Evening Thoughts
Sincere thanks to all the kind comments on my previous post. Today I did take out a few minutes, maybe five beautiful ones, to watch the sun set from a hill on the way home; the sky in the foothills is so gorgeous a few hours after a front moves through. Sunday I cut and split much wood, an 80 foot fir tree that dropped behind my neighbor's house. These were both good suggestions.
As far as obedience as in Chambers, I'm a bit stumped. I don't feel like I'm engaged in anything I shouldn't be, except the usual candidates: fear, worry, self-pity, obsessive criticism of others...those things are so part of me that slowing them down actually takes positive input, looking at a sunset or chopping wood.
Could it be that God simply wants faith from me? I don't know. I think of Bertrand Russell, the brilliant 20th century mathematician/philosopher. His autobiography, incidentally, makes compelling reading. He felt God didn't give him enough evidence to prove He existed, yet Russell admits in the first volume of his bio that he shut all feeling from his life to pursue his academic work; he left his first wife and moved through many women, four wives included, and by the end of his life still had not found peace. He was stymied by his relationship failures. Looking from the outside, it's easy to see where he closed himself off to affectionate feeling, to love and closeness and the acceptance of the imperfect, a being who could hurt him, and pursued sex as recreation (not that loving, committed sex isn't fun). Perhaps his spiritual strife can be seen the same way.
I know that when Russell wrote his famous "Why I am not a Christian" essay, it was a deep disappointment compared to his other work. It's personal bigotry, almost, a long way from any thorough, terminal argument. A mind of that caliber. Choosing doubt. I've seen it other places. I can respect the atheist who has really tried, who has closely studied the gospels and other world religions and sincerely searched to find the historic core, more than one who writes off faith out of pride or lust or arrogance or greed or out of a weak understanding of the scope of science. The latter category is legion. It's true many reject or abandon faith as a result of sufffering, personal and corporate; that is a position I can respect more, but then again, many have suffered intensely and clung to their faith as they were flayed to piecesm, literally or figuratively, and not just Christians.
Then again, those who believe without much intellectual search are also numerous. Perhaps here is the puzzle: the mind is at best part of the solution, if it is any significant part at all. I'm not ready to toss analysis of my faith, and I have to trust that my two year study of the bible in my EFM class will yield something different, God help me, than what Julia Sweeney got when she took a bible class at her church.
Julia Sweeney used to play the androgynous Pat on Saturday Night Live and is now known for a play she wrote and stars in on her own "beatiful" loss of faith. A few years back, after going through a personal loss she prayed to God, a God she knew from a Catholic childhood, and felt emotionally healed from her prayer. She felt she ought to get serious about the church after this. That sentiment led her back to the Catholic church where she attended a bible class of some kind. After reading the old and new testaments she decided, according to her by using reason, that God did not exist, and the bible was clearly not divine. Now she describes herself as an atheist, and one who believes she has investigated her lack of belief with scientific methods.
Perhaps she has.
I admit I haven’t seen her play though I have read at least two interviews. One, with sfgate.com, is posted at her website. I do cringe when she says, “You know, like Jesus was angry a lot. When he turned all those people into pigs and made them run off a mountain, it was so hateful, not just to people but to pigs. I felt upset for the pigs!” Okay. Even the interviewer doesn’t question that original pericope. Jesus didn’t turn anyone into pigs. And if, in fact, he cast a bunch of demons into a herd and they ran off a cliff the least of my concerns is the welfare of the pigs; I’d be much more interested in the reality of the demonic and his power over it, even if it resulted in dead animals. I'd note the incredibly positive change in the demon possessed man. I have heard this famous story explained in natural terms: the crazed person(s) ran wild into the herd and the pigs booked off the cliff in fear. That may be what she believes but it's not what she says. To blast Jesus for killing swine or supernaturally cursing the fig tree so that it withers (as she complains about elsewhere)...is his anger alone evidence of narrative fabrication or embellishment or his own non-deity? If we take part of either of these stories, namely Jesus' anger, as genuine history we must look seriously at the rest, the supernatural, or it makes more sense to toss the narratives out as complete fiction. And on anger, who said God, as man, wouldn’t be pissed walking around this planet? Finally, what about the many, many pericopes where Jesus heals suddenly, dramatically, leaving a jubilant, grateful, supernaturally whole person, without anything dying. She takes two stories out of all the rest and focuses only on these. This is scary. It shows a blind side in an otherwise intelligent person. But then, I haven't read her play. Perhaps she has more to say.
