Lately, the kids have really gotten into the TV show called The Backyardigans. I am enjoying this because it has long been one of my favorite kids' shows.
The idea of the show is that five kids play in their back yards, and whatever storyline they imagine up during play time is the story for the show. They play pretty much any characters a kid could think up from pirates to spies to traveling polka musicians.
One specific episode sticks out as a favorite, though, because I think it is so illustrative of a lot of relationships I have witnessed (and most assuredly not my own). This is the episode entitled "The Legend of the Volcano Sisters."
In this episode the two girls play the Volcano Sisters who control the volcano on an island, and the boys play the Luau Brothers who are planning a luau on the island. The girls announce that they are unhappy and announce that the volcano will go off if the boys are unable to address this. Not wanting their luau ruined the boys run off, sure that the girls want something grand.
One boy climbs up a mountain to find the giant Very Heavy Tiki Mask on Tiki Mountain and brings that to the girls. They announce that this is not what they want. The next boy swims into the ocean to grab the Shiniest Pearl and brings that to the girls. They reject this gift as well. This point of the story is summed up in the song "Huka Pele," and this whole sequence is why I love this episode. To see the guys running around clueless while the girls make demands is simply hilarious to me. Finally, the last boy presents his idea of what the girls want.
The final boy brings a flower to the girls and asks them if they would like to come to join them for the luau. Of course, this final boy actually did figure out what the girls wanted. They were not looking for some spectacular gift. They just wanted to be included.
There is probably more I can say, but I will leave it at that. I truly just love this whole scenario from the episode.
Monday, February 18, 2013
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
manure cake
This builds off my recent post about the dreadful sinful state of every member of humanity, though it is not necessarily intended to be a "part two" in a series.
I have heard an illustration about sin multiple places that bugs me. It goes something like this.
My objections to this illustration are below.
We sin because we are sinners
The illustration does not typically encourage introspection as to the source of sin. If the source of sin is not addressed, all we're really doing in a best-case scenario is window dressing. The form this often takes is in enforcing a specific social code that is called a moral code, but that is not always strictly Biblical.
There should be more poop than cake
If the cake represents the good things a person does and the manure the bad things a person does, then the cake should be mostly manure no matter the person. Paul compared his lifetime of law-keeping and maintaining good standing within Judaism on the same level as dung, or "rubbish" (Phil 3:8). While we are not under the law, law itself is still the perfect measuring stick that proves our sinfulness. If any good action should be considered delicious cake to God, wouldn't keeping His law be at the top of the list? If Paul's good deeds should be considered feces, so should everyone else's.
This is important because the illustration betrays a misconception that the illustration teller has. This is that the typical Christian is mostly sanctified and really just needs a few social faux pas issues addressed rather than a complete overhaul.Most of us All of us will still need a near-complete overhaul by the time we die.
This implies that our role is to make ourselves perfect for God
I cannot emphasize enough that if I have to make myself good for God's sake I will fail. There has only ever been one good person on this earth, and it is not me. It is not ever going to be me in this life, either. Not by a long shot.
If I believe that I have to make myself perfect for God but literally cannot do this, what do you suppose the end result of this path will be? I see one of two possibilities. Either I will become embittered and fearful as I see sin in everything while always hating myself for not sizing up, or I will adopt a permissive doctrine on sin because God wouldn't send me on an impossible task. With the first possibility I will get burned out and possibly give up on God. With the second possibility I will lose sight of my sin nature, which is a symptom that I lack justification.
This puts us at odds with God's intent to be the one to change us
My responsibility is to not willingly offer the parts of my body to sin (Rom 6:12-13) and to live up to the level of my sanctification (Phil 3:15-16). The actual changing of my being into something more like God has to be performed by God.
This focuses attention on certain sins while completely ignoring others
This illustration is typically used to address quibbles about social faux pas "sins" rather than affronts to God. As an example, this approach ultimately makes it look like God cares more about whether I use a four-letter word than if I sacrifice for a brother in need, while Scripture focuses significantly more on the latter than the former.
