Faith is a wasteland

What if you came to the "X" on a treasure map and you found rubbish? What if you came to the City of Gold and it was plundered? What if you found paradise and it was a wasteland? There is a dark side to faith that no one wants to talk about. There is an ugliness, like a burned faced or a missing limb, that is not seen, not because it is hidden, but because our sensibilities cause us to look away. We want to believe everything will turn out alright. We want to believe that there are answers for all our questions. We want to believe that our faith will be rewarded. But what if this is not the case? What if there is no point to faith?

I think an honest faith needs to be able to answer questions like these. I think that faith needs to be able to stand the ultimate test, and if we shy away from such doubts, or if we hide behind religious platitudes then we are doing our God, or our religion, a huge disservice. As a Christian I honor God by holding to my faith in the face of doubt, but in order to do this I must recognize my doubt. I must own it and accept it. I find no value for those who treat doubt as though it were the enemy of faith. Many faithful believers exist out there who have so much doubt built up in their hearts that they have allowed their faith to make them the worst liars. For them faith is the act of hiding doubt instead of accepting it. And I would like to note at this point that one can still accept doubt and not be a doubter.

Doubt and faith have an interesting relationship. One that is not necessarily antithetical. Doubt is akin to a disease, a fault, but at the same time it can be a cure and a disease which keeps other diseases at bay. Doubt does not prevent faith, but it does test it. A faith which can exist in the face of doubt can either be turned into something horrid, or something sublime. It becomes horrid when it retreats into itself and isolates itself from the world. It cuts itself off from its source and its integrity. It becomes sublime when it accepts the doubt and exists alongside it. When doubt is validated it is conquered. When it is appeased it conquers us. When it is ignored it eats us alive.

Doubt and faith are compatible. Doubt seems to refer to a state of mind, while faith refers to a state of the will. It is possible to not be able to make sense of a given belief, but to still will ourselves to believe it anyway. This is often considered blind faith, but is it blind when it is admitted? Consider a man who has exhausted all options and discovered that there is no way to intellectually assent to the idea that life is worth living. There is no way to make sense of a meaningful life, but he still wills himself to pursue and find meaning. He still chooