Monday, October 23, 2006
(Dave, in response to your most recent "heretical" post about the authority of Paul's epistles)
Slight grin on my face. Bubble of laughter. Deep breath and long sigh. Collect my thoughts.
Type at the keyboard, so familiar, the keys are exactly where they should be, and typing feels like talking to an old friend.
I've been wondering of late how I would answer the question, "Why do you believe what you believe?"The ensuing rabbit trail I found myself on is thorny, twisting, muddy, elusive, and ultimately transcendent.
Why do you believe what you believe Dave?
I am no genius. Now I'm 24, and I have a college education, and some life experience, and I'm pretty smart and articulate compared to the masses. But put me next to a seasoned sociologist who has been around the world, around the bend, and been jaded, and I can't argue much with them about what I believe about society. Do my redemption concepts and salvation and Kingdom of God ideas and understandings really have the potential to change people? I wouldn't even be able to dialogue with the sociologist about all the key issues, about how to change behavior, how to bring about the highest good... what is the highest good?
Put me next to an old man who has a doctorate in religious studies and I wouldn't very well be able to defend my position on why I believe in Christ, that he rose from the dead, that he did miracles, that he is THE way, THE truth, THE life. Don't get me wrong, I have reasons for believing, but if we argued about it, I couldn't convince him, or even fully rationally convince myself. There's so much I don't know. I'm so ignorant.
The disciplines have been booming, and humans can study their brains out on a specific subject, field, discipline, and never learn all there is to know about it. So we have experts running around talking about religion, or science, or cosmological theories, or consciousness, or history, or probabilities, or literary criticisms.
I do not know what they know regarding my own "beliefs." I cannot rationally and arguably stand up against them to "defend" what I believe. I know that, even employing my best arguments, they could derail my train of thought.
So I could say, "I'll just believe what I believe. Leave me alone." Well, that's ignorant, I'd realize tomorrow, and chastise myself. Lunatics disassociate themselves from the idea forum so they can justify their own heresies. Yet, if the issue can never be settled for me... if I can never really know all the evidence for intelligent design, and the authenticity of Scripture, and the contextual intent of Christ's teachings, and my own psychological pre-framing, why don't I just blow my brains out?
I'm basically burning my brain up if I try to figure this out. If I try to seal my spot in the ring of rational and logical systems. I'm dead in the water.
But here's a thought that gives me comfort: Nobody knows enough to defend their position. The moment they do, and get arrogant, somebody in China will discover something buried in a field that will blow their theory to hell. So should I be an agnostic? I guess that's not too bad of an idea in certain respects, because agnostics admit their own limitations, admit that they are humble and cannot figure it out rationally. For them, "believe" has to be based on good evidence, and since they feel they can't secure all the evidence, they stay unattached. I appreciate the humility of this view, but not the cowardice or the ultimate disillusionment.
I won't waste a keystroke on throwing out "evidence" about why I believe in Christ. Why he is the Lord of my life. I believe in Him more than I believe in myself, and I have committed my life to his Kingdom, and his teachings. However, the minute I cite "proof" for his resurrection, I'm open to the railings of scholars who can better argue their counter-point than I can argue my belief. Any road I try to run down fails to bring me to confident faith.
I could then take the mystic approach, and largely opt-out of the discussion, and seek Christ in the mysteries of experience and contemplation and nature and simplicity. Yes, I could do that and live well enough, except that I have an active mind and I know that going AWOL in the discussion doesn't prove my point to anyone, or really help establish my faith either.
Do you see... any direction I take to get to rationally defending my beliefs and securing my position fails me.
So, what's going to happen is that I'm inevitably going to say make that statement, act like I'm despairing, and then take a post-modern approach to faith that transcends the rational system... which is what I'm about to do.
But then the philosopher can come in and argue that my post-modern approach is a passing phase and my "logic" or anti-logic doesn't make my position any more true.So what is my position? Why do I believe what I believe?
Slight grin on my face. Bubble of laughter. Deep breath and long sigh. Collect my thoughts. I'm smiling because inside I cultivate and appreciate all that I claim to "know" and I also "know" that my beliefs are transcendent to this discussion. I cannot prove them. I'll let them grow in the garden of my heart, and you are free to smell their scents and admire them or hate them. But they cannot survive on the laboratory table of examination. There they are dead- a carcass under a microscope. In me they are living, and they are breathing smells that smell good, and making movements that heal and encourage. We can talk about beliefs, sure. It's a good discussion. But maybe first we should have a cup of tea without talking. We should share the joys of green tea, and wrap our hands around its warmth, and breath it deep before sipping. We should marvel at the wonder of two people sitting in front of each other, alive in the mystery of life itself, and think how perposterous it is that we sit on wooden chairs that are made up of atoms that are mostly empty space moving at rapid speeds that have electrons that are popping in and out of existence.
We can look into each other's eyes and past and future dreams. Sure, let's pull out verses from the Bible and talk about them. Bring them to the cold table. It is good and can be good and must be good.
But tea is good.
Love is better.
