01.29.07
Maybe I’m Just A Doubter
Here’s the thing: I like religion. I like the Bible. I like going to church. I like churches. I like ministers, bishops, and clergypeople. I like prayers, religious books, religious traditions, liturgies, and hymns. I like contemporary Christian music, even. I like religious symbolism. i like allegories. I like the ideas of Christianity. I like the theology. I like the idea of Jesus Christ. All of it is very moving and interesting, both intellectually and emotionally.
But I don’t know if I can really believe.
I’m not against church or God or Jesus. I certainly wouldn’t presume to actively disbelieve in any of it. And the motions of Christianity are natural enough for me to go through. I’ve even had a significant mystical experience or two. But to affirmatively believe? I have a hard time with that. Maybe I just can’t.
I don’t know what that makes me, or what that means.
WhoreChurch said,
January 29, 2007 at 5:07 pm
Hey Byz,
I have had too many “beyond coincidence” experiences to not have faith. Those experiences have come through Christian methodology. I can’t say I understand God or even that my methodology is the only methodology that can produce results. I just know I want to stay on the path that has produced results in the past believing it will do so in the future.
And I like virtually NONE of the things you say you like. It may make your faith stronger to stop going to church and seek your own path to God. I know it helped me.
PB and J said,
January 29, 2007 at 5:46 pm
byz,
while i concur that i dislike many of the ways that christianity is practised in america, i must respectfully disagree with “whorechurch” about the suggestion that you stop going to church, etc.
i do think that there are some churches that are more on track than others, and some are truly messed up. but God clearly calls us to commune with other believers. i think this is crucial for our growth as christians.
and more than that, in your case, how else will you find the answers to your questions? if you dont spend time with others, if you dont talk to people about your struggles, how can you make a decision? i am really encouraged by your blogs all that time. i am glad to know there is at least one guy out there who is seeking for Truth.
dont get discouraged if you find it hard to have faith. God is bigger than that. He can handle a little doubt. He can handle anything we throw at Him.
best wishes,
peter
kullervo said,
January 29, 2007 at 6:00 pm
Peter, I agree that the community of believers is a necessary component to Christianity. At least it seems that way from what I know. Believers should go to church and worship together.
Then again, there are plenty of traditions (the desert fathers, etc.) involving lone contemplation of deity as the primary frm of worship. I dunno.
WhoreChurch said,
January 29, 2007 at 6:02 pm
Hi Peter,
While I understand your point, I didn’t ever say Byz should stop fellowshipping with Christians. I said he should stop going to church. The two are polar opposites.
The institutional church exists to perpetuate the organization. If you doubt it, look at your church’s budget.
I don’t go to church, but I am the church.
Kevin
kullervo said,
January 29, 2007 at 6:07 pm
Just a note-
My moniker is “Kullervo,” not “Byzantium.” I don’t mind the “Byz” nickname, but I just thought I’d clear it up.
WhoreChurch said,
January 29, 2007 at 6:10 pm
Kullervo,
Yeah, I knew that, but I have to think too hard to type either Kullervo or Byzantium. Byz was easier and I am lazy. But I will try to improve my behavior in the future. Scout’s honor.
kullervo said,
January 29, 2007 at 6:15 pm
Byz is fine, just as long as there’s no confusion. I was afraid that people would be thinking “who’s this Kullervo clown acting like he wrote Byz’s post?”
PB and J said,
January 29, 2007 at 8:27 pm
kullervo and whorechurch
i appreciate the clarification from both.
first, whorechurch i agree with you that the churchianity (my favorite phrase for the modern institutional church) isnt the church. the church is “where two or three are gathered in my name”. so thanks for the point, i concur.
second, kullervo i dont agree with the desert fathers’ perspective. because if you look at what many of them did you will find much heresy. (ie mysticism that wasnt about God but self, Mariolotry, etc) i think there is a reason that Christ called us to His body, the church. i dont mean some human institution, and as i mentioned in the first point, often the church means nothing more than a group of Christians meeting together for mutual edification.
third, for both, you might find a look at the works of kierkegaard interesting in respect to the institutional church. he was vicious toward the danish church (and i think rightfully so). but i think we must remember that like derek webb sings, “If you love me [Jesus] you will love the church”. we must love the church, which includes members of the institutional church too. we dont have to participate in an institutional church, but we must participate in the church.
as a side note, i am taking a course in church history right now and just got through a section on constantine. it was truly interesting to see the changes that constantine brought to the institutional church. it really seems that most of the probs in the modern institutional church date back to his changes. (and many of those changes were to include paganism into christianity). anyway, thought it was interesting.
peter
kullervo said,
January 29, 2007 at 9:04 pm
Well, I haven’t settled whether I believe in Christianity or not in the first place, so “heresy” doesn’t bother me much at all.
WhoreChurch said,
January 29, 2007 at 9:10 pm
PB&J - We can discuss it here or we can start a thread at my blog. There are some honest questions I have that I would be interested in hearing your input. I don’t want to hijack Kullervo’s blog.
I’ll post some Q’s either later tonight or tomorrow. Cool?
riprock said,
February 3, 2007 at 9:10 pm
I sound like a broken record, but you don’t need to *believe*, you just need to open your spiritual eyes and *see*.
And as for the “Mariolatry” comment, there’s nothing wrong with seeing the feminine within the divine — even the Baltimore catechism says that God is above male and female distinctions.
PB and J said,
February 4, 2007 at 5:43 pm
riprock
i never said that there is a problem with seeing feminine attributes in God. i merely said that mariolatry is wrong. (ie the worship of Mary the mother of Jesus as divine).
if you were thinking of the da vinci code, then mary magdalen isnt divine either.
as far as mary the mother of jesus, the Scripture is very clear that the LORD is the only one who should receive worship. it also makes it clear that communicating with the dead is evil. check out the old testament talking about necromancy. this is talking to the dead. (ie praying to them). so praying to mary, worshipping mary, etc, is wrong.
however, there is nothing wrong with understanding that God has female characteristics.