Monday, March 28, 2011

Discussion: the Basis of Faith

After some consideration, I've concluded that this post doesn't really belong with the Friendly Evangelism stuff (even though it's a direct outgrowth of that discussion). So, I've changed the title and adjusted the tags accordingly. Apologies in advance for any confusion that might cause.

As she suggested/requested in the comments on the last installment of Friendly Evangelism, Grace/Becky has come back to talk about the atonement of Christ and the Doctrine of the Trinity. (If you want more context, her comments are here.)

Let me start by reproducing Grace's comment:
I've tried to find the post where you had mentioned your struggles with the concept of God as trinity, and the atonement of Christ. But, unfortunately I couldn't locate it, sooo, I thought I would leave some brief comments here.

I began to question and struggle with my faith when I was about nine or ten years old. And, for a time as a young person was agnostic.

It seems to me that it is healthier for kids to be reared in church environments where it's ok to do this, and even encouraged, rather than to be made to feel guilty for being naturally inquisitive.

Any faith that emerges in the long run is bound to be more grounded. I think it's when doubts and questions are continually pushed down that the bottom is most likely to drop out spiritually.

I'm thinking that any analogy we try to paint to describe the work of the cross of Christ is bound to fall short of the thing itself.

How can our finite human minds fully comprehend all the precise mechanics of how God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself? Do we even have to know exactly?

What I believe as a Christian is that by the dying and rising again of Jesus Christ we are ultimately put right with God, and with each other.

God loved us so much that He fully entered into human life and suffering so that we could share in His life forever.

I suppose I would be more partial to the Greek Orthodox view of the atonement which is different than the view of Anslem which tends to predominate more in Western theology.

As usual where Grace is concerned, there are parts of this I agree with, parts of this I disagree with, and parts where my perspective is simply different enough to make agreement or disagreement a moot point.

Let's start with a quick link to the background: my take on why I am not a Christian. I'm putting this in for the same of completeness, and for the benefit of anyone who's coming in late to the conversation. Grace's memory of what I said is essentially accurate: I can't see how the idea that Jesus Died For Our Sins could work, and I see that belief as central to Christian faith.[1]

"It seems to me that it is healthier for kids to be reared in church environments where it's ok to do this, and even encouraged, rather than to be made to feel guilty for being naturally inquisitive."

I don't think it's even possible to overstate the degree to which I agree with this.[2]

Having said that, I did come out of an environment where questioning and doubts were encouraged, or at the very least not punished or even considered unusual.[3] And what eventually emerged from my questioning was not a stronger faith, tempered by questioning and comfortable with its inevitable doubts, but a simple disbelief. (So, at least in my case, it isn't a bad religious [or social] environment that drives people out - sometimes looking for answers or improved understanding can do it, too.)

"I'm thinking that any analogy we try to paint to describe the work of the cross of Christ is bound to fall short of the thing itself.

How can our finite human minds fully comprehend all the precise mechanics of how God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself? Do we even have to know exactly?"


Speaking entirely for myself... No, I don't have to know exactly. But I do have to have some reason to believe that that's actually the case, and (preferably) some idea of how it might work, even if it's extremely counter-intuitive at first glance. From the outside, Christianity really doesn't offer much in the way of either.

"What I believe as a Christian is that by the dying and rising again of Jesus Christ we are ultimately put right with God, and with each other."

What exactly do you mean by "dying and rising again of Jesus"? I was baptized as a baby, so if I died - even spiritually - during the experience, I don't remember it at all. I was confirmed at, I don't know, twelve or thirteen, and again I don't remember dying or rising again of Jesus Christ. I've read about some shamanistic practices that feature symbolic deaths and rebirths - sometimes including being buried for a day or so, with an air pipe - but in Christianity the worst that happens is that you spend a few seconds underwater. So how are we dying and rising again? And if we aren't, how does that put us right with God - let alone each other?

And, for that matter, I haven't seen anything to indicate that becoming a Christian and/or renewing your Christian beliefs puts us right with each other. People who are petty, competitive, shallow, vindictive... or whatever... remain very much as they were. People who were open, giving, kind, warm, friendly... or whatever... also remain very much as they were. Sometimes they're inspired to improve - I once picked up a hitchhiker who had, as far as I could see, exchanged his addiction to drugs for an addiction to Jesus, which I'm sure was an improvement - but even then, the extent to which they're transformed is a precise measure of the extent to which they transform themselves.