Clarification: Sin is bad
I do want to note that I am not belittling sin or implying that it is no big deal. Sin is a reflection of a deeply flawed individual, and it ultimately needs to be addressed. What I am saying is that the cow patty cake illustration does nothing to truly deal with the sin, and by implying that we are responsible for making ourselves perfect the illustration sends the audience down a path that leads to destruction rather than salvation. Our salvation and our ultimate perfection is in Christ, and Christ offers the only path to address sin.
Addressing a potential objection
One potential response to my assertion that it is not our role to make ourselves perfect for God is Romans 12:1, presented below from the NIV and bolded to emphasize the potential objection.
The most obvious contextual clue about what this verse is stating is in the very next verse (emphasis mine).
I have a couple of other points from the context that contradict the idea that we are supposed to make ourselves perfect which I present below.
I have heard an illustration about sin multiple places that bugs me. It goes something like this.
Imagine I were to make a cake for you. The best cake you could imagine. It would be moist, full of chocolate, and delectable in every aspect save one. That cake would have just a little bit of horse or cow manure in it. Not much at all in comparison to the cake, really. There's a good chance you'd barely even taste the manure. Would you still want the cake?The person presenting the illustration typically goes on to note that this is how we should view "little sins." Justifications that they are not a big deal is similar to stating that the manure in the cake is not a big deal because it is only a little bit of manure.
My objections to this illustration are below.
We sin because we are sinners
The illustration does not typically encourage introspection as to the source of sin. If the source of sin is not addressed, all we're really doing in a best-case scenario is window dressing. The form this often takes is in enforcing a specific social code that is called a moral code, but that is not always strictly Biblical.
There should be more poop than cake
If the cake represents the good things a person does and the manure the bad things a person does, then the cake should be mostly manure no matter the person. Paul compared his lifetime of law-keeping and maintaining good standing within Judaism on the same level as dung, or "rubbish" (Phil 3:8). While we are not under the law, law itself is still the perfect measuring stick that proves our sinfulness. If any good action should be considered delicious cake to God, wouldn't keeping His law be at the top of the list? If Paul's good deeds should be considered feces, so should everyone else's.
This is important because the illustration betrays a misconception that the illustration teller has. This is that the typical Christian is mostly sanctified and really just needs a few social faux pas issues addressed rather than a complete overhaul.
This implies that our role is to make ourselves perfect for God
I cannot emphasize enough that if I have to make myself good for God's sake I will fail. There has only ever been one good person on this earth, and it is not me. It is not ever going to be me in this life, either. Not by a long shot.
If I believe that I have to make myself perfect for God but literally cannot do this, what do you suppose the end result of this path will be? I see one of two possibilities. Either I will become embittered and fearful as I see sin in everything while always hating myself for not sizing up, or I will adopt a permissive doctrine on sin because God wouldn't send me on an impossible task. With the first possibility I will get burned out and possibly give up on God. With the second possibility I will lose sight of my sin nature, which is a symptom that I lack justification.
This puts us at odds with God's intent to be the one to change us
My responsibility is to not willingly offer the parts of my body to sin (Rom 6:12-13) and to live up to the level of my sanctification (Phil 3:15-16). The actual changing of my being into something more like God has to be performed by God.
This focuses attention on certain sins while completely ignoring others
This illustration is typically used to address quibbles about social faux pas "sins" rather than affronts to God. As an example, this approach ultimately makes it look like God cares more about whether I use a four-letter word than if I sacrifice for a brother in need, while Scripture focuses significantly more on the latter than the former.
Clarification: Sin is bad
I do want to note that I am not belittling sin or implying that it is no big deal. Sin is a reflection of a deeply flawed individual, and it ultimately needs to be addressed. What I am saying is that the cow patty cake illustration does nothing to truly deal with the sin, and by implying that we are responsible for making ourselves perfect the illustration sends the audience down a path that leads to destruction rather than salvation. Our salvation and our ultimate perfection is in Christ, and Christ offers the only path to address sin.