I am discontent with my current status of ignorance on so many things. I want to learn and grow and read and know more and more...I am content with being a humble and a largely ignorant human being, with not knowing everything there is to know and being able to prove myself and my beliefs to everyone.
I suppose this offers no insights on Paul. Maybe he would not want to have tea with me. His agenda might be on church-planting or tent-making, or writing inspired letters to different cities. That is also good.
Your investigations into the mysteries of the Bible and our faith and our lives... that is also good. God birthing faith in our hearts that leads to gardens of hope and joy and peace and compassion... that is the best yet.
I could type many words now to end this post... words in English or in jibberish... quotes of scholars or sayings of children... common sense or non-sense, to give guidance to those who search. But the old friend in front of me only has 26 plastic keys... not enough to communicate my transcendent faith or light the path. That's the job of the Spirit.
May he illumine our paths.
May he save us from getting lost in words.
Slight grin on my face. Bubble of laughter. Deep breath and long sigh. Collect my thoughts.
Type at the keyboard, so familiar, the keys are exactly where they should be, and typing feels like talking to an old friend.
I've been wondering of late how I would answer the question, "Why do you believe what you believe?"The ensuing rabbit trail I found myself on is thorny, twisting, muddy, elusive, and ultimately transcendent.
Why do you believe what you believe Dave?
I am no genius. Now I'm 24, and I have a college education, and some life experience, and I'm pretty smart and articulate compared to the masses. But put me next to a seasoned sociologist who has been around the world, around the bend, and been jaded, and I can't argue much with them about what I believe about society. Do my redemption concepts and salvation and Kingdom of God ideas and understandings really have the potential to change people? I wouldn't even be able to dialogue with the sociologist about all the key issues, about how to change behavior, how to bring about the highest good... what is the highest good?
Put me next to an old man who has a doctorate in religious studies and I wouldn't very well be able to defend my position on why I believe in Christ, that he rose from the dead, that he did miracles, that he is THE way, THE truth, THE life. Don't get me wrong, I have reasons for believing, but if we argued about it, I couldn't convince him, or even fully rationally convince myself. There's so much I don't know. I'm so ignorant.
The disciplines have been booming, and humans can study their brains out on a specific subject, field, discipline, and never learn all there is to know about it. So we have experts running around talking about religion, or science, or cosmological theories, or consciousness, or history, or probabilities, or literary criticisms.
I do not know what they know regarding my own "beliefs." I cannot rationally and arguably stand up against them to "defend" what I believe. I know that, even employing my best arguments, they could derail my train of thought.
So I could say, "I'll just believe what I believe. Leave me alone." Well, that's ignorant, I'd realize tomorrow, and chastise myself. Lunatics disassociate themselves from the idea forum so they can justify their own heresies. Yet, if the issue can never be settled for me... if I can never really know all the evidence for intelligent design, and the authenticity of Scripture, and the contextual intent of Christ's teachings, and my own psychological pre-framing, why don't I just blow my brains out?
I'm basically burning my brain up if I try to figure this out. If I try to seal my spot in the ring of rational and logical systems. I'm dead in the water.
But here's a thought that gives me comfort: Nobody knows enough to defend their position. The moment they do, and get arrogant, somebody in China will discover something buried in a field that will blow their theory to hell. So should I be an agnostic? I guess that's not too bad of an idea in certain respects, because agnostics admit their own limitations, admit that they are humble and cannot figure it out rationally. For them, "believe" has to be based on good evidence, and since they feel they can't secure all the evidence, they stay unattached. I appreciate the humility of this view, but not the cowardice or the ultimate disillusionment.
I won't waste a keystroke on throwing out "evidence" about why I believe in Christ. Why he is the Lord of my life. I believe in Him more than I believe in myself, and I have committed my life to his Kingdom, and his teachings. However, the minute I cite "proof" for his resurrection, I'm open to the railings of scholars who can better argue their counter-point than I can argue my belief. Any road I try to run down fails to bring me to confident faith.
I could then take the mystic approach, and largely opt-out of the discussion, and seek Christ in the mysteries of experience and contemplation and nature and simplicity. Yes, I could do that and live well enough, except that I have an active mind and I know that going AWOL in the discussion doesn't prove my point to anyone, or really help establish my faith either.
Do you see... any direction I take to get to rationally defending my beliefs and securing my position fails me.
So, what's going to happen is that I'm inevitably going to say make that statement, act like I'm despairing, and then take a post-modern approach to faith that transcends the rational system... which is what I'm about to do.
But then the philosopher can come in and argue that my post-modern approach is a passing phase and my "logic" or anti-logic doesn't make my position any more true.So what is my position? Why do I believe what I believe?
