Living the Questions
22 May 2008 - 18 אייר 5768 by Huw
I was at church last night for a class called, “Living the Questions 2″. Except the DVDs being used as the discussion seed somehow got scratched so we skipped from last week’s session 5 on The Lives of Jesus to something like section 9 or 10, The Prophetic Jesus.
A couple of things struck me…
During the first discussion, Cam wrote on the news print, “Faith as developmental instead of a fixed point.” For much of the evening that had me going: we’re so used to “Faith” meaning “I believe in God the way that some believe in the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy. I’m right, of course. God told me so.” Despite my constant writing on that theme in these pages - faith as a thing to do instead of something to to simply affirm - I’m just as bad at it: I have trouble understanding how to get from a list of things one believes (ie, the Creed, the Catechism) to whatever it is that is beyond belief.
And here it was, “Faith” as a journey - one taken in faithfulness - not reciting a list of things as if to say them over and over were to make them true: but to live as if they were true (even if they are not logical or provable).
You live a life of faith not by “having faith” but by acting faithfully.
Then, during the DVD, Winnie Varghese introduced this idea: Jesus, as prophet, did not do what the prophets of Israel did. Or if he did, he did it in a very unusual way. The ancient prophets spoke to the king - and through the king effected change. Jesus, however, didn’t speak to Caesar but, rather, to the people - a “royal priesthood.” It requires a slight paradigm shift: but Jesus didn’t protest in the streets against the king’s injustice. He brought the people to live justly.
At another point during the DVD, Bishop Yvette Flunder spoke a very true line: the churches that have a very high Christology seem to mess up on the social justice while the Churches that do really well on social justice seem to mess up on Christology. We need to get both of these functions into the same Church. It was interesting to hear Cam agree, acknowledging that Trinity is good on the social justice but weak on Christology.
And, finally, during the discussion after, Cam asked us to list the groups of people in the Gospels (not the individuals, but the groups): Disciples, sinners, scribes, Pharisees, temple clergy, etc… Then he asked us who was the large, silent group in the Gospel stories and, after several moments of guessing, he told us, “The Romans” - not the local petty dictators, but rather the upper crust of Rome, living off the fat of the land all around the Mediterranean and beyond and for whom the actions of some petty out-land kingdoms would never register at all. Yet the daily life in those out-lands was effected often by the economic and political choices made in Rome.
And, of course, we Americans live the closest parallel to the Romans: not the sinners or the scribes or the Pharisees. The Silent, Omnivorous, Oppressive, Economic Tyrants of the world, today.
As I wrote on Trinity Sunday, “To borrow furniture from Hooker, I believe the Trinity and the Incarnation and the Eucharist to be the three equal legs on the stool that is our salvation. One can not take those three doctrines collectively and still be a “neural Buddhist”. I don’t think you can be non-Theist and still accept the doctrinal images of Trinity and Incarnation (maybe Eucharist). But I don’t know if it is important to “believe” in them as on a Check list.”
I want to wrestle (in a faithful way) with all of these and find a way to live it.
“Faith as developmental”. I like that. It is a journey, isn’t it? Unfortunately, I’m willing to bet that those who were previously interested in your journey (such as the good folks at Touchstone.mag) would probably not be as inclined to bother with anything you have to say at this point.
Kinda makes me sad.
Huw wrote: “And here it was, “Faith” as a journey - one taken in faithfulness - not reciting a list of things as if to say them over and over were to make them true: but to live as if they were true (even if they are not logical or provable).”
Over the course of my theological travels, I have encountered this idea over and over. Faith is a journey. Faith is something we live. And, these sort descriptions continue on and on along the same trajectory. However, I have come to find them flawed.
I know, I know, faith as a journey sounds so good (especially to ears that think we are all postmodern and stuff.) It just feels better than faith as a list of things to be believed. But, if faith is to be lived, then it also consists of that which is to be believed. Here is where the American Pragmatists (e.g. James, Pierce, Whitehead, etc.) can be of some help.
I think that faith is best understood ontologically. Faith is a matter of being. And, standing on James’ shoulders, beings do. In other words, faith is an ontological category or quality or operates ontologically. Being ontological, it is both a something (that does) and a process. So, from this perspective, affirming the creed, for example, is both an ontological and teleological exercise.
It is not enough to say that faith is a journey, as it is not enough to say that faith is vocal (and mental?) assent to a series of propositions. What is unique about Christianity, as best as I can tell, is that the propositions of the creeds possess ontological qualities and teleological qualities. Faith is the both/and of Kierkegaard; the creeds are the both/and; our lives are the both/and.
Again, as James’ taught us, without belief there is no action and without action there is no belief (to put it simply). When we affirm the creeds, we are affirming our existence, our being as distinct, and our actions as purposeful. Likewise, when we affirm our teleology or our process, we are affirming our beliefs, we are given assent to that which has become concrete.
This is why I prefer the Latin version of the Nicene or the Apostles’ Creed because “credo” captures this better than “I believe” in the English. Yes, I’m not saying anything new here (cf. Tillich). But, this is why I think it is flawed to think of faith as a journey. It is so much more than that and ever since the Cross, it has been.
Faith-as-journey may be too flaccid an image now, but it is revolutionary from the the standpoint of “accept-him-as-yer-saviour” model. Faith-as-developmental is, however, an image that explained a lot to me: it spoke to me a couple of nights ago, linking a few things that hadn’t clicked yet even thought I keep writing about ‘em.
JAmes: I know they wouldn’t be “inclined to bother with anything” I had to say. LOL! But I could sure use the $200 they paid me for that article!
I’ve heard comparisons between the Christians and the Romans a million times, but not with as much impact as this description.
As a side note, I sometimes think that in order to get to the place where what one believes transforms into what is beyond belief, we have to stop believing, if only for a few moments. We have to be willing to let go of what we believe and fall, trusting, not believing, that whatever we let go of will be replaced by something more profound and deeper.
I’m still falling, I think.