I don’t bring Julia up because I think she’s an unassailable voice for atheism (though she does raise some fair questions and I respect that she has tried to think about her beliefs at all). There are stronger voices for doubt out there. I bring her up because I fear ending up like her, taking a bible class and losing my faith. Because even if Julia seems to have her facts off, there are some weird things in the bible. How to read it is something I will have to learn. If I let go of the inerrant proof text word-of-god model, this should not lead to textual nihilism; it hasn't for Lewis and many others I have yet to read. My priest says we have to have discernment, but what this is exactly I don't know. I admit I'm hoping for answers from scholars. I pray the Holy Spirit works also, because if in fact Jesus did send Him to us only He can open my wounded mind.
On another note, the author of James is strong in his letter: he condemns me as a double-minded man, unstable as the sea, because I ask in doubt. But he claims to have seen the risen Christ. Hopefully God will provide grace to someone who not only hasn't seen a miracle (though one or two things remain puzzles and I have yet to share them here) but who has searing issues with trust and intimacy and the singular problem of thinking too blasted much about very small things.
Ah, the end.
I'm always grateful for those who read. Many thanks again.
current mood: not bad, slight anxiety but generally content
current music: Mozart's 25, the little g (napster rocks)
current wish: to be done with grading and to have a good night's sleep
constant wish: to experience God and be closer to my wife and son
As far as obedience as in Chambers, I'm a bit stumped. I don't feel like I'm engaged in anything I shouldn't be, except the usual candidates: fear, worry, self-pity, obsessive criticism of others...those things are so part of me that slowing them down actually takes positive input, looking at a sunset or chopping wood.
Could it be that God simply wants faith from me? I don't know. I think of Bertrand Russell, the brilliant 20th century mathematician/philosopher. His autobiography, incidentally, makes compelling reading. He felt God didn't give him enough evidence to prove He existed, yet Russell admits in the first volume of his bio that he shut all feeling from his life to pursue his academic work; he left his first wife and moved through many women, four wives included, and by the end of his life still had not found peace. He was stymied by his relationship failures. Looking from the outside, it's easy to see where he closed himself off to affectionate feeling, to love and closeness and the acceptance of the imperfect, a being who could hurt him, and pursued sex as recreation (not that loving, committed sex isn't fun). Perhaps his spiritual strife can be seen the same way.
I know that when Russell wrote his famous "Why I am not a Christian" essay, it was a deep disappointment compared to his other work. It's personal bigotry, almost, a long way from any thorough, terminal argument. A mind of that caliber. Choosing doubt. I've seen it other places. I can respect the atheist who has really tried, who has closely studied the gospels and other world religions and sincerely searched to find the historic core, more than one who writes off faith out of pride or lust or arrogance or greed or out of a weak understanding of the scope of science. The latter category is legion. It's true many reject or abandon faith as a result of sufffering, personal and corporate; that is a position I can respect more, but then again, many have suffered intensely and clung to their faith as they were flayed to piecesm, literally or figuratively, and not just Christians.
Then again, those who believe without much intellectual search are also numerous. Perhaps here is the puzzle: the mind is at best part of the solution, if it is any significant part at all. I'm not ready to toss analysis of my faith, and I have to trust that my two year study of the bible in my EFM class will yield something different, God help me, than what Julia Sweeney got when she took a bible class at her church.
Julia Sweeney used to play the androgynous Pat on Saturday Night Live and is now known for a play she wrote and stars in on her own "beatiful" loss of faith. A few years back, after going through a personal loss she prayed to God, a God she knew from a Catholic childhood, and felt emotionally healed from her prayer. She felt she ought to get serious about the church after this. That sentiment led her back to the Catholic church where she attended a bible class of some kind. After reading the old and new testaments she decided, according to her by using reason, that God did not exist, and the bible was clearly not divine. Now she describes herself as an atheist, and one who believes she has investigated her lack of belief with scientific methods.
Perhaps she has.
