Just when I think that I can do this, that I can believe, that I can even be a Christian, my mind does a 180º and runs sreaming in the other direction. I find that I can “be a Christian” and more importantly want to be a Christian as long as I am immersed in Christianity. When I’m reading the Bible, thinking about religion, reading theology, listening to Handel, etcetera, then I find myself okay with Christianity and believeing in Jesus. But then as soon as something outside the box happens- in this case it was hearing a song that in my opinion hits very close to the cosmic vein, whatever that is, I’m jolted out of my Christianity coccoon and I want to wad the whole thing up and throw it away.
This is what I’ve been talking about. It’s spiritual claustrophobia. It’s religious fear of commitment. At least, that’s what it might be.
It might also be that the reality, the true divine, the cosmic consciousness or whatever, is really so much bigger than we can even imagine, such that it makes our religions and philosophies look small and ridiculous. When I put on the blinders, I can go straight forward, but when the blinders slip, and I realize the incomprehensible hugeness of the universe and existence, then I can’t do it. I can’t be a Christian. Christianity is much too small. It makes me claustrophobic.
I envy the people who feel like they have a real relationship with Jesus Christ. Maybe it’s that personal relationship that allows them to be Christian and not feel so trapped, since their Christianity is not about religion so much as it is about spirituality. By that I mean that the rest of the peripherals don’t even matter since they’ve got a relationship withthe Great Jesus. The emphasis is totally inverted, and it’s outward-facing instead of inward-facing (I can’t explain what I man by that, but I know it sounds like something other than what I meant). There’s no claustrophobia because it’s not about a system or a worldview or anything. It’s about a relationship with a person, and they can go on adventures throughtout life and the universe together.
But I can;t seem to manage that, so I reach and grab at religion and I get a few straws but it’s not the right thing, not the real thing, and as soon as I realize it, I want to throw them away.
Sailing to Byzantium 
The fact is that religion is often much, much better than nothing and I think that “much better” is what we experience when in the reveries of indoctrination.
But I think you’re expressing a new (but ultimately verly old) kind of frustration … rather than that which relgion soothes, you’re experiencing a frustration arising from the rediscovery that that truth is much larger than human understanding (to restate your what you said above). And that religion, while it may be a soothing balm of explanation, is actually a very poor subtitute for truth.
This is what I hear you saying.
Am I being too uncharitable to say that religion is the domain of those who seek respite from the search for truth? Not a bad thing if respite restores your energy for the journey.
Hmm. I don’t know if I agree with your conclusion necessarily. I’m moving in a direction where I’m starting to believe that Truth in its raw, naked, unadulterated form is not only inherently unapprehendible by human beings because of our subjective limitations, but that it is fundamentally incomprehensible. It’s just too big to wrap our heads around.
So to cope, we interpret and filter and deal with Truth in terms of metaphor, i.e. Myth. I’m not talking about using gods to explain natural phenomena, but using Story to explain What It All Means since 1) Myth and Story and Narrative are somehow intrinsic to human nature and 2) we can;t deal with it directly anyway, so Myth/Story/Narrative is the only tool we have.
In that light, religion serves an important role since it is a powerful way for us to get at the Truth even if we can’t get the truth.
But to that stew you need to add all my spiritual neuroses that I’ve been posting about for the last few days. The result is that I’m having kind of a hard time.
Perhaps the myth/story/narrative, while better than nothing, is part of the problem of subjectivity? If we can find a better approximation of objective reality than what has worked in the past, shouldn’t we be willing to put away the myth/story/narrative that just might equate to Paul’s “When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.”?
Isn’t it possible that if we can never experience objective reality, we can at least increase our approximation of it? If so, this would suggest that an ongoing move away from the way we have seen the universe in the past.
Does that suggest a move away from M/S/N entirely? Or does it just mean developing the M/S/N?
If away, then I ask 1) is that possible or practicable, and 2) to what?
If it means (or can mean) developing the M/S/N, I guess it could mean a lot of different things, from abandoning the cosmological model function of myth (we don’t need a God of the Gaps any more) to developing theology and moving the narrative forward in a way that is relevant (something like Brian McLaren’s emergent conversation, for example).
