Q&A and a Bowl of Pho--by Andy

If a Christian was asked, "What is the purpose of your life?" he or she would probably dutily answer, "to glorify God." I have been taught to say the same. It's a nice, short, easy to remember, and good Christian answer that seems to give glory to God and not to oneself.

Now, the first question in the Shorter Catechism is, "What is the chief end of man?" to which the answer, not as widely known to Christians as the one above, is, "Man's chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy him for ever." Besides the fact that this answer may be more biblically full and compliant (you can disagree here if you like), I personally like this answer better than the other one for two reasons.

First, the first answer, although very godly and heroic, sounds too much like an obligation and a duty. If I was to utter those words, it would most likely be for me to make myself sound noble and self-sacrificing in front of the inquirer, while in the back of my mind, either I didn't mean it or I meant it in a more relaxed and degenerate sense of the phrase, ie. "to glorify God, uh when and if it does not cause me too much pain or inconvenience or when and if it also makes me feel good" or "to glorify God, uh later in life, maybe, after I've gotten everything I wanted out of life." But if I was to utter those words honestly without pretense, then it would feel as if I am doing it because I have to, out of a duty as a Christian, and I am not enjoying it one bit. So in either case, no matter how I say those three words, I feel like I am either a hypocrite or a stoic, and I end up not glorifying God by saying "to glorify God."

Second, I like the second answer because there's at least something in it for me, through the words "enjoy" and "for ever." Deep down, I think I naturally pursue enjoyment and happiness in life, just as what Pascal said. I don't know if I would have the gut to keep on believing in a God who would want to make my life miserable just so He would be glorified.

But then, after having said all that, I find myself asking, "How do I enjoy God?" This is where I am kinda stuck. I really know how to enjoy a bowl of pho. And I can really bask in the enjoyment of solving a tough bug at work, but how do I enjoy God? What do people mean when they say they enjoy God? My search for true enjoyment continues. I would know I have got it when/if one day God tastes better than a bowl of pho.

Sinclair Ferguson in his book The Christian Life, after quoting J. C. Ryle, says, "He was right not only doctrinally, but particularly at the level of practical Christian experience. Only as we begin to appreciate what we were before we became Christians (or what we would be naturally were we not Christians), do we begin to sense something of the immense grandeur of being new creatures in Christ." I wonder if this "immense grandeur" is something that would taste better than a bowl of pho. If so, then I'd like an extra large bowl of immense grandeur please. The quote from Ryle was,

He that wishes to attain right views about Christian holiness, must begin by examining the vast and solemn subject of sin. He must dig down very low if he would build high. A mistake here is most mischievous. Wrong views about holiness are generally traceable to wrong views about human corruption. I make no apology for beginning this volume of papers about holiness by making some plain statements about sins.
The plain truth is that a right knowledge of sin lies at the root of all saving Christianity. Without it such doctrines as justification, conversion, sanctification, are 'words and names' which convey no meaning to the mind. The first thing, therefore, that God does when he makes anyone a new creature in Christ, is to send light into his heart, and show him that he is a guilty sinner.

If Ryle and Ferguson are right, then to glorify God and to enjoy him for ever starts with a light, from God. What is the chief end of man again? I think I am going in circles.