Tonight at my church (
Hornby Presbyterian) we had our "Friday Forum", something which we hold every month or so, usually involving a guest speaker and/or discussion on a particular topic.
Tonight's topic was "How to get a degree without losing your faith", in which we had several questions regarding the topic, each one to be briefly addressed by selected graduates from the church, followed by a brief general discussion per question. (It went particularly well by the way, with a good turnout and engaging dialogue - thanks particularly to Ross McKerras for organising it).
I was tasked with addressing the question, "Have you encountered ideas that made you realise that you genuinely did need to modify your faith? / Are there legitimate ways that you have modified your faith?", and below is the response I gave.
I thought it would be fair to post it here, seeing as it involves some of you who may read my blog, and would perhaps give an opportunity for response and discussion on how fair my observations are. At the very least it may help to give an indication on where I stand.
[View response (& notes) »]
Regarding “challenges to the faith”, I think it is perhaps helpful to first distinguish between two types of challenge.
The first is the type of challenge that one might bring before oneself – one’s own questions regarding their faith, a personal critique of what they hold to. Of this type I have had many, but by-and-large they are of no great urgency and form no serious objection to my faith.1
The second type of challenge, which is perhaps more relevant to this discussion, is the external one – the type that another person or group may pose, be it directly or indirectly; explicitly or implicitly; personally or impersonally. Of this type I have only experienced a few, and they are usually more immediate, more demanding of a response, and more testing.
One which I’ll briefly touch on is the challenge of evolution. Having done a major in Biology it has been quite a relevant topic, it is a foundational principle and was unanimously accepted as true for all of my biology papers. Its also a difficult one to navigate, it is a contentious issue, with arguments ranging from sound and reasonable to abysmally wishful posited by both sides, and no shortage of dogmatism either.
Yet for all its controversies, I found that it wasn’t the sort of thing that presented any great challenge to my faith, and is really quite a peripheral issue in the context of Christianity’s core themes of sin and salvation. I think my main reason for grappling with it was more for the sake of being able to address those to whom it presented a stumbling block to coming to the Christian faith. Yet even then, because it is a peripheral issue, it may be better to direct such a person to the truly contentious issues of Christianity’s core, rather than over-investing in trying to bring them over this particular one.
Having said that, it is an important issue, and one worth investigating. As a result of my grappling with it and a few other issues, I have gained an appreciation for a number of things: for the finiteness of my own mind and my own tendency to be easily persuaded one way or the other; for the importance of good reasoning, sound foundations, and both internal and external consistency; for recognizing and questioning motives behind arguments; for careful and honest openness in searching for truth; and for the importance of trusting amidst uncertainty.
It was these sorts of lessons which held me in good stead for the big challenge which my faith faced during my university and post-university years – a challenge which came not from outside Christianity, but from within it.
During this time, a couple of my Christian friends began to subscribe to some very different ideas concerning the core doctrines of Christianity. They were very concerned with finding a true and genuine Christianity, and even went so far as learning ancient Greek and studying early church writings to try to ascertain an unbiased understanding of what the early church believed. As a result of their inquiries, they came to completely reject the Reformation doctrines which all protestant churches base their theology upon, instead promoting Jesus as a moral teacher and example for moral transformation, to the end of achieving a positive final judgment, based upon works rather than faith.
What this did was thrust many of my personal (yet non-urgent) questions regarding God, his plan, and who Jesus was and what he achieved into the immediacy of requiring an adequate response to this particular challenge. Not only to address my two friends, but the wider group of Christian friends who were also being exposed to these new ideas. To be honest, I have yet to provide an adequate response to these particular questions, if not to any other, then to myself at least. Yet as time has passed on this issue, I have gained a much better sense of perspective over it, as well as over the faith which I held, and it is this perspective which has (to my finite standards) satisfactorily vindicated the faith to which I still hold.