I say all that without any sort of malice, irritation, or contempt - and I really hope it doesn't come across as condescending. It's just that you say that you believe this happens, and I simply don't see it. And until/unless I do, my general view of Christianity as something that Just Doesn't Work For Me is unlikely to change.

"God loved us so much that He fully entered into human life and suffering so that we could share in His life forever."

I have several issues with this, and I'm not sure where to start. First of all, if Jesus could wither trees with a word and call the dead back to life, I'm not sure he entered fully into human life. If he never sinned - and, as a consequence, never felt regret - I'm not sure he ever entered fully into human life. Since, by most accounts, the punishment for sin is an eternity in Hell, I don't see how three days of suffering is even remotely sufficient to pay for anyone, let alone everyone.

Perhaps more to the point... God (and, as an aspect of God, Jesus) is omnipotent, isn't He? If that's truly the case, why should entering into human life be a prerequisite for reconciling human beings to Him? An all-powerful being could simply will us to be reconciled, and it would be so. Dying on the cross should only be necessary if the deity isn't actually all-powerful (i.e. if He's bound by rules outside Himself), or if the whole thing is basically a show put on for the benefit of humanity. Neither scenario is entirely satisfactory.

"I suppose I would be more partial to the Greek Orthodox view of the atonement which is different than the view of Anslem which tends to predominate more in Western theology."

I don't have an answer for this, because (as I mentioned way back at the beginning of the Friendly Evangelism series) I don't have anything that even resembles a formal background in theology. What I have, mainly, is a minor in Anthropology and a certain familiarity with medieval history: not the same thing. But I suspect that the official stance of the Episcopalian and Anglican denominations is at odds with the Greek Orthodox view of the issue, which begs the question of why I would want to return to the Episcopal church, even if I were inclined to reconsider Christianity at large.

But even that overlooks the more fundamental question: why should I believe any of this at all? I don't say that to be dismissive; it's a serious question. I don't see human imperfection as evidence that we are somehow "separated" from God, in part because I don't see any evidence that there is an alternative, "connected" state of being that is observably different. Without that underlying assumption, the question isn't so much "How might Atonement work?" but rather "Why should I think Atonement happens at all?" or perhaps "What makes you think that people would need Atonement?"


[1] A commenter on the original post just reminded me that, once again, It's More Complicated Than That. To be really precise, I should say that the idea that Christ paid the price for our sins is central to mainstream American Protestant Christianity. It certainly isn't universal.

[2] It's not just doubts and questioning, either; for me, those are only parts of a larger category of related things, what the poet Keats referred to as Negative Capability: "when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason." There are, I think, two sides to this. The first is simply being able to accept doubts and ambiguities and the limits of understanding, without being threatened by them. In practice, it oftens means learning to accept "I don't know" as a valid answer. The other side of it is that there are some experiences and understandings that simply are what they are; trying to extend them into a system or apply them beyond their first appearance not only leads you nowhere, it actually destroys whatever initial insight was achieved. That's not to say that you shouldn't look for larger patterns or more general truths, just that trying to push an insight beyond its limits seldom ends well.

[3] I once found a copy of the Bible... sort of... as translated by, I think, National Lampoon. I think I was about twelve. Being a compulsive reader, I flipped it open and started in. The section I read recounted the story of Onan - you remember him, right? His brother died, and so he was required to marry his brother's wife and provide her with children. Except when he lay with her, he spilled his seed on the ground. And then - in this account - later he went into town and a pretty girl walked by, and he spilled his seed on the ground. A while later a moderately attractive donkey passed by, and he spilled his seed on the ground... I'm sure you're wondering: where did I find this? One of the priests had it on his desk.

If anyone can identify this and knows where I might find a copy, I'd be grateful. Again, while I don't look at the world and think, Wow, that's so amazing, there must be a God, I do look at the world and think, Wow, if there is is a God, He certainly has a rich sense of humor.

7 comments:

  1. If anyone can identify this and knows where I might find a copy, I'd be grateful.

    It's out in video form now. It's even available on YouTube...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Crap. Linky no worky...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLnWf1sQkjY

    ReplyDelete
  3. I didn't realize they'd made a Musical out of it.

    Seriously, I think I need brain bleach after that.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hi, Michael, I think the Episcopal church is pretty open.

    There are people there who probably embrace many theories, and aspects of the atonement. The Greek orthodox view which is also very prominent in Celtic Christianity stresses not so much this debt that we owe to God as the healing, and new life we receive in Christ.

    For myself, when I look at the world all around, I'm perceiving more than just imperfection, but a deep brokenness, and inability to love the way God loves. Since God is ultimately the source of all love, I think this also reflects an alienation from Him as well.

