The only thing I would point out in both reading your argument and in hearing your perspective before, is that it seems almost like when it comes to religion you are shopping for a car. You have a list of requirements (valid ones) that you deem important to a religion and have looked thoroughly into all of the Christian denominations in order to find what meets all you requirements. I guess this is not inherently bad but it differs from someone trying to find "what is".I see what she is saying, and I am worried, because it's kind of true. I mean... to a certain extent we all believe what we want to believe. We have our own reasons for it, but at the end of the day even the beliefs that we hate but believe nonetheless are usually held because without them one of our fundamental convictions falls apart. That's confusing. Allow me to give an example. For instance, I may believe in eternal damnation for those who have never heard the scriptures. I may hate this belief, it may make me uncomfortable, but if I am staunch Calvinist, then I must hold to this uncomfortable belief or else risk the legitimacy of my entire belief system. See what I mean?
"These things are important to me therefore I will find the car that meets these requirements" is different than "which cars are actually at the dealership and available for me to buy". Really this is a weak metaphor to get the point across that I'm trying to make but I think it largely has to do with studying scripture. I do see your point though in accepting the need for tradition and history, due to the fact that relying on just yourself to figure out the mysteries of God would be unwise. Community with fellow believers is essential to any kind of religious growth.
No thing that can be called belief, especially in regards to the unknowable divine, is predicated on any kind of irrefutable evidence or logic. They are based on faith. I'm not trying to demean faith, beliefs, or anything like that. I am a little post-modern after all (doing my damndest to turn pre-modern), and I am a bit of a mystic.
I do believe in the image and likeness of God inherent in every human being. I believe also that water seeks it's own level. Which is to say that the image of God in us seeks after God. And, just as one beetle recognizes another, the image of God within us recognizes God in the world. I believe this because I must (to wit, if I didn't my entire worldview would fall apart completely).
This attraction of reflected divinity towards ultimate divinity is the one "objective" (I can't believe I just used that word, I'm so sorry Dr. Neuhouser) thing that I believe the faithful can claim. Of course, since it's an experienced thing, unmeasured and irreducible, technically it's subjective.
I guess what I'm doing here is trying to boil down my beliefs to the most fundamental parts. I believe, at the center of it all, that God exists, that we are made in God's image, and that we are therefore drawn towards God. I also believe that Jesus Christ truly is the Son of God. That he possessed two natures. I believe in the Holy Trinity. I believe in the authority of the Holy Scriptures. That they are "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."
I guess that the big change in me over the past six or seven months is that I no longer believe that they are sufficient for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness. I have seen, rather personally, some of the dangers of jumping off the foundation of tradition and figuring it out yourself. I'll try not to get too melodramatic here, but faith divorced from tradition can altogether too easily lead to something like this.
I believe that religion and salvation are both things that are created through the synergy (a word that Greek theologians used long before it became a business buzzword) of God and humanity. Christ says "Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and open the door I will come in." Humans are part of the creative processes of God. Faith without works is dead, after all. There is some human responsibility in this whole religion thing, and it cannot be denied. Being a very ecumenical sunofagun, I'm kind of of the opinion that pretty much everybody has at least something right, and that they probably have something right that I have wrong.
This conviction that I'm about to put online forever may be my undoing one day, but I am young and reckless. I do not believe that I will ever be able to tell another Christian that they are wrong with complete certainty. I will always, always, always have doubts and qualifiers. I will probably never be able to tell another human being that they are wrong with complete certainty.
This conviction is, by nature, anti-religious. Religion is all about having the absolute answer. I don't think I'll ever find that.
And yet, here I am trying to pick a religion. Oy vey.
It's really complicated. This little beetle here who tries, and often fails, to seek after God has recognized many other little beetles from as many denominations as exist. I have seen antennae sprouting out of Baptists and Pentecostals educated heads. I have seen delicate wings softly tucked into Catholics and Orthodox traditional priestly robes. I risk heresy when I say that I have seen the distinctly beetle-like scurrying of those who call themselves Atheists, Buddhists, and Muslims. I cannot not see the Imago Dei. I cannot deny when I see God, if only in a reflection.
So then the question becomes, what is best? When there is so much good to choose from, the question must become, which is the best? Which of these available choices contain the most synergy between God and humanity? Which of these points to the most truth? Which of these turns out Christians who do the most good in their daily lives? Which of these will encourage the most love for my God and for my neighbor?
For me, the strongest factor in this whole decision of traditional validity is one of trust. Who do I trust the most as my teachers? It is the question underlying all of the questions in the previous paragraph. My experience has been that most beetles have something to teach me, even if I disagree with them almost entirely. So, why do I feel like I can trust these old, crusty, bearded beetles? Why not go for the young, excited, manly beetles?
What draws you to Orthodoxy, Tyson?
It's a very simple question.
I don't know.
I haven't got words for it. I don't know if words could really do it justice.
It's not a sensation, although I feel it. It's not an idea, although I think about it. It's... (really frustrating for a man who takes pride in his wordsmithery to be unable to describe something) divine.
I can only call it divine. It's truth and beauty and love and hope and longing and comfort and peace and a constant incentive towards higher things. It's undeniable and irresistible. It's larger than the ocean and brighter than the sun. It's louder than a hurricane and more beautiful than a symphony. It's more than words can describe and any approximation is about as close as a child's drawing of the stars in comparison to the night sky.
Somebody said, "Eventually all of our theology must become poetry." I am no poet, and I am no Theologian. I am a confused, frustrated, and often lonely little beetle who is trying so very hard, to do my utmost for his highest. I don't want to pick a religion like I'd pick a car. Then again, how many cars have you ever had a mystical experience with?
I am drawn to Orthodoxy because I see an undeniable truth in it. I could not abandon it now, even if I tried.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God have mercy on me, a sinner.
I just want to do the right thing.
No comments:
Post a Comment