Addressing a potential objection
One potential response to my assertion that it is not our role to make ourselves perfect for God is Romans 12:1, presented below from the NIV and bolded to emphasize the potential objection.
"Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual act of worship."Paul appears to be telling his audience that they need to make themselves perfect and present themselves to God when read without context, doesn't he? Not only that, it looks like we cannot worship properly without doing this as well. Context paints a slightly different picture, though.
The most obvious contextual clue about what this verse is stating is in the very next verse (emphasis mine).
"And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect."While there is certainly action that is expected from us in this passage, it is clear in this verse where perfection comes from. We are not presenting our bodies to God as perfect. We are not transforming ourselves. We are presenting our bodies to God as sacrifices to be ultimately be transformed into something perfect. By God. This fits into Paul's earlier statements in Romans (6:16) that we are either slaves to sin or slaves to righteousness. We might have some say in our path, but we can't in ourselves do anything to make ourselves less sinful (or less slaves to the sin nature).
I have a couple of other points from the context that contradict the idea that we are supposed to make ourselves perfect which I present below.
- The sentence in Romans 12:1 begins with the word, "therefore." This implies that the verse is in response to something from the preceding verses, and Paul is clear that that something is God's mercy. Paul has just completed talking about both the Jews' and the Gentiles' rebellion against God, and how this ultimately leads to God's mercy toward both (11:30-31). Presenting your bodies is therefore an act of someone who has already received (or is receiving) God's mercy and, even in the most law-based of theologies, should not presently need to prove something to God.
- In the "Doxology" passage that is typically seen as the conclusion of the thoughts from the first half of Romans Paul makes clear that we cannot give God anything (11:35). This means that we cannot offer God perfection, as that would certainly qualify as a gift to Him. The verse reads as follows and is the perfect conclusion to this piece.
"Who has ever given to God, that God should repay him?"Definitely not me!
Saturday, February 09, 2013
six-word stories
Ernest Hemmingway once wrote the following six-word story on a challenge.
A few I thought of, but don't quite provide the back story depth that Hemmingway was able to generate are below. Like Hemmingway's example, they are mostly a bit dark. That's more indicative to what makes an interesting story than how dark my thinking is, though.
"For sale: baby shoes, never used."The six word story sounds like a conquerable challenge to be sure, but this example illustrates what is involved for a good submission. How do you place so much back story into so few words? The sentence has to be structured in a way that pushes the reader to fill in the blanks, and in this case most of the blanks are filled in and they are all sad. In Hemmingway's story, the classified ad device perfectly trims what would otherwise be sentences to six words. Honestly, seven words would be orders of magnitude easier.
A few I thought of, but don't quite provide the back story depth that Hemmingway was able to generate are below. Like Hemmingway's example, they are mostly a bit dark. That's more indicative to what makes an interesting story than how dark my thinking is, though.
"Meet John, my twin half-brother."There are some decent submissions here, and most are far beyond what I have written. Do you have any ideas for a six-word story?
"We danced under mushroom cloud lighting."
"Mute button broke. Now seeking employment."
"Neighbor found dead after eight weeks."
"She got Draco in the divorce."
"Vegetarian salad, please. Also, steak. Rare."
"Eviction: three days. Death in four."
"My love concurred all. Couldn't disagree."
"Not interested in interest. Soon bankrupt."
"She was a rock. He paper."
"Pyrrhic victory. Opponent's suffering exceeds mine."
"He on one knee. She gone."
"Doppelganger not the evil twin. Surprise!"
"One sacrifice required: everything. Now complete."
