discernment through trust

[Bob]

Hi Ucc.,

I think things have a holistic value- people, books, poetry, are all greater than the sum of their parts, and cannot be completely understood by looking at the parts alone. But I’m not sure how that translates to truth value- a person or book can be wrong about this, right about that. I think that mixture of rightness and wrongness is what leads to the perception of things being gray.

Yes, I think we can agree on that. With the Bible I tend to treat it more as an anthology than a single book, but that doesn’t change the basic truth of what you say.

I don’t see Scripture as being any different in that regard- it has a certain holistic value which is good for some cases, but in other cases, we have to break it down line by line, and that’s where any falsehood will creep up. I still see that as the difference between a philosopher and an average joe- the average joe can get away with taking the book as a whole. The philosopher is kind of obligated to look closer.

This is what I have been doing for some time, but rather in exegesis. I tend to break down the textual modules and question the translation at hand (of which there are many) and ask myself in what context the words originally stood and how they are regarded as prophecy, and in what way do they apply within such context today. How would the approach of a Philosopher differ?

My impression of you has been that you think the ideal approach is to mix and match from all over the place- that is, the spiritually wise person might believe in reincarnation like the Hindus, dietary restrictions like the Muslims, a little of this, a little of that. I have a very big problem with that approach because
1.) It seems to be done in a very self-serving way most of the time, and
2.) While some beliefs in a religion may seem modular from a cursory glance, they in fact don’t make a whole lot of sense ripped up from the traditions and other beliefs that they were originally developed with.

Aha, well no, other than a desire to practice Tai Chi for health reasons, I am very much on Christian ground. What I have learnt from people like Anthony de Mello however, is that other traditions have equivalents which can help us understand our own tradition. It may be that the years in the Far East at an impressionable age may have opened me to these influences, but I am a Christian just like Anthony de Mello was, despite (or even because of) works like “Sadhana”.

I’m skeptical of the place and value of creativity in religion. But isn’t that part of pluralism?

Sure, my attempt over several years has been to open the church to different methods of teaching and learning. It isn’t the subject matter that I want to change, but the way we transport it. I find that my Pastors are often compromised by their attempt to manage the varying influences within the church and the “free churches” are compromised by fundamentalism and side-issues, which seem to fade out the Gospel.

Pastors are judged by a whole series of external attributes, but not for their teaching. In fact, their semesters at university rarely touch this issue, which is so important in my mind. The requirements of the modern age mean that we have to look at what we do as a church and choose between teaching in the “sage” manner or in the “multi-medial” manner. Whatever we do, we must learn to do it well and effectively. I know, of course, that there are many methods in-between, but these two seem to be most important for the Gospel.

Creativity is the word I use; because I feel imitation is equally as difficult and generally lacks authenticity. I find that there have been numerous creative approaches to teaching here in Germany and the originality of the person transporting the message has had a great influence. My approach is a bit more the “sage” manner, because I try to create an intimate atmosphere, showing that the Gospel of the Bible is as personal as you can get. The lesson I am preparing is a good example of that.

I left the group last time with the basics of faith (Mat 6:6): “But you, when you pray, enter into your room and shutting your door, pray to your Father in secret.” But what do we do in that room (closet or cubby-hole?). The people of that group seem to be very immature, and therefore they need the basics, which is why I teach them what I call the Genesis-Prayer, based on Gen 2:7: “And Jhvh God formed the man out of dust from the ground, and blew into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”

This is the first prayer of the Bible, God blows into mans nostrils the breath of life and he answers with his exhalation. This is where I always begin, meditating on the gift of God, breathing in and breathing out calmly, almost using each breath as a mantra, invoking the Spirit (breath) of God and asking for guidance (“For we do not know what we should pray as we ought, but the Spirit Himself intercedes on our behalf with groanings that cannot be uttered”).

