I believe in truth as being such, irrespective of my own subjective understanding of what that entails. I believe that objective truth exists outside of my suggesting what truth's actual nature and content may consist of. Yet, at the same time, if someone comes along and tells me what I am supposed to believe, even if I think they raise a good point, I don't necessarily feel inclined to accept their understanding of that particular truth nor do I believe I possess the power needed to do so even if I desired to do so.
For years I have been exhorted by many external sources (pastors, teachers, friends) to believe the same things that they believe, and often times there would be negative consequences imposed upon me if I chose to reject their suppositions of which they said were actually God's revelation to all men in a universal way.
As much as I value the idea of truth, especially God's truth, I now am of the mind that unless more than just my brain seeks to attain to what my whole heart longs for, then what is the point of listening to others' points of view and then their expecting me to accommodate my current beliefs to theirs? I value the fact that God may have spoken to them in such a way as it affected them profoundly. I seek the same for myself. I desire to hear from others their new and exciting transforming words from God to them. But I struggle so much when I am expected to "get it" by way of intellectual assent, when they have the experience to validate for them the words of God themselves.
I think I prefer Jesus' way where he was recognised "as" one who had authority, that not of the Scribes, and yet he exhorts us to judge for ourselves. I am compelled to move in this direction as I am curious about the words He has for me (that is, words spoken directly to me), and I would love to share them with others in the hope that they would seek Him out for themselves too, apart from expecting to hear the same exact message as I had received. There may be general truths of revelation, but apart from my being able to grasp them from the core of my whole being, of what use are they?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
11 comments:
Hey, Chris! I apologize if I'm alittle dense but could you give an example of a "truth" that you struggle with? Thanks for the post! Alli.
Wonderful post, Chris. I see totally what you're getting at here. God will speak to and reveal Himself to people individually, in personal ways, that may not look the same as the person sitting next to you. If this is a "truth" of God, then it would seem the structure of religious teachings is off track.
If each person as an individual has a subjective view of the truth as revealed by God and it is as if each has their own personal spiritual spectacles they look through, each showing a different picture, then the idea and practice of coming together under one standard of belief, one set of indoctrinated "truths," wouldn't seem possible, or at least unrealistic.
But that's what all religions and denominations do. I prefer your idea, but I question the ability of humans so trained in the established process to let go of what they consider tantamount to an eternity of joy or an eternity of damnation. That is a fearful place to abandon for many people and when push comes to shove I suspect they would resist opening up beyond that.
Even the Baha'i faith has a "Messenger of God" with laws, teadchings and "institutions He established for the unification of humankind." I always thought Baha'i was more of an interfaith gathering, but check out www.bahai.org -- I was actually surprised.
I think humans have a natural tendency toward organization and unification under one "mission statement" or "statement of beliefs." It would certainly be a New Age if that requirement or need was abandoned and clergy taught on and encouraged expression of individual experiences of communing with God and what truths the individual discovered -- and through that process Worship and Love ensues.
I wonder......
And has this ever occurred in history?
Hey Alli,
Sure. I struggle with the basic idea that many people I come across consider themselves to be correct practically all of the time, whereas I am considered to be the one in error. I really don't mind all that much in discovering that I am wrong about something (spiritually speaking), but I'm usually curious as to why it is that many who are willing to point out my seemingly obvious errors, that when I question them further as to their assessment of my errors, they become uncomfortable with my line of questioning as to how it is that they came to their conclusion of me being such. I think what I'm getting at, Alli, is that there is more to grasping truth than what one human is capabe of surmising at a given point. And, by the way, I don't think you're dense, I'm a little cryptic sometimes when I communicate; but not on purpose. Chris.
Troy,
Yes, you are understanding what I am getting at. And, I don't know if there has been a point in history that such an openness and respect for others has actually existed. I did hear that in Spain (I don't remember when, sorry) a significant number of years ago, that Christians, Jews, and Muslims did quite well together for a time. I would like to think that we are headed in that direction today, where we can lovingly exchange conversations and yet seriously consider letting love for the other win the day, no matter the outcome of the conversation. I know that ideas are important, but perhaps our actions express more acurrately the weight of our beliefs.
interesting posts guys and gals. I'm diggin' it. I am also empathizing with some of your frustrations about the way some folks challenge my theological questioning while not giving reflection/criticism to some of their own theological inconsistencies. (I am with you.) Recently I have been challenged to consider a new way of looking at this. My friend was saying that good theology is like speaking good English. If language doesn't stick to the rules that are established for the language it evantually breaks down and communication deteriorates. Good theology is like this in that if we continue to break down the beliefs of our religion we lose that which we worship. I guess it's the whole deconstruction versus construction thing. It's good to pick out the bad stuff in our Christian religion (pick your poison here) but we need to eventually replace it with something that is worthy of our praise and devotion. Not sure this really addresses your post but it is what has been rolling around my brain lately.
Looking forward to seeing everyone on the 11th. Kyle
Kyle,
I do believe that your response has much to do with what we have been discussing. I like the "English language" analogy, accept that there should be, and there is, quite a bit of discussion as to what the rules for doing good theology might be.
I think that, at least to some extent, if there were some flexibility (perhaps this might even be a good rule) as to what constitutes a good rule, then we could be well on our way toward loving one another through the acknowledgement and acceptance of our theological diversity (while being able, individually speaking, to hold to our personal convictions with an eye toward receiving further light).