Perhaps in some specific cases a move away entirely where new evidence recommends. In other cases a modification. But always in a way that can be demonstrated to more accurately track human experience of the universe. Right now science is the one with the best trackrecord of offering evidence compelling enough to move away entirely or modifiy as the case may reqire.
In the end I think my main point here is to counter the idea that humans are hopelessly mired in a position for which our current M/S/Ns are the best and only measures.
I think ultimately religious experience is meaningless and shallow in and of itself if it doesn’t have a true relationship attached to it. I like how you describe it as clutching at straws and discovering that the straws aren’t “it”. They never were intended to be. A person can fast for a week and sit on their knees in a posture of prayer day and night, but those things will never satisfy and they were never intended to.
I just wanted to point out that the choice isn’t necessarily between religion and nothing. I naturally fell into humanism as my religiosity collapsed. I didn’t know to call it that at the time, but humanism is my way of finding meaning without institutional religion.
Also, I often think about dogs thinking about the world. It seems absurd to hope that dogs would ever comprehend the ultimate truth of the universe. Their brains are simply insufficient to the task. Why then are we so arrogant as to believe that we are any different? Chances are that the laws that govern the universe are simply beyond our comprehension or the comprehension of any of our descendants. But perhaps not. 🙂
I don’t know if science even treads where the M/S/N that I’m talking about goes.
Like I said, I’m not talking about explaining why it rains or where lightning comes from. I’m talking about finding a way to give meaning to things like the human condition, love, awe, fear, wonder, doubt, community, relationship, death.
Science can explain the mechanics of the world and of our lives, but it can’t really give meaning to them. To claim that science will someday remove the need to ascribe meaning to human experience is in my opinion a fairly shaky proposition.
To claim that science will someday remove the need to ascribe meaning to human experience is in my opinion a fairly shaky proposition.
And this is fair to say. I don’t think science will remove this need, but in describing the need and building a framework for understanding the source of this need, something which science must attempt, we are certain to discover ways in which our less informed minds failed to adequately comprehend the meaning that it craves.
Sorry if I’m late on this one, but I can’t help but respond.
You hit the nail on the head. Christianity is not about religion. It is about a relationship. Sure, prescribe all reactions and out-pour of that relationship as religion, but the fact is without that Christian relationship, the Christian religion means nothing.
It’s my firm belief, that’s the reason people leave Christianity and why so many people criticize Christianity. They haven’t the haven’t the faintest idea of the true essence of Christianity.
Go back to the root. The term Christian was given to a group of believers with the literal intention of calling them Christ-followers.
The whole thing pends on Christ.
On to the next step. What was Jesus about?
Jesus didn’t come just to offer another way of life. He came as THE way of life and declared Himself to be so. He did not come just to give some good teaching with a little truth. He came as the Truth and again declared Himself to be so.
He did not come to solve a few problems. He came to solve THE problem.
The reason we feel so distant from Ultimate Reality is because we are so distant from Ultimate Reality. We are distant from God because He is holy and perfect and we are everything but holy and perfect. He cannot allow us to come close to Him anymore than your mother could allow you to come to the dinner table without have first washed up.
No one is perfect. The Bible says it repeatedly. Sure there are some “worse” than others but nobody’s perfect.
Then comes Christ. He’s born and lives a perfect life. He did not deserve anything bad, period, not even death. But as all of us well know, He did die.
Only, He died for us. He had nothing for which to die. So, as He died for us, He rose, ascended into Heaven and there speaks on our behalf before God. (hence the importance of a constant relationship)
Anytime anyone realizes that they are dirty before God and recognize the need of being saved from the penalty of that sin, they only have to accept Christ’s death as the payment for that sin.
So you see, Christianity is more than just a belief system. It’s a solution to a problem. It is the only way to see the meaning of things like the human condition, love, awe, fear, wonder, doubt, community, relationship, death.
Again, sorry if this was too long, but like I said, I had to answer.
God Bless.
tjcontending.wordpress.com
It is the only way to see the meaning of things like the human condition, love, awe, fear, wonder, doubt, community, relationship, death.
You may feel like you have the only true way to see the meaning in these things, but that is only an opinion. I don’t believe in God and yet I somehow manage to find meaning in those things. I suggest that meaning doesn’t really derive from God, but from another source.
Then what source?
That’s the question the question to which I was in responce.