Maybe it’s just my conception of truth, but it seems to me you’re asking me to say “A theistic religion is right in it’s theism, and a non-theistic religion is right in it’s atheism”. Even if you’re not saying that I personally have to adopt atheism, granting it’s correctness seems to
A.) Make no sense at all- I can’t hold to exclusive opposites to be true. Even if you convince me that I should, I don’t think I would be able.
B.) Saying that both beliefs are true seems like a sly, optimistic way of really saying that neither of them are true. After all, this whole “right for you, right for me” attitude is always presented to me immediately after someone points out that nobody actually knows anything. So in a way it does seem like the first step to pluralism is to accept that one’s own beliefs aren’t true. Which I can’t do, because I believe them.

I understand what you are saying, but I have come to see atheism and theism not only as two opposites. There is a paradox to be overcome. Christians can’t really ignore the fact that faith is different since the Shoah. The visions of God which the Bible offers me don’t account for that. It has been a new revelation or perhaps a charge with which we are still wrestling, although there have been example in the past. It is the peak of a Theism which is anti Jew, which has been thriving on misunderstandings and lies for centuries.

If a-theism is a rejection of a type of theism, it isn’t necessarily the atheism you think it is. There are numerous of other examples, where a kind of Theism has proclaimed a God of cruelty, brutality and vindictiveness, which can only be a witness of divine incompetence. To me it clearly can’t be believed and the people who have no other choice can only become atheists and hold on to a vision of justice, which their church fails to proclaim. This is only one attempt to explain what I mean – I could go on.

Why will you never give up Christianity?

Because my soul has been touched by Christ and I find myself captivated by the experience.

We’re complete opposites in that regard. Communion with God, or worship as I call it, has seemed like a leisure activity to me now for quite some time- it’s what I do when I’ve been at work in philosophy for long enough that I need a break. Which is not to say that I consider worship to be frivolous, exactly. One of the prime reasons for me to do the work of philosophy is so that I can enjoy my worship in good conscience.

Having said what I did, I experience ritual, liturgy, scripture, meditation and contemplation as a way of regenerating. Some have said that I am a very Roman Catholic Protestant, but all Protestants have a Roman Catholic history prior to the reformation. It is the notion of being “embedded in God” that helps me overcome the tiredness of Care Management. Not that I am particularly involved in the nursing anymore, but the task of keeping up the motivation of my staff under (at least mildly) adverse circumstances does use up many hours and my energy.

I agree with the Willers statement about faith, so far as I understand it. What I’m not understanding is how this leads to the topic of pluralism vs. exclusivism, or the point (which I disagree with) that exclusivism is a product of fear and insecurity to a greater degree than pluralism can be.

Aha, well it doesn’t really. The connection is more in our mutual assumption of what we meant … which seems to be cleared up to a great degree. Having said that, my observation here in Europe is of an immature faith reeling back at the actions of a supposedly Christian American President and a deeply anxious American nation. I think you would find that most people here think that America is creating its own problems through the panic that is being spread. It seems to me like a vicious circle which Christ can break through, given half a chance.

Shalom

[Uccisore]

Yes, I think we can agree on that. With the Bible I tend to treat it more as an anthology than a single book, but that doesn’t change the basic truth of what you say.

Yeah, a good point. That’s precisely what it is. In fact, it works better even to deliver a very typical, fundamentalist message when taken as an anthology. The idea that some parts were written by dissimilar people in dissimilar times gives it greater strength.

I tend to break down the textual modules and question the translation at hand (of which there are many) and ask myself in what context the words originally stood and how they are regarded as prophecy, and in what way do they apply within such context today. How would the approach of a Philosopher differ?

The philosopher would be focusing on the relationship of the concepts.  I take a particular view of what a passage saying (because that view is popular, or a subject of controversy, or whatever), and I analyze it conceptually. "Could a good God really have said and done those things?" "What would be the consequences of mankind behaving in the way this passage seems to suggest?" Sometimes it's a purely logical analysis, sometimes it's more intuitive (the Problem of Evil is always intuitive). 