The process has been a gradual and uncertain one. From the start I approached it with caution, and was apprehensive of what I perceived as a “reaction-ism” against imperfections in the church, as well as of the seeming audacity to brush aside centuries of critiqued and established doctrine for these foreign ideas. Although I have not been able to fully allay these suspicions, I have come to appreciate a reasonableness and genuineness within their inquiries.
However, I came to seriously question the inquiry when I came to consider the foundations upon which they based their reasoning and motivation. It was through my own personal struggles with searching for certainty and a final basis for knowledge, and the conclusions I reached with this, that I came to identify the same pride and folly operating underneath their inquiry as I had operated with for a time myself (and am still prone to do). Theirs was an essentially Humanistic endeavor, and in seeking to correct inconsistencies, they had only introduced far deeper ones. It is perhaps not surprising then, that their conclusions appeal finally to human endeavor to achieve salvation.2
Of additional note, it is worth pointing out not only the internal inconsistency, but an external one also – in increasing measure there has been a quickness to mock and dismiss, a tendency for sexual lewdness in humor, a contempt and distrust of authority, and a lack of the abounding love one might hope would characterize a group of Christians – they are still good people and remain my friends, but those things I find difficult to reconcile.3
From this reasoning which found objections with these new ideas (or more specifically, their basis) and which led me to reject them, also came support for the Reformation understanding and way of Christianity, and has led me to solidify my faith in it.
However, it would be premature to end on that note, for there is one final distinction which I wish to make. That is, of distinguishing between “being convinced of”, and “being convicted of”. Though I greatly value the role of the mind, of having a satisfactory understanding, of “being convinced” – it is ultimately not enough to satisfy a desire for truth, because the degree by which we can be convinced will only ever be a finite one – ultimately, we will always need to trust upon something.
Of far greater value is “being convicted of” – a deep and irrefutable sense of what is true, something which we do not hold for ourselves, but is somehow held for us – it is not something which we can acquire, but something which must be given us. And it brings satisfaction in what we finally trust upon in a way in which “being convinced of” cannot. So it is ultimately conviction upon which we may apply our reasoning and build our knowledge, not the other way around.
Above all else, it is conviction which God in his grace has given me that has kept my faith – God’s faithfulness to me above my faithfulness to God.
Notes:
1 I might add, just to clarify, that although I spoke of my own personal questions as posing no great urgency or obstacle to my faith, I have indeed had personal questions which have posed great urgency and been quite serious, but these have been of my mind, my perception of reality, and of my awareness of existence, rather than directly of my faith. Having said that, it was the conviction of my faith which helped me through those times, and by grace I even arrived at an understanding concerning those issues, which in turn came to vindicate and convince me of the validity of my faith.
2 I might also point out that although I spoke of internal inconsistencies, I did not expound on that charge. Aside from having a limited time which I was already pushing the leniency of, I did not think it pertinent to take too much of a tangent here. It is something which deserves further explanation though.
3 [Added 9/Jun/08] I have re-written this paragraph in the comments section (comment#4), specifically to address my friends to whom it refers, seeing as it, in its briefness and bluntness, fails to adequately describe my observations and intentions, nor portray the esteem I have for them.
[« Hide response (& notes)]
5 Comments:
I feel judged and hurt when you said there is a lack of abounding love.
Hi Nathan – I’m guessing its safe to assume that you’re having a dig at the fact that my comments might seem particularly unloving themselves. That’s a fair point then, and I think I should explain myself a bit better.
I don’t think our group is an unloving one – not at all – but my experience is that there has not been any great depth of love. Perhaps I am being a bit wishful, I know I can be a bit idealistic, but I have felt this “lack” frequently.
And I don’t mean to be harsh or judging from a distance, I am part of this number, and have been disappointed by myself frequently too. They are criticisms though, criticisms I also need to deal with, and I don’t think that they are completely unfounded. I might add that they are things that have gradually crept in, in “increasing measure”, and my main reason for mentioning them was to do with trying to reconcile the culture and foundations of the group with such truths as, “by their fruits you will know them”.