Slight grin on my face. Bubble of laughter. Deep breath and long sigh. Collect my thoughts. I'm smiling because inside I cultivate and appreciate all that I claim to "know" and I also "know" that my beliefs are transcendent to this discussion. I cannot prove them. I'll let them grow in the garden of my heart, and you are free to smell their scents and admire them or hate them. But they cannot survive on the laboratory table of examination. There they are dead- a carcass under a microscope. In me they are living, and they are breathing smells that smell good, and making movements that heal and encourage. We can talk about beliefs, sure. It's a good discussion. But maybe first we should have a cup of tea without talking. We should share the joys of green tea, and wrap our hands around its warmth, and breath it deep before sipping. We should marvel at the wonder of two people sitting in front of each other, alive in the mystery of life itself, and think how perposterous it is that we sit on wooden chairs that are made up of atoms that are mostly empty space moving at rapid speeds that have electrons that are popping in and out of existence.
We can look into each other's eyes and past and future dreams. Sure, let's pull out verses from the Bible and talk about them. Bring them to the cold table. It is good and can be good and must be good.
But tea is good.
Love is better.
I am discontent with my current status of ignorance on so many things. I want to learn and grow and read and know more and more...I am content with being a humble and a largely ignorant human being, with not knowing everything there is to know and being able to prove myself and my beliefs to everyone.
I suppose this offers no insights on Paul. Maybe he would not want to have tea with me. His agenda might be on church-planting or tent-making, or writing inspired letters to different cities. That is also good.
Your investigations into the mysteries of the Bible and our faith and our lives... that is also good. God birthing faith in our hearts that leads to gardens of hope and joy and peace and compassion... that is the best yet.
I could type many words now to end this post... words in English or in jibberish... quotes of scholars or sayings of children... common sense or non-sense, to give guidance to those who search. But the old friend in front of me only has 26 plastic keys... not enough to communicate my transcendent faith or light the path. That's the job of the Spirit.
May he illumine our paths.
May he save us from getting lost in words.
Comments:
<< Home
the "unattached-ness" of the agnostic... the green tea... do I smell China in the room?
seriously... whoa. my spirit is free. I resonate, jarod, I do, in the scientific sense of equal frequencies of vibrations; in the artistic sense of a violin and cello playing in perfect harmony... thank you for writing what I could not. my soul leeps for joy.
seriously... whoa. my spirit is free. I resonate, jarod, I do, in the scientific sense of equal frequencies of vibrations; in the artistic sense of a violin and cello playing in perfect harmony... thank you for writing what I could not. my soul leeps for joy.
Adam,
I think this is the first thing I've ever written to you, but I feel like I know you well.
Yes, I took some of China with me, and left some of me in China. :)
By the way, in my walk-in closet, I have an array of important pictures, maps, and cards hanging up, which now includes a card with a crane standing on the beach.
I think this is the first thing I've ever written to you, but I feel like I know you well.
Yes, I took some of China with me, and left some of me in China. :)
By the way, in my walk-in closet, I have an array of important pictures, maps, and cards hanging up, which now includes a card with a crane standing on the beach.
Jarod,
Though I also liked what you said, it didn't really help. Whether you are coming at it from an Eastern view point or not, you must surely have an opinion. And if not an opinion, then a leaning. And if you have neither an opinion nor a leaning, what exactly DO you use Scripture for?
I understand and agree with the idea of dissecting faith and killing it through analysis, but with what you said we may as well not use Scripture at all. Instead of thinking of beliefs as plants that are growing in my heart, I think of them as a very large map, which is being drawn in pencil and pen. Faith is the action, the cultivation. But beliefs about doctrine are different. They are concrete. You either believe them or you don't.
I'm actually not sure if I agree with your last sentence. The style in which you wrote your response sort of defied any kind of further discussion. If you meant that we sometimes hide behind words, then I agree. If you meant that words can be confusing, then I agree. If you meant that words can be loaded, then I agree. If you mean that words cannot express the complexity of faith, then I agree. But words are EXCEEDINGLY useful in connecting people together. Some awful things are caused by the misuse of words. But a proper use excites the heart filled with imagination into faith.
So do you agree with everything that the apostle Paul said? What's your take. Please stay Western for your next response ;)
Post a Comment
Though I also liked what you said, it didn't really help. Whether you are coming at it from an Eastern view point or not, you must surely have an opinion. And if not an opinion, then a leaning. And if you have neither an opinion nor a leaning, what exactly DO you use Scripture for?
I understand and agree with the idea of dissecting faith and killing it through analysis, but with what you said we may as well not use Scripture at all. Instead of thinking of beliefs as plants that are growing in my heart, I think of them as a very large map, which is being drawn in pencil and pen. Faith is the action, the cultivation. But beliefs about doctrine are different. They are concrete. You either believe them or you don't.
I'm actually not sure if I agree with your last sentence. The style in which you wrote your response sort of defied any kind of further discussion. If you meant that we sometimes hide behind words, then I agree. If you meant that words can be confusing, then I agree. If you meant that words can be loaded, then I agree. If you mean that words cannot express the complexity of faith, then I agree. But words are EXCEEDINGLY useful in connecting people together. Some awful things are caused by the misuse of words. But a proper use excites the heart filled with imagination into faith.
So do you agree with everything that the apostle Paul said? What's your take. Please stay Western for your next response ;)
<< Home