Tuesday, February 05, 2013
source of humility
We have been going over the parables of Jesus in Sunday School for the last several months, and something struck me recently. A large number of them turn on a specific character being unable to accept his own unworthiness. I have mentioned this before in the parable of the unmerciful servant, but it shows up in other parables as well. In the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector (Luke 18:9-14) the primary point is that the Pharisee is not justified because he does not see his own sin. In the parable of the prodigal son (Luke 15:11-32) the older son is representative of people who wrongly believed themselves righteous. Jesus' illustration of the plank in one's eye (Matt 7:1-6) is also a perfect illustration of the error of attempting to assist others in their errors while ignoring your own issues.
Two things spring to mind regarding this. First, if Jesus gave so much air time to the danger of thinking ourselves more holy than we ought, this should probably be an important topic for training.
Second, I don't know that I have heard many sermons that focus strongly on the fact that we are all treacherous sinners in desperate need of salvation. I don't mean to say that I have never heard it said that we all need Christ, because I certainly have. It has always been as a minor supporting step leading to some other point, though. As such, I believe that it is easy for a proclaiming Christian to dangerously underestimate the level of evil exists in his or her being that necessitates Christ's justification and sanctifying work. Since so much important stuff relies on having a proportional understanding of our sinfulness, I think this is a dangerous position to find ourselves.
In the parable of the unmerciful servant we learn that forgiveness to others is necessary through a proper perspective of the unpayable debt we have been forgiven. In the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector we learn that the person who believes himself good in contrast to an obvious sinner is simply not justified (scary indeed!). In the parable of the prodigal son Jesus leaves the story open at the end, but we know that most of those who the older son represented rejected Christ. In the plank in one's eye passage we learn that we cannot help others with their issues if we are unaware of our own.
My sense is that a large percentage of the mistakes that modern Christians make, and that have resulted in non-Christians having a wrong idea about what Christianity is, springs from thinking of ourselves more highly than we ought. We are horrific sinners saved by grace, and whose sanctification is far from complete. If Paul was the chief of sinners I am too. I have no room for moral superiority or boasting.
Isn't the personal humility that comes with this foundational principle of the Gospel what makes the grace offered in the Gospel such good news? I am undeserving scum who far falls short of the mark, but God in His love and mercy offers me salvation anyway.
Two things spring to mind regarding this. First, if Jesus gave so much air time to the danger of thinking ourselves more holy than we ought, this should probably be an important topic for training.
Second, I don't know that I have heard many sermons that focus strongly on the fact that we are all treacherous sinners in desperate need of salvation. I don't mean to say that I have never heard it said that we all need Christ, because I certainly have. It has always been as a minor supporting step leading to some other point, though. As such, I believe that it is easy for a proclaiming Christian to dangerously underestimate the level of evil exists in his or her being that necessitates Christ's justification and sanctifying work. Since so much important stuff relies on having a proportional understanding of our sinfulness, I think this is a dangerous position to find ourselves.
In the parable of the unmerciful servant we learn that forgiveness to others is necessary through a proper perspective of the unpayable debt we have been forgiven. In the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector we learn that the person who believes himself good in contrast to an obvious sinner is simply not justified (scary indeed!). In the parable of the prodigal son Jesus leaves the story open at the end, but we know that most of those who the older son represented rejected Christ. In the plank in one's eye passage we learn that we cannot help others with their issues if we are unaware of our own.
My sense is that a large percentage of the mistakes that modern Christians make, and that have resulted in non-Christians having a wrong idea about what Christianity is, springs from thinking of ourselves more highly than we ought. We are horrific sinners saved by grace, and whose sanctification is far from complete. If Paul was the chief of sinners I am too. I have no room for moral superiority or boasting.
Isn't the personal humility that comes with this foundational principle of the Gospel what makes the grace offered in the Gospel such good news? I am undeserving scum who far falls short of the mark, but God in His love and mercy offers me salvation anyway.