There’s a lot of overlap with what you’re talking about too, and of course if my thinking shows an interpretation to be inconsistant or unreasonable, I’ll turn to what someone has said on the exegesis of that passage- many, many times when a passage seems unreasonable, it turns out that something completely different may well have been meant, after all. I don’t consider these to be alternate approaches in the sense of competing approaches. Rather, they both have their place, and philosophy is the one I’m better at and more interested in.

Aha, well no, other than a desire to practice Tai Chi for health reasons, I am very much on Christian ground. What I have learnt from people like Anthony de Mello however, is that other traditions have equivalents which can help us understand our own tradition

The idea of refering to other traditions to help us understand our own - do we do this because our own tradition is incomplete somehow, or because our ability to understand our own tradition is limited? Both, neither?
Do you consider the reasons why you are a Christian and not something else to be primarily preference, or based on your tastes, or is there something more objective than that? I’ll confess that the biggest reason why I’m a Christian these days is because of my faith in western philosophy. Not that western philosophy has been known to support Christianity (recently, at least), but that Christianity- and Judaism, now that I think of it- are the only faiths that seem not to shrink away from the prying eye of analysis. If a religion’s first step in justification is to explain to me why logic doesn’t apply to their claims, then I have a pretty strong instinct to tune out whatever follows.

I can’t disagree with anything you said about Creativity. An interesting note though. You mention the idea of the sagely approach- that you try to make things intimate and personal. I think that’s part of why you and I butt-heads so often. I’m used to talking about religion as though it’s ‘that thing, over there’. When I talk to you, it almost immediately feels like you’re talking about me.

I understand what you are saying, but I have come to see atheism and theism not only as two opposites. There is a paradox to be overcome. Christians can’t really ignore the fact that faith is different since the Shoah.

That’s the Holocaust, right? This idea that that moment in history represents a new age for theism is interesting to me, though of course I’m skeptical. I come from a country and a generation where our opinion on everything changes almost instantly, so I’ve learned a very strong resistance to the idea of matters of circumstance affecting my view on things that ought to be eternal. I’d sacrifice almost anything else first- if a certain plausible, Scriptural view of God seems to devalue human life, then perhaps human life isn’t worth as much as I thought. Better that, then to throw my lot in with a new brand of Christianity in 1996 that becomes completely irrelevant in 2006.

If a-theism is a rejection of a type of theism, it isn’t necessarily the atheism you think it is. There are numerous of other examples, where a kind of Theism has proclaimed a God of cruelty, brutality and vindictiveness, which can only be a witness of divine incompetence.

I suspect that may be true on an emotional level- people often become atheists to reject precisely that perception of God. But, like I said, I treat atheism and theism as something over there when I’m doing philosophy, and I think that’s a good thing. I tend to refuse to address why people say the things they say, and deal only with the concepts they express (unless I’m getting angry, I suppose). The concepts the atheists express seem to be refuting ‘my’ God as much as they refute God the Barbarian-King or God the Disconnected Hippy.

[Bob]

Hi Ucc.,

There’s a lot of overlap with what you’re talking about too, and of course if my thinking shows an interpretation to be inconsistant or unreasonable, I’ll turn to what someone has said on the exegesis of that passage- many, many times when a passage seems unreasonable, it turns out that something completely different may well have been meant, after all. I don’t consider these to be alternate approaches in the sense of competing approaches. Rather, they both have their place, and philosophy is the one I’m better at and more interested in.

Yes, I think there is a need for complementary disciplines, since we are a long way off from those people who helped compose that anthology or canon, in time, technically and culturally. We have to analyse as best we can using the resources we have.

The idea of refering to other traditions to help us understand our own - do we do this because our own tradition is incomplete somehow, or because our ability to understand our own tradition is limited? Both, neither?