Ok. So you don’t believe that meaning comes from “my” God. Then give another suggestion and examine the basis. Don’t just say what you don’t believe.
I certainly don’t think Christianity is “the only way” to see the meaning of the human condition.
Travis James, I’ll answer your question obliquely because I really think this is a question best pondered, not answered. I am a humanist.
My issue with Travis James is that while is writing is spot on with Christian apologetics, however his analogy brings up a broader issue dividing Judaism and Christianity. Judaism and the Hebrew Bible points out many times there is no other G-D but G-D and that if we believe in the G-D of the Hebrew Bible (as I suspect we all do at some level) then we are not to put anything between us and G-D. Christianity by its doctrine puts Jesus in between G-D and human. If we need a savior than there is no need for G-D, we may as well be worshipping golden calves.
As I have been on my spiritual journey my relationship with the divine has gone a very different direction than what Christians or Mormons would see as correct. I now see G-D more in the world when I interact with nature, when I wake in the morning I thank G-D for my breath, and the little things I do on a daily basis add meaning to my life now and I am not concerned anymore about an eternal reward. I will deal with that when I die, but for now I am going to make the best out of the life I am living now.
Just a thought from the Desert.
(Kullervo, I know that you don’t want your blog turned into a debate arena so I’ll keep this short.)
God’s holiness and man’s sinfulness necessitates a Savior for reconciliation. That Savior would have to live a life on par with God’s holiness. The only way that He would be able to do that is if He were Diety Himself. The only way that could be possible is if He were one with God, yet distinct. (hint: Jesus claims all of these things)
You’ll probably guess already that I’m speaking from a Trinitarian view of the co-equal co-existence of the Lord Jesus, but I derive that view from both the Old Testament (the Torah) as well the New.
This, of course, opens a massive conversation, which I welcome, but not on someone else’s blog. 🙂
You might be interested in an article that a friend of mine wrote. You can find it at my blog:
tjcontending.wordpress.com
Travis, you’re making HUGE logical jumps in your last post. I don’t think you can just start out with the need for a Savior. There’s a huge logical jump to get there. Also, how do you know what would be acceptable in a Savior? Why would a savior have to be on par with God’s holiness? I don’t see any of those as being in-arguable facts.
Actually, that’s not at all where I started, but for the sake of the point:
Of course, you can’t start out with the need of a Savior. You start where everthing starts – the Holiness of God. It doesn’t take long to see the contrast between that holiness and all of us, and unless God is seen as something other than what the Bible describes, then the problem of reconciliation reveals itself. Hense, the need of a Savior.
As far as what is acceptable in a Savior, that is the very purpose of the Law. The Mosaic Law given in the Old Testament was given to show us the level of holiness that would be necessary to come to be reconciled to God. A short look at the Law and anyone can see the impossible level of perfection (Romans 3:19; Galatians 3:24, 25).
However, the Lord Jesus upheld and fulfilled the Law. He did not deserve separation from God, but He took our sin upon Himself and absorbed the wrath of God for us, so that, upon acceptance of His sacrifice we may come to God on the merit of Jesus Christ, the Righteous.
tjcontending.wordpress.com
Travis James, I would have agreed with you about the difference between me and God two years ago. Something happened in the meantime, and now that difference is not obvious to me anymore, contrary to what you say.
The belief in a holy, pure God who presides over the faithful in a place of eternal joy free from the pains and sorrows of mortality characterizes Western religion. That is part of what motivated me as a believer. It now seems like a dysfunctional, dangerous denigration of the joys and meaning of this messy, confusing, dirty life. It reminds me of someone obsessively washing their hands which never seem to come clean. I don’t think it’s natural to have this level of shame. We have to learn it. This wishful longing for escape from the troubles of this life is why I think its fair to call Christianity a death cult.
I no longer see us as inherently sinful. We have a natural tendency to be kind and loving and good. If that tendency is nurtured, it will grow.
If there is pain and sorrow in life, it is only the flip side of joy. One can’t exist without the other. There will always be two sides to a coin; you can’t have just one side.
I no longer hope for an existence with a holy God in his immaculate mansions. Give me this life of joy and sorrow here with my beautiful, intelligent, frustrating, imperfect wife and children.
I think you’re definitely painting all of Christianity with the broad overgeneralizing brushstroke of modern Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism when you call it a “death cult.”