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
parenting a princess
Our daughter Cd likes princesses. A lot. It's hard to blame her. At least half of the entertainment targeted toward girls her age features the protagonist in a princess role (or a girl seeking to be a princess through marriage in Cinderella's case). Of course she is going to latch onto the fact that the female protagonists that she likes all tend to have one specific role. I am not sure how I am supposed to feel about things like this that the kids like.
In this case, part of my complication comes from the fact that I don't truly know what the appeal of princesses is to a girl. I understand the draw that a boy has to superheroes or sports figures because I understand pretty much all of the fundamental needs and desires those roles fulfill in boys. While I may have some good guesses, I don't truly understand the fundamental needs and desires that are being addressed through the princess character. Is it being pretty and wearing pretty clothes? Is it being special, because the princess is so important? Is it being sophisticated (which I predictably misspelled until my spell-checker caught it)? Is it the idea of being able to have all of your desires and whims be catered to? Is it about having the power to be able to care for those who you care about?
With the superhero character I understand the positives and negatives. Superheroes tend to be characters of action in a black and white world, and that action is violent with little repercussion due to hidden identity, so aggression glorified is the biggest danger. A secondary danger is that the superhero fantasy validates the view that athletic ability (through genes or through military experiment gone awry) is the basis of a man's value. The basic superhero fantasy is that by being able to do the things the superhero does you earn respect from others and self-respect you might not otherwise have. Also, younger boys may not get this, but the fantasy extends to being a shortcut to proving your worth to a girl (be it your own equivalent of Mary Jane, Lois Lane, or Rachel Dawes). I feel I can parent around these and other elements of the superhero character fairly easily, since I generally understand them.
However, the princess character is sort of giving me fits. Is a princess a noble character, and is it noble to want to be a princess? Is CD going to learn the right lessons from a typical Disney (or similar) princess character, or is she going to pick up bad traits? Will she learn from the very stupid decisions the characters often make, or will she learn that those stupid paths are correct? Will she learn that a lot of the guys these girls fall for in the movies are generally the types to be avoided? Will she fantasize too much about being in a situation where others live to cater to her desires, or learn that she needs to take responsibility for a lot of the things in her life? Will the fact that these characters are impossibly proportioned lead to body issues? I know that I am probably over-thinking this, and I do not want CD to miss out on experiences that other girls her age have. I just know less than I don't know about what girls get out of the princess fantasy, and that makes me uncomfortable.
In this case, part of my complication comes from the fact that I don't truly know what the appeal of princesses is to a girl. I understand the draw that a boy has to superheroes or sports figures because I understand pretty much all of the fundamental needs and desires those roles fulfill in boys. While I may have some good guesses, I don't truly understand the fundamental needs and desires that are being addressed through the princess character. Is it being pretty and wearing pretty clothes? Is it being special, because the princess is so important? Is it being sophisticated (which I predictably misspelled until my spell-checker caught it)? Is it the idea of being able to have all of your desires and whims be catered to? Is it about having the power to be able to care for those who you care about?
With the superhero character I understand the positives and negatives. Superheroes tend to be characters of action in a black and white world, and that action is violent with little repercussion due to hidden identity, so aggression glorified is the biggest danger. A secondary danger is that the superhero fantasy validates the view that athletic ability (through genes or through military experiment gone awry) is the basis of a man's value. The basic superhero fantasy is that by being able to do the things the superhero does you earn respect from others and self-respect you might not otherwise have. Also, younger boys may not get this, but the fantasy extends to being a shortcut to proving your worth to a girl (be it your own equivalent of Mary Jane, Lois Lane, or Rachel Dawes). I feel I can parent around these and other elements of the superhero character fairly easily, since I generally understand them.