Yes, I think it is a bit of both. The partial take on our existence that we have always leads us away from the middle and it becomes unclear, on the other hand, I don’t believe that revelation is over. It isn’t that I’m expecting an Elijah or Moses, but that it isn’t over yet. As long as the curtain hasn’t fallen, the show goes on. There is still much prophecy to be fulfilled and I don’t want to be the one to sleep through it.

Other traditions help us remove cobwebs and overcome being blunted by habit. Equivalents offer a new perspective and can even inspire by contradiction. Especially in the field of humility I think we can learn much from eastern sages, since they show that humility isn’t the passivity that Christians assume it is, but more a moving with the grass in the wind (if you see what I mean), a blending in with the flow of existence, taking our place in events and allowing certain things to happen rather than intervening.

Do you consider the reasons why you are a Christian and not something else to be primarily preference, or based on your tastes, or is there something more objective than that? I’ll confess that the biggest reason why I’m a Christian these days is because of my faith in western philosophy. Not that western philosophy has been known to support Christianity (recently, at least), but that Christianity- and Judaism, now that I think of it- are the only faiths that seem not to shrink away from the prying eye of analysis. If a religion’s first step in justification is to explain to me why logic doesn’t apply to their claims, then I have a pretty strong instinct to tune out whatever follows.

I am a Christian because Christians have affected my life and brought me to Christ. I was tuned early on to pick up the waves of spirituality around me; although I went through the usual phases of rebellion etc. and rejected Christianity in puberty – which has the “about turn” preprogrammed. It just needed someone to show me how to use that tuning for my own stability and inner strength. Then I was able to serve and teach.

I think that analysis has its limits somewhere. The mystical experience, even though it is unassuming and modest externally, has a great deal of inner warmth and energy which opens a person to a deeper devotion. However, it is virtually impossible to analyse. I am sceptical too of those experiences which, against the wishes of the mystic himself, are blown out of proportion because of the language used. But a mystic tries to capture in words that which can only be experienced – much like a lover’s ode to a beloved.

An interesting note though. You mention the idea of the sagely approach- that you try to make things intimate and personal. I think that’s part of why you and I butt-heads so often. I’m used to talking about religion as though it’s ‘that thing, over there’. When I talk to you, it almost immediately feels like you’re talking about me.

Yes, I suppose it had to be something like that. I seldom keep a distance in conversations about God because I have this feeling of being “embedded” – except of course during the normal “drought periods” when we are left thirsting for insight and inspiration – which I have grown to almost expect.

That’s the Holocaust, right? This idea that that moment in history represents a new age for theism is interesting to me, though of course I’m skeptical. I come from a country and a generation where our opinion on everything changes almost instantly, so I’ve learned a very strong resistance to the idea of matters of circumstance affecting my view on things that ought to be eternal. I’d sacrifice almost anything else first- if a certain plausible, Scriptural view of God seems to devalue human life, then perhaps human life isn’t worth as much as I thought. Better that, then to throw my lot in with a new brand of Christianity in 1996 that becomes completely irrelevant in 2006.

I appreciate that, but the Holocaust was so cataclysmic for faith in the God who has everything under control, that people started rethinking and starting off where atheists are. In fact, they started realising that it was probably beneficial to escape the view blunted by habit, and found that their relationship became renewed. This seems to be what happened for that motley crew around Jesus when he was crucified and the idea of the Resurrection became endorsed by the numerous epiphanies – and the result was Pentecost, when they found themselves bursting out onto the streets in sudden mutual awareness.

Prior to that though, we saw them flee when Jesus was arrested, we saw Peter deny Jesus three times and we saw the twelve hidden away in some upper room, or taking flight to Galilee to avoid the prying eyes of the Judeans. The depression must have been dismal and it was certainly divine intervention that they overcame it. In the same way I regard the Shoah. A catastrophe with untold misery and pain caused which paradoxically could lift us out of a religious lethargy and blow some life into us.

Shalom