    I can see this in myself as well. I think that even my best motives to do good are mixed, and I can hurt the people that I love the most, sometimes without even trying. I don't feel we can fix ourselves solely by ourselves, if this makes sense.

    I know that since coming to Christ, and sharing His life in me, overtime I really have become more sensitive, and compassionate, less judgemental. I'm different than I was before.

    Of course, Michael, I think this is also a process that happens overtime. No one of us will arrive in this life.

    Now can I prove this all to you empirically, or that God exists in a scientific sense, especially if you have not had my experience. No, I can't.

    Michael, have you read anything by the Anglican philosopher, C.S. Lewis? He has some good and interesting thoughts to share concerning some of this, if you're open. I mention him especially because you come from an Episcopal background. You might like his book, "Mere Christianity."

    I suppose flaws could be found there, and dispute with some of what he shares. But, I have found his thoughts concerning the trinity, and the atonement of Christ to be helpful.

    Becky.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "I think the Episcopal church is pretty open."

    In practice, yes. One of the things that I really like about the Episcopal Church is its relative willingness to accept that its members may disagree with the official doctrines on the strength of individual conscience. That can become a problem - and I know that the Disciples of Christ have run into this - if a significant portion of the membership doesn't know the official doctrine and/or gets confused about it.

    "I think that even my best motives to do good are mixed, and I can hurt the people that I love the most, sometimes without even trying. I don't feel we can fix ourselves solely by ourselves, if this makes sense."

    By itself, this makes perfect sense. I think to some extent we can (and do) improve ourselves by ourselves, but mostly (and most efficiently) I think it gets done with the help of other people. I don't see "therefore we need God" as an obvious next step; instead, I see "therefore we should strive to do better."

    "For myself, when I look at the world all around, I'm perceiving more than just imperfection, but a deep brokenness, and inability to love the way God loves. Since God is ultimately the source of all love, I think this also reflects an alienation from Him as well."

    Here we return to the point at which your experiences (and perceptions) and mine are simply different. I don't want to be dismissive of your experience, or to indicate that you can't possible see things that way, or say that you shouldn't think that. Perhaps unfortunately, the difference in our views is sufficiently profound that I'm having trouble formulating a response that doesn't - at the very least - tend in that direction.

    I can't see the world as "broken" because I can't see any indication that it was ever unbroken. I can't see the world, or human beings, as "alienated from God" because, again, I see no basis for comparison - nothing against which to measure our current state.

    "Michael, have you read anything by the Anglican philosopher, C.S. Lewis?"

    I read the Chronicles of Narnia ages ago, and I've heard a sermon built around the Screwtape Letters; and I've run into excerpts from Mere Christianity and The Problem of Pain here and there.

    I have a copy of the Upanishads and the Koran, and several other things as well. I bought them years ago, thinking that I should really read through them and see what they had to say. I've never opened them, because not long after that I came to realize that I just wasn't that interested in spirituality at all.

    C.S. Lewis falls into much the same category for me: I'm sure he has interesting things to say, it's just that there are far too many other things I'd rather be reading. It's not that I'm not open, precisely - if I were on a bus trip or something, and somebody had left a copy of Mere Christianity on the seat, I wouldn't have any objection to reading it. It's more that this is something that I don't feel any need to pursue, at least no more than I already have.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Exrelayman

    Mene mene tekel upharsin. Weighed in the balance and found wanting. I am applying this to Mere Christianity. Mr. Lewis is a master of rhetoric, and presents very persuasive arguments. The more so if you are looking for support for the Christian viewpoint rather than seeking sound argument. There are immense flaws in this book.

    I do not intend to take over this thread in argumentation about this. I merely direct anyone wishing to investigate my contention further to 2 devastating critiques that I am aware of:

    Ebonmuse:

    http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/books/merechristianity.html

    Deacon Duncan:

    http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/2010/07/04/xfiles-the-myth-of-mere-christianity/

    Advisement - Ebonmuse gives a quick 1 or 2 page assessment. Deacon Duncan presents a long series of posts which begins with the page provided.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thanks, Exrelayman. I've heard that before - that C.S. Lewis was better at (or perhaps more focused on) persusasive writing than formal logic. But since I haven't read any of his works, I haven't felt any need to read critiques of them, either.

    ReplyDelete

Feel free to leave comments; it lets me know that people are actually reading my blog. Interesting tangents and topic drift just add flavor. Linking to your own stuff is fine, as long as it's at least loosely relevant. Be civil, and have fun!