The happy hereafter aspect of Christianity is certainly a significant thread in the history of the religion that has had greater or lesser prominence among different groups, subgroups, and at different times. But it’s not the only thread and I don’t think it’s necessarily the dominant thread throughout all of Christian history.
It’s very significant right now, sure, among Evangelicals and Fundamentalists, but they don’t represent all of Christianity, because Christianity has never spoken with one voice very well, even when there was only one Christian church.
If making a caricature of the religion is what you are bound and determined to do, then I can’t stop you. But I’m not sure that defeating a strawman is a very satisfactory victory.
There are other aspects of Christianity, sure, but what would Christianity be without the hope of heaven? It may not be dominant in every Christian’s mind, but it is a central feature of the Christian narrative. Perhaps some Christians don’t emphasize the afterlife or claim to know what it looks like, but I think it’s fair to say that the vast majority of Christianity looks forward to a literal heaven at some level. Is this not true? Doesn’t almost every single Christian funeral include the sentiment that the deceased is in heaven?
If it is true, then I think was fair for me to address that vast majority in my comment under the simple label “Christian” and I think the “death cult” label would stick to most forms of Christianity to varying degrees. I don’t think it’s a caricature. Christianity would look very different without the hope for heaven (and therefore death).
Jonathan,
Why is there something wrong with hope for an afterlife? What is wrong with the idea that after people have passed on from this life (especially if they had to suffer incredibly before they died), they have gone on to a better place?
I don’t see how believing that there is some better afterlife does anything to cheapen the wonder in this life. Plus, I think that a postmodern view of Christianity tends to focus on the present, and discovering heaven on Earth, in the present.
The only thing I see wrong with it is that it shifts emphasis away from this life. Even though Christians may still find meaning and wonder in this life, we know where their treasure lies. 🙂
If a postmodern view of Christianity and heaven as you explain it can prevail over the traditional literalist view, all the better. I think, however, that those who hold the postmodern sensibility are far outnumbered by the literalists. Perhaps not in the congregations they attend, but in the world in general.
I almost forgot. Because of the death cult discussion, we’ve kind of lost track of something else that I no longer see the same. I just can’t see humanity as inherently sinful or unclean anymore. I don’t see any reason to believe that we’re bad, so the general Christian formula of Christ overcoming sin is not so obvious or natural to me as some seem to suppose.
As far as Heaven is concerned, color me a literalist, but that is not my ultimate hope. Heaven is peripheral to the Christian life I am to lead while on earth.
I sadly agree that it has become the ultimate hope for much of Christianity, but I don’t believe that becoming “Christian” just to go to Heaven is becoming a Christian at all. It’s got the “Pascal’s Wager” problem and does not deal with the problem of sin.
Which brings me to the other point. Perhaps we’re not “that bad,” but how can you measure that? We aren’t perfect. How bad is “that bad”? It’s all relative, but to what is it relative?
To not see humanity as inherently bad is either moral relativism (which never works) or just plain unrealistic.
As far as Heaven is concerned, color me a literalist, but that is not my ultimate hope. Heaven is peripheral to the Christian life I am to lead while on earth.
This question comes from honest curiosity. What then would you say is your ultimate hope?
Which brings me to the other point. Perhaps we’re not “that bad,” but how can you measure that? We aren’t perfect. How bad is “that bad”? It’s all relative, but to what is it relative?
To not see humanity as inherently bad is either moral relativism (which never works) or just plain unrealistic.
I’m not sure that you intended to say so, but I never used the phrase “that bad”. People aren’t inherently “evil” as far as I can tell. We generally come into the world with social instincts which can lead to a “good” person given a little guidance.
For example, my four year old loves to share food and candy with her little sister (toys are often a different story). We didn’t beat this into her head which I’m sure would have had the opposite effect of the desired one. We set an example of sharing for her. We gave her opportunities to share. That’s it. Her natural social instincts kicked in and she now shares with her sister without prompting from us. She wants to share!
The case could just as easily be made that we are inherently “good” or inherently “evil”. It is the pessimism about human nature that I find disturbing.