It can be so tempting to deconstruct things to death, can't it? Certainly there is value in challenging our/others presuppositions as related to what could be called "foundational starting points" in the area of theology. When we think it may be necessary to do so, I think your advice of the replacement of what is now rejected with that of what seems good, or better, is essential. Along with that, I would also add that we would be well-served to take another gander at what we have already constructed, the big picture, so as to not lose our way.
As important as it is to seek after ultimate truth, in our search we should seek to go beyond our ability to conceptualize and to give assent to, and I think the "big picture approach" reminds us of that which you mentioned is to be worthy of our devotion and to be praised. Our great and good God, as revealed in the person of Jesus, is both Mind and Doer, as we should learn better to become more like as well.
Chris, I think what you're getting at is one of the big issues and controversies of what constitutes truly being a disciple. It's the old faith vs. works argument.
I tend to believe in a bit of both. God has been evident in my life through actions and experiences and also through thoughts and beliefs. I can't say either is exclusive.
We all have a unique Godstory, and how edifying it can be to share our story with others. I love to share my story with others, and there's no right or wrong to a Godstory. Each person's story glows with the Holy Spirit.
Yet I also encourage us to look at creeds like the Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed, as they mark off the field of play for what we consider Christianity. Some things are just out of play, but there are always newer, more thoughtful and more innovative ways of playing the game, of being a follower of Christ.
Interestingly, it's often the folks who claim the greatest "independence" in following Christ, those who say, "I do not follow any creeds or any teachings other than the Bible and my personal experiences with Jesus Christ," who actually have the most narrow view of what others must do to be Christians, themselves.
In conclusion, there's something to be said for drawing some boundaries and providing some common areas to play in. When done in a healthy way, dialogue with the thoughtful work of others through centuries can actually expose us to our own blind spots, proclivities and biases and create more stimulus for holy growth.
It's the people who refuse to engage in such discussion and prefer to stick fingers in their ears (or blinders over their eyes) and yell, "I'm right! I'm right! I'm right!" who scare me.
David,
I appreciate everything you had to say, and thank you for joining in this conversation. The only thing I would like to add has to do with modern understandngs of the Creeds and their applicability.
I agree that the Creeds do offer valuable insight concerning our faith in God, yet at the same time I have had other Christians use these Creeds as measuring devices demarcating the viability of other's faith in God through Jesus. I have had people "shun" me because I told them that I don't believe God rejects those who can't affirm the vigin birth. I have had people tell me that I wasn't a Christian until I affirmed, by way of assenting, the deity of Jesus, or, for that matter, the trinitarian understanding of the nature of God.
These doctrines, in creedal form, for many Christians, have become primary bases for inclusion into many local congregational, denominational, and Traditional gatherings. For many of the post-modernly-minded, I believe these creeds and other supposed bounderies should be up for discussion as to whether they have the authority to determine the inclusion or exclusion of people into the Christian faith.
Certainly boundaries have their value, but what constitutes a boundary and how it may be applied, I believe, should be open game for discussion within both fields of philisophical and theological inquiry, particularly because of our current postmodern culture. It's becoming so hard to just be a Christian anymore because there are so many boundaries and requirements vying for our attention within the many forms of Christianity these days.
Simply put, for me, the gospel is "follow me, (Who?) the Way, the Truth, and the Life." Christianity, according to Jesus, has so much more to do with addressing the state of our corrupted hearts, of which he desires to transform into his likeness that we may more fully become what it means to be truly human in God's world. God has called us to himself by faith through the various mediums he has chosen to reveal himself (whatever they may be) not by way of certain statements that demand intellectual assent apart from the risk inherent in living out faith with the whole of our lives.
So, I agree that this whole faith vs. works dilemma has gotten out of hand, and I believe that extreme positions of it have led us into areas of controversy that have proven very debilitating and hurtful for a lot of people. Faith in Jesus should never be perceived primarily through an either/or or a both/and approach, but with a view toward the tenability of both approaches deserving further sought clarification as we pursue God and his truth for our lives together in our current life context.
EDITED: Sorry I made a big content error so I had to fix it. Here is my fixed comment:
I spent a lot of time in my religious studies classes debating these ideas from various perspectives. One of the interesting things about my degree was that I had to study so many different religions and argue truth from various perspectives.
Often I get described as a pluralist because I can see valid truth in everything. But I would actually take what I hold as belief a step further. In everything I find at least a sliver of God's truth. It is kind of like the Godstory discussion... each of us have unique perspectives on the divine. Who are we to judge and invalidate someone else's beliefs about something that is so subjective?
I just can't bring myself to do it. I believe deeply in what Christ has done for me but my theology when you shake me down is bits and pieces from my past understandings of God and I'm still trying to figure some of it out. And I think that is perfectly acceptable. But that's just me and I can't function in a black and white world. I guess that's the liberal arts religious studies major in me.
I can relate with what you are saying, Laura, from a more subjectivist appreciation, and with what you said about boundaries, David. Our postmodern dilemma, from a Christian standpoint, seems to be seeking for some kind of more moderate and flexible position (or, better, range of positions) between full-blown relativism and rock-solid objectivism. As best as I can tell, the human condition doesn't really lend itself very well toward either extreme (I guess our current situation in western society wouldn't back my claim very well, though, would it?), at least from my perspective, from which I cannot avoid. I guess, in light of this post, one can readily notice my interst in epistemology, huh?
Post a Comment