However, the princess character is sort of giving me fits. Is a princess a noble character, and is it noble to want to be a princess? Is CD going to learn the right lessons from a typical Disney (or similar) princess character, or is she going to pick up bad traits? Will she learn from the very stupid decisions the characters often make, or will she learn that those stupid paths are correct? Will she learn that a lot of the guys these girls fall for in the movies are generally the types to be avoided? Will she fantasize too much about being in a situation where others live to cater to her desires, or learn that she needs to take responsibility for a lot of the things in her life? Will the fact that these characters are impossibly proportioned lead to body issues? I know that I am probably over-thinking this, and I do not want CD to miss out on experiences that other girls her age have. I just know less than I don't know about what girls get out of the princess fantasy, and that makes me uncomfortable.
Thursday, January 24, 2013
access to amusement
When I was a kid I mostly lived in rural areas and did not have a lot of disposable income, so I did not go to places like Chuck E. Cheese's, zoos, or amusement parks in general much. We did go to some to be sure, but the opportunity to do this much was not there. Small towns do have other things to offer, like bowling, soccer leagues, the Shriner's circus, and city pools, so I still did well.
It's in contrast to this that I notice that our kids have gotten to experience a lot of the things I would have dreamed of as a kid. They have gotten to experience multiple amusement parks, zoos, pumpkin patches, because the opportunity was there. In fact, we have already purchased season tickets to Silver Dollar City for the upcoming year. This past weekend they got to visit the KC Legoland Discovery Center and the KC Sea Life Aquarium, which are two more things that are simply not accessible to a lot of kids. Based on what I see on Facebook, though, I suspect that we do fewer events like this than the average family.
It is this contrast that is making me wonder, do kids do more things like this that back twenty, thirty, forty, or fifty years ago? When you were a kid did you go to amusement parks much (more than once a year)? Did you visit zoos much or fairs, or Chuck E. Cheese's, or other such things? Were there other things you did more that offset modern amusements that weren't available to you?
I'm not one to complain that kids these days have it too easy, because each generation is faced with it's own unique challenges, and there will always be individual kids in each generation that have to face enormous hardships. I am wondering if the difference I am noticing is age-related, money-related, city-versus-rural-background-related, or something else entirely, though.
It's in contrast to this that I notice that our kids have gotten to experience a lot of the things I would have dreamed of as a kid. They have gotten to experience multiple amusement parks, zoos, pumpkin patches, because the opportunity was there. In fact, we have already purchased season tickets to Silver Dollar City for the upcoming year. This past weekend they got to visit the KC Legoland Discovery Center and the KC Sea Life Aquarium, which are two more things that are simply not accessible to a lot of kids. Based on what I see on Facebook, though, I suspect that we do fewer events like this than the average family.
It is this contrast that is making me wonder, do kids do more things like this that back twenty, thirty, forty, or fifty years ago? When you were a kid did you go to amusement parks much (more than once a year)? Did you visit zoos much or fairs, or Chuck E. Cheese's, or other such things? Were there other things you did more that offset modern amusements that weren't available to you?
I'm not one to complain that kids these days have it too easy, because each generation is faced with it's own unique challenges, and there will always be individual kids in each generation that have to face enormous hardships. I am wondering if the difference I am noticing is age-related, money-related, city-versus-rural-background-related, or something else entirely, though.
Sunday, January 20, 2013
the basis of faith
What is the basis of your faith? If you believe in God, why? If you trust in God, why? Is the reasoning you tell yourself or others the real reason? Do you know?
I have thought long and hard about this a lot over the last few years. I hear people talk about trusting in God because He has cared for them in difficult times. What if God appeared to disappear and times got harder? I have heard people point to specific scientific or philosophical rationales for God's existence or care. What if those rationales were disproved? I have heard people refer to past miraculous experiences as the basis for their faith, but what if those experiences were proved to be hoaxes or the product of people in suggestible conditions?
I will say that if there is a physical rationale that I personally give for my belief and trust in God it is that Scripture's description of our sinful natures explains humanity to me better than anything else, and every study that I hear on human nature reaffirms my view that we are deeply-flawed, selfish beings who have to resort to vanity and pride in order to behave well. We are in dire need of a savior if there really are such things as holiness and judgment. This is probably not the proper basis of my faith, though.