Moral relativism is a whole discussion unto itself. (Kullervo, if this is getting too far off topic, say the word and I’ll shut up.) It is the position that no absolute standard for morality exists. I assume that if I asked you where your absolute standard for morality comes from, you may respond that it comes from God. If that is your belief, then I suggest pondering Socrates’ dilemma asked of Euthyphro:
“Is that which is [good] loved by [God] because it is [good], or is it [good] because it is loved by [God]?” (Euthyphro dilemma)
By all means go on. I am nothing if not a benevolent dictator.
My apologies for misquoting you. I’m not sure if I intended to.
(Kullervo, thanks for allowing this discussion.)
Concerning my ultimate hope: My ultimate hope is Jesus. Now, I realize that sounds to you like a cop-out answer, but allow me to explain.
My ultimate hope is glorifying God by coming into the fullest possible relationship with Him. That would obviously include a lot of things.
See, if you were to ask many (and I pray not most) Christians what they would think if they were to go to Heaven and have everything that Heaven offers (eternal life, no pain, no sorrow, no fatigue, all of your friends, all of your family, etc.), only God was not there, if they would be honest, they would not have a problem with that. That is the pramatism into which so much of modern Christianity has fallen. The truth is, without God (the Father, Son and Spirit included) none of those things would be possible in Heaven.
In the end, as simply as I can put it, Heaven is not my hope because Heaven is not the point. Jesus saved my soul, therefore Jesus is my hope.
You sparked my curiousity. Not to over-stay our welcome, but (with the permission of our benevolent dictator) what is your ultimate hope?
As far as our inherent goodness/badness discussion:
There’s no denying that we come into the world with instincts, but can you call those instincts good? If we had the instinct to share, give and otherwise be benevolent then would we need the guidence in order to turn out good?
Your daughter sounds much better behaved than my nephews. It’s an amazing thing to see how a child retains instruction and acts accordingly. I’ve yet to have children of my own, but I’ve never heard of a parent having to teach a child how to cry though all they want is attention. I’ve never heard of a parent having to teach a child how to be selfish and refuse to share. I’ve never heard of a parent having to teach a child how to disobey or be mean to their siblings. You don’t have to teach a child these things, yet they do all of these things to some degree. It is the good things that you have to instruct and provoke.
As far as the Euthyphro dilemma:
That’s the first time I’ve heard the question, but it’s a good one (as if Plato asked bad questions 🙂 )
I think I would go with something like Aquinas’ answer that God commands something because it is good. But, goodness is an essential part of God’s nature. “So goodness is grounded in God’s character and merely expressed in moral commands.” I’ll have to turn that one over in my head for a while. Thanks for suggesting it.
Thanks again, Kullervo.
tjcontending.wordpress.com
I recently expressed my ultimate hope in the following way (if you read the blog post, forgive its overall tone; I was in a rather unsympathetic mood that day):
That is what motivates me.
Regarding our inherent nature. I agree that we are… uncivilized when we come into the world, but I think it’s a mistake to believe that we would always be as selfish as a young child throughout our lives without an external moral standard. Our innate goodness unfolds over time with a little tutoring. We would grow and develop (dare I say blossom) into better human beings naturally over time. Just because a two-year-old is selfish doesn’t mean the four-year-old would also be without external help.
Dale McGowan, editor of Parenting Beyond Belief is raising his children without religion but is providing a little guidance to their own thoughts while letting nature take it’s course. So far, so good he says.
He shares my view of optimistic view humanity:
And if you believe in no gods, as I do, humanity’s inherent goodness is the only way to explain what we have achieved (or at least our inherent propensity to civilization).
You probably won’t be surprised that I don’t find Aquinas’ answer satisfying. 🙂
And thank you for explaining your hope. That does help explain. I think it’s a fine example of the human propensity for selfless service and devotion to another.
Travis,
I think that I would define my ultimate hope the same way as you. The closer I come to Christ, the more the rest of it doesn’t matter. Heaven? Who cares what it’s like? Jesus is going to be there, right? And He’s danged cool. 🙂
Seriously–my hope lies in Christ. That hope isn’t about the afterlife for me. It’s about magnifying that in this life, and making the most of the beauty that surrounds me here. My wonderful, thoughtful, loving husband. My sweet, adorable son. My challenging job. The flowers that are sprouting in my windowsill garden. The clouds that paint pictures in the sky for me. Who has time to think about the afterlife when there’s so much to think about and enjoy here?