Forgive me if I have upset or offended any of you – I had no intention to do so. I still very much care for and love you all, though I might fail to express it very well. Please know that any frustrations I do have with our group is only because I care for us.
Sorry, I wasn't (consciously) attempting to have a dig at anything. The post made me feel a certain way, and I thought it appropriate to let you know. I had a bigger comment, but decided an argument on here wouldn't be productive, however, I did want to let you know what it was like for someone to read it.
If you wish to discuss such things, I would be happy to do so, but preferably in real life.
Well, thanks for your honesty, I didn’t realise that it might have that sort of effect, sorry.
When I wrote it, it was intended for a different audience, as a part of an explanation of my experiences …but I can see now how it would seem so blunt and impersonal to you all, whom I effectively did make a part of that same audience by posting it here. If I was to specifically address you all on those issues, I wouldn’t have done it in such a casual and passing way, but with much more consideration and tact – I’m sorry, that was an oversight on my part.
But I did post it with you (the group) in mind as potential viewers, and so I asked if you thought the observations were fair – I was meaning to be questioning the group dynamic, not personally accusing – yet, as I’ve just mentioned, I failed to take into consideration the way I originally wrote it, to a different audience, and so it has upsettingly come across as something contrary to what I had intended, for which I apologise.
I don’t wish to make a big deal out of it, but please let me rephrase that part of what I posted, with you (the group) specifically in mind:
“There are some things with which I have had a little trouble with in our group – some things I’ve found difficult to reconcile with us being Christians.
One of those is the tendency to casually mock some groups of Christians (usually the Pentecostal type), who might have an unhealthy understanding of / approach to the faith – I know it isn’t malicious at all, but I think it is unhelpful at times.
Another is the way the humour so often turns to lewdness. I’m happy that we don’t have an austere attitude towards sexuality, but it seems that we too often push the line too far for cheap laughs concerning something which is actually very precious and sacred even. (Perhaps its because we’re so concerned about not being austere, that we go too far in the other direction?)
Another is a lack of respect, and even contempt, for some authority, particularly the doctrinal authority of the church. I know some of you disagree strongly with the protestant doctrines, but I think there is often a subtle (and sometimes not-so-subtle) contempt for most authorities which claim authority in some area, particularly relating to truth. I’m happy that we question the status quo, and value our ability to critique, but I think that there is a very subtle contempt for authority in the core ethos of the group, which we have let creep in unchecked (perhaps even for culture in general).
There is one last thing I wish to mention of the group, and this is more idealistic than anything else, and is not so much of something wrong, but of something that could be better. That is, that although the group is a loving one, it seems to me that the love present in the group stops short of the sort of abounding love you read of in the bible amongst the early Christians. A love that grows, and grows also in expression. Now I am just as at “fault” as any other here, if not more – in my lack of making an effort to encourage, an effort to know of another’s wellbeing, and even the effort to keep in touch (and of wanting to make those efforts too).
The main reason I originally wrote of a “lack of abounding love”, was to do with the fact that despite the strong anti-Reformation influence on the group, such love had not come about, leaving the influence (neutrally) in question rather than (positively) showing it to be something which brought about such love. I intended the same sort of neutral/positive logic to be applied to the other troubles I wrote of too.”
Hopefully I have clarified what I had failed to before. I’m sorry its so long, and I suppose it needn’t necessarily be so, but I am concerned that I cause no offense where none was intended, and to allay any that I have caused, as well as make sure that I’m understood.
I hope I haven’t put off any discussion with my long-windedness, so feel free to comment. (Although as Nathan suggested, it would be better to discuss it in real life. …This here is perhaps more convenient though…)
Hi Matthew. I really enjoyed reading your post, and must admit that many of your concerns have been weighing heavily on our (Lizzie's and my) minds lately too. It's a GOOD thing to thrash out these issues, and to ask the hard questions. I reckon we've slipped a long way compared to the accounts we read in the Scriptures, and since the time of the Reformation. All the best, and I look forward to catching up sometime in the future. Cheers, Graham.
Post a Comment
<< Home