| « | Toward A New Libertarianism Part 1: Where Did We Go Wrong? |
»
|
|
Sunday, April 23, 2006
Fran’s Sunday Ruminations: Sparks And Embers
It's a dreary day here on Long Island. The rain is coming down in sheets, there's no prospect of sunshine before tomorrow if then, and I've got umpteen different chores to attend to, all of them unpleasant. Much of my family is still asleep, which is good, as I'm not really ready to deal with other people at the moment, and bad, as it means I have to tiptoe around lest I wake them. But I've fed the dogs and cats, have gone to Mass and returned with the New York Times, which the C.S.O. claims she cannot live without (grrr), and have a little while to myself in which to write about the waxing and waning of faith.
Quite a number of Americans raised in one or another Christian denomination have fallen away from their religions as young adults, but returned to them later with a much greater and deeper commitment. I am one such. It's an interesting phenomenon, worthy of some examination, particularly in how it meshes with other trends observable these past few decades.
Many children are coerced or indoctrinated into a religion, long before they're intellectually or emotionally ready to grapple with anything of the sort. I have come to regard this as a tremendous error. What such practices produce is children observant of the forms of religion, out of fear or a desire to please their indoctrinators, but who mostly lack the flame of conviction that's essential to faith and perseverance therein. Of course, there are "religions" where nothing but coercion and indoctrination will do, but this is not the case with Christianity.
It's utterly laughable that competing sects deride Christianity for its mysteries. Yet this is the case. For example, Muslim authority figures have long claimed that Islam is a simpler creed, because it doesn't require its adherents to accept notions such as the three Persons of God, or the Resurrection of Christ. No, all it requires is that Muslims accept that God chose to reveal His Will for Man through a prophet who indulged himself shamefully in every way, including many things he forbade to his followers in the strictest terms; that God so strongly demands Man's submission that He would like to see it enforced at sword's point; that coming into contact with pork or pig offal condemns a man to Hell; that women are inherently inferior and untrustworthy; that fraud and deceit are wrong between believers but quite all right in the service of the faith; and so on.
What I find hard to accept is the notion of asymmetrical moral law: one law for Smith and another, lighter one for specially favored Jones. If that were indeed the case, it would be reflected in the differential flourishing of the asymmetrically favored peoples: the favored ones would prosper while the disfavored groveled before them. However, reality speaks otherwise. This sort of unjustifiable contradiction is what makes for complexity, not the theological mysteries wrapped around the Divine Immanence, which as limited, time-bound intelligences we ought not to presume to comprehend.
Christian faith consists of a single assertion: the divinity of Christ, which implies His authority to give the moral law. It's underpinned by a single historical event: the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ, by which He demonstrated to His earliest followers that He was who He claimed to be, and had meant every word He'd said.
The Resurrection is the spark that lights the Christian fire. No other is either necessary or sufficient. He who accepts it as fact cannot help but become a Christian. He who rejects it can reject every dictum of Christ, and every claim ever made for Him.
In fairness to a developing mind, the case for Christianity ought always to be put in this way. Do you accept the Resurrection? Here are the historical accounts; here is what followed; read here about the faith, the devotion, and the achievements of those who witnessed those final days in Christ's time among men. Make up your own mind. Then we can proceed.
It's purely amazing how much power that approach has. An adult capable of dealing with the dichotomy and its simple implications, who decides to accept the Resurrection as factual, is far less likely to fall away at a later time than an indoctrinated child.
Christianity's theological enigmas, most of which concern the metaphysical nature of God, pale in importance before the Resurrection. Indeed, it's the Resurrection that gives them their significance -- that makes them interesting to revolve in one's mind. Yes, the Three Persons of God are embedded in the Nicene Creed, that indispensable capsule summary of core Christian belief, but even the highest theologians are unable to state unambiguously what the Trinity means in human terms, or what it means to say that a Being who has existed throughout all of time was "begotten." Such things are like jewels for the mind, to be rotated and held up to the sun not in hope of thorough comprehension, but for the beauty of the light from their facets. One does not pound a jewel against an immature skull...or any skull, for that matter.
Every life has its times of darkness. Even in this fabulously fortunate country, individuals will have their difficulties. Money troubles, family instabilities, occupational disturbances, health troubles, strained relations with the neighbors, doubt of one's spouse, doubt of oneself -- these come to every man that lives. Because of our time-bound natures, we tend to see such things pointillistically, rather than as features that are bound to occur in every life at some time. The pointillist view is what erodes our endurance.