I admit I haven’t seen her play though I have read at least two interviews. One, with sfgate.com, is posted at her website. I do cringe when she says, “You know, like Jesus was angry a lot. When he turned all those people into pigs and made them run off a mountain, it was so hateful, not just to people but to pigs. I felt upset for the pigs!” Okay. Even the interviewer doesn’t question that original pericope. Jesus didn’t turn anyone into pigs. And if, in fact, he cast a bunch of demons into a herd and they ran off a cliff the least of my concerns is the welfare of the pigs; I’d be much more interested in the reality of the demonic and his power over it, even if it resulted in dead animals. I'd note the incredibly positive change in the demon possessed man. I have heard this famous story explained in natural terms: the crazed person(s) ran wild into the herd and the pigs booked off the cliff in fear. That may be what she believes but it's not what she says. To blast Jesus for killing swine or supernaturally cursing the fig tree so that it withers (as she complains about elsewhere)...is his anger alone evidence of narrative fabrication or embellishment or his own non-deity? If we take part of either of these stories, namely Jesus' anger, as genuine history we must look seriously at the rest, the supernatural, or it makes more sense to toss the narratives out as complete fiction. And on anger, who said God, as man, wouldn’t be pissed walking around this planet? Finally, what about the many, many pericopes where Jesus heals suddenly, dramatically, leaving a jubilant, grateful, supernaturally whole person, without anything dying. She takes two stories out of all the rest and focuses only on these. This is scary. It shows a blind side in an otherwise intelligent person. But then, I haven't read her play. Perhaps she has more to say.
I don’t bring Julia up because I think she’s an unassailable voice for atheism (though she does raise some fair questions and I respect that she has tried to think about her beliefs at all). There are stronger voices for doubt out there. I bring her up because I fear ending up like her, taking a bible class and losing my faith. Because even if Julia seems to have her facts off, there are some weird things in the bible. How to read it is something I will have to learn. If I let go of the inerrant proof text word-of-god model, this should not lead to textual nihilism; it hasn't for Lewis and many others I have yet to read. My priest says we have to have discernment, but what this is exactly I don't know. I admit I'm hoping for answers from scholars. I pray the Holy Spirit works also, because if in fact Jesus did send Him to us only He can open my wounded mind.
On another note, the author of James is strong in his letter: he condemns me as a double-minded man, unstable as the sea, because I ask in doubt. But he claims to have seen the risen Christ. Hopefully God will provide grace to someone who not only hasn't seen a miracle (though one or two things remain puzzles and I have yet to share them here) but who has searing issues with trust and intimacy and the singular problem of thinking too blasted much about very small things.
Ah, the end.
I'm always grateful for those who read. Many thanks again.
current mood: not bad, slight anxiety but generally content
current music: Mozart's 25, the little g (napster rocks)
current wish: to be done with grading and to have a good night's sleep
constant wish: to experience God and be closer to my wife and son
Comments
"as long as you persevere no matter how sensible or logical it seems to let it all go."
"say words even if your heart isn't in them. faith is bigger than your heart."
When I read the Chamber's quote, my spirit pinged and I thought of you, but didn't process it. Giving it some thought and reading your response to it, what comes up for me is the echo of Romy's encouragement: in the face of your fear to choose trust, even if the fear is bigger than anything and you seem to have no trust, but to say, "I choose You. I choose life. I choose trust...I trust. I love...you."
When I started understanding my own discomfort with loving God and then knowing that I could choose love was so powerful. I started so simply and poorly, "I love you...I sure do love you." Repeat. And now, the thought of his sweetness to me and the truth of his love for me and my love for him just undoes me. My head bows at the thought and I sob a little knowing that I want to spend the rest of my life pursuing and pouring out this love.
It is so real, I know my heart is being transformed because I am looking beyond myself and am nolonger content if you, Troy and you, the general, don't have...I don't even know how to say...an overwhelming, moaning, singing awareness of His love.
Athiesm, according to Lewis, is too simple. If there is no God, then there is no meaning in the universe. if there is no meaning in the universe, we could have never found out that there is no meaning. you cannot know one without the other. we cannot know evil without good. I have not the eloquence or the intellect of Lewis, but i try.
see you soon
e man