s forgiveness through Christ’s sacrifice – that is done in its fullness, yes. And I know that we have received God’s Spirit in our conversion – that is the deposit we have been given to ensure our place at God’s side in eternity. In these things, yes, there is a fullness there already. But I rather think that there is a difference between all the fullness of something being already present and our discovering it, or unwrapping it, if you will. I do believe that the fullness of the knowledge of God and the fullness of the experience of His presence are available to us. I’m not sure that it necessarily follows that we have 100% figured it all out. That’s all part of being in relationship with someone. When we first met (such a long time ago now!), you didn’t know much about me even though I was all there in front of you. But with the years we have been friends your knowledge of me and mine of you have increased with time and intention. (The big error in that analogy being that both you and I have grown and changed in our personalities and possibly even our characters as we have aged and matured, whereas the character and nature of God are unchanging. But you get the idea…..) I think the marked difference here is between what is available and what is realized. Like potential and kinetic energy in high school science. (Oh boy – did I really just write that?) The Law of Conservation of Energy tells us that energy exists and cannot be made or lost. In its potential form, it appears as virtually nothing, whereas in its kinetic form, it has taken on its active properties. One is availability, the other is fullness. One is a wrapped present, the other is an opened gift. Our intimacy with God is fully available through the design and accomplishment of the cross. Its realization – actually having it come about – is a process of time and intentionality.

Similar to the idea that we are on a journey to discover the fullness of the person of God, I think that I, at least, am continually on a journey to truly understand the fullness of the cross and the reality of the Spirit of God living in me as a deposit of my future inheritance (to name two out of a thousand things that I often discover in reference to God that I know less of than I had thought). Are those things manifested in their fullness already? Yes. The sacrifice of the cross is completed. The Spirit of God resides in you from the moment you chose to believe and receive Him. For my part, I still think that there is more to know, more to understand, even just more to experience in both of those things, as in a myriad of others. I’m about to get lost in my own words here as I am verbally standing on the precipice of thinking about all these different facets of our faith, and that could get (if it hasn’t already) confusing and muddy to think of. My main idea was that though these things, as you said, are already received in fullness, and though God’s character is already formed in fullness, it might not follow that we yet see and experience these absolutely and completely. I think that our seeing “in a mirror darkly” leaves us with room for more and more until the day we see Him face to face. I don’t know if you’ve read the Narnia series, but the picture that C.S. Lewis paints there of what world is real and what has been reflective (when eternity has actually dawned) is …. enlightening. I liked it. (Though I will readily admit that I am a visual person, so that sort of thing is always helpful to my understanding or imagining of things.)

In all my verbiage I have not touched on something pretty important as far as perspective about these song lyrics. (Amazing that I could have written so much and still found something else to say, but there it is. Some things never change….) The words “Lord, I want more of You” and “We are hungry for more of You” have more than one possible meaning. Obviously both you and I have touched on the meaning that says, “Lord, I want more knowledge of You, more of Your Spirit manifested in my life, more understanding of You and the cross, more intimacy in my relationship with You”, etc. But the truth is that this song could also be sung with the intention of “Lord, I want more of You to be seen through me and my actions” or “I am hungry to have more of You showing through my life,” similar to the lyrics of Lily of the Valley by David Ruis which say, “More of You and less of me.” I will admit that I sing this song both ways, depending on the day and what my heart is moved to express in my worship. The John the Baptist echoes that intent when he writes, “He must increase, I must decrease.” (John 3:30)

Anyway, that’s probably way more than you ever asked for!! But it’s a great topic and an awesome question. And there’s no guarantee that I have hit the nail on the head at all; I’ve just given you some of my thoughts in response to yours. It started as a blog comment, then I realized that it should probably be an e-mail as it was getting too long, and now think that I might simply post our “conversation” (which is actually my monologue) as a blog in itself. The main question in my mind: Will you ever forgive me for using physics as a way to illuminate a point about theology? Probably. But wait for it – I’m currently studying the chemical properties of wood and its hygroscopic nature, and if I can get my thoughts to formulate in a fairly linear manner there’s a great blog coming about equilibrium moisture content, relative humidity, community and Jesus as the Living Water. (The analogy is a bit befuddled in my head still – small wonder.) Didn’t know this artsy chick was still a good ‘ole science geek, did you? :)

Love you lots – thanks for making me think of all this. It’s great.
Bakes
xoxo