All in all, we seem to have a hard time believing that "this, too, shall pass away," even though everything ever to occur in human history has done exactly that. Americans are particularly sensitive to setbacks. Our high temporal achievements and prevailing degree of security, comfort, and pleasure have persuaded many of us, quite erroneously, that pain and sorrow can always be averted -- that bad things don't have to happen to good people, and possibly not to anyone.
It seems that it's in the nature of Man that his temporal storms will perturb his spiritual anchors. The exceptions are few. Some of those whose faith fails under such lashings will never return to it. They may continue to observe the forms for a while out of habit, but the fire inside them has been banked. The flames have been damped; there remain only embers that glow ever less brightly with time.
Yet the temporal support that persevering faith can provide could ease their sufferings and salve their wounds. Not because prayer would infallibly call down temporal assistance -- God never promised that -- but because at the heart of Christian faith is the recognition that this is all for a purpose. Our sorrows, whatever they might be, arise from the working-out of great and immutable laws that apply to all places, times, and persons. Those laws are what make life possible in the first place. They allow us to strive toward the achievement of our goals and the fulfillment of our desires. They enable us to discern meaning in what would otherwise be naught but chaos.
It would be difficult to find meaning in life in the complete absence of toil and suffering. It is impossible to find meaning in toil or suffering in the absence of faith.
There's no way to explain why some are touched by the spark and ignited in faith while others are not. Similarly, there's no predicting who, when his trials are upon him, will see in them a disproof of his faith and will depart from it. But at some point in our lives, we will all suffer, whether physically, emotionally, or spiritually; that much is irrefutable.
Neither malt nor Milton can justify the suffering of a just man. It would be blasphemous, a literal contradiction of Christ's command to mutual benevolence, even to try. It's not justification we ought to seek, but healing.
Parts of our life journeys are scripted for us. In particular, we will all eventually die. No matter how advanced our gerontology becomes, decline and death lie in wait for us all. But if temporal suffering, or the inevitability of death, constitutes a disproof of Christian faith, then why wouldn't temporal pleasure and success constitute a disproof of atheism? Of course, neither assertion could hold water for five seconds; each attempts to confuse realms that, by the laws of logic, must be kept separate.
To allow the spark inside is a choice of path in one's journey. That path is certain not to be perfectly smooth. Indeed, if merely accepting Christ were all that's required to guarantee one's ease from womb to tomb, everyone would be a Christian for the lowest and most obvious of reasons. When trouble comes, as it will, and one feels the flame of faith flicker, dim, and retreat into embers, it's well to remind oneself that one's temporal sorrows have no bearing on what is eternally true. What is, is. The spark is infinitely renewable, just for the asking.
Do you still accept the Resurrection?
May God bless and keep you all.
Comments
Fran, you really need to reach out more to the decent in the secular world with items of this sort with the faith element explained in secular terms. I’ve been struggling with that, but I fear you may need to do it too– given your demonstrated talent – to help protect very many faithful from those who wish them ill.
My guess that among the reasons you returned to faith is your intelligence. Before secularists misconstrue this I note: The smart man may learn from his own mistakes, but it is the wise man who seeks to learn from the mistakes of others. The bible is full of wisdom learned from others doing it the hard way. You are too good an engineer to continue doing things the hard way. Professionally, you know the great value of a notebook labeled “lesson learned.” Nothing quite like the Bible for that. Nothing warns the sheep of wolves quite like it. It behooves wolves to work overtime to scare the sheep from it and to them.
[continued]Posted by pascal on 04/23/2006 at 09:06 PMDespite my having studied the Bible significantly enough to enlighten many a faithful, I can honestly lay no claim to faith past agnosticism. But I am witness to the increasing hostility aimed at the religious. Unfortunately many of the religious do not know why they should be so maligned. I think the reason is too clear if only more would explore it.
I will not attempt to explain more here other than point to Genesis 22. There the first man of faith saw that “God will provide” and swore a covenant based upon that faithfulness, and established a creed based upon it.
Those who faithfully follow the creed need to know (many don’t) that God made it clear that innocent human life is not to be taken even when there seems no hope but to offer it up. And therein lies the threat that the faithful are facing from secularist leadership. While just such a leadership has taken it upon itself to affect worldwide control, they do not share your faith in what will be waiting for us should we actually face the problem for which they are planning. Your kind poses more than a thorn in their side. Can there be any doubt as to how they are actively marginalizing you?
Fran, please explain this so a wider audience may understand the promise, the threat, and the need.
Posted by pascal on 04/23/2006 at 09:16 PMI was dragged to church on Sundays as a child and have yet to return to church in any regular sense (the building at least). I feel faith internally and speak to Him often (daily), but have major difficulty with anything that man gets involved with. We tend to screw things up.
Posted by Blandly Urbane on 04/25/2006 at 05:33 PM
Comment Form
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