My earlier questions are important for a few reasons. First, perspectives change as we age. We see the foolishness in past opinions and approaches. What is a basis of faith now may be a reason for abandoning the faith later in life. Second, and much more important, is faith that is dependent on some earthly thing really the sort of faith that Scripture talks about? I don't think it is.
Any person who has been to more than a handful of church services in his or her life will at some point have heard a sermon on the Hebrews 11 hall of faith. Apart from Gideon, who it may be argued based his faith on water and wool, everyone else listed in the chapter believed in God and trusted Him just because.
For a long while I did not think there was such a thing as blind faith. If God was God, I reasoned, we would not be able to look far before He was obvious. I have somewhat flipped my thinking on that now, though. I now believe that faith is a gift from God in that He is obvious on some level to those He gifts with faith. He is not obvious to those who either are not looking for the real Him, or to those to whom He has not revealed Himself. I don't think that this obviousness is available in any other way than as something He bestows on us. I think this faith from God is sturdy enough to withstand the doubts that other forms of "faith" ultimately lead to.
This all is not a philosophy that I am entirely comfortable with. I like to be in control, and this cedes control to God. This also opens me to the possibility of looking stupid because I am following something other than my ability to reason. I can't generate the faith I need by rationalizing why God is real, trustworthy, or good, because my human rationalizations will eventually lead to making it appear that God is not any of those things. But how does one go about asking for faith from another, or rather The Other? Do I really want to go through the things that create and strengthen true faith? How do I know the faith I have is not a delusion?
I have thought long and hard about this a lot over the last few years. I hear people talk about trusting in God because He has cared for them in difficult times. What if God appeared to disappear and times got harder? I have heard people point to specific scientific or philosophical rationales for God's existence or care. What if those rationales were disproved? I have heard people refer to past miraculous experiences as the basis for their faith, but what if those experiences were proved to be hoaxes or the product of people in suggestible conditions?
I will say that if there is a physical rationale that I personally give for my belief and trust in God it is that Scripture's description of our sinful natures explains humanity to me better than anything else, and every study that I hear on human nature reaffirms my view that we are deeply-flawed, selfish beings who have to resort to vanity and pride in order to behave well. We are in dire need of a savior if there really are such things as holiness and judgment. This is probably not the proper basis of my faith, though.
My earlier questions are important for a few reasons. First, perspectives change as we age. We see the foolishness in past opinions and approaches. What is a basis of faith now may be a reason for abandoning the faith later in life. Second, and much more important, is faith that is dependent on some earthly thing really the sort of faith that Scripture talks about? I don't think it is.
Any person who has been to more than a handful of church services in his or her life will at some point have heard a sermon on the Hebrews 11 hall of faith. Apart from Gideon, who it may be argued based his faith on water and wool, everyone else listed in the chapter believed in God and trusted Him just because.
For a long while I did not think there was such a thing as blind faith. If God was God, I reasoned, we would not be able to look far before He was obvious. I have somewhat flipped my thinking on that now, though. I now believe that faith is a gift from God in that He is obvious on some level to those He gifts with faith. He is not obvious to those who either are not looking for the real Him, or to those to whom He has not revealed Himself. I don't think that this obviousness is available in any other way than as something He bestows on us. I think this faith from God is sturdy enough to withstand the doubts that other forms of "faith" ultimately lead to.
This all is not a philosophy that I am entirely comfortable with. I like to be in control, and this cedes control to God. This also opens me to the possibility of looking stupid because I am following something other than my ability to reason. I can't generate the faith I need by rationalizing why God is real, trustworthy, or good, because my human rationalizations will eventually lead to making it appear that God is not any of those things. But how does one go about asking for faith from another, or rather The Other? Do I really want to go through the things that create and strengthen true faith? How do I know the faith I have is not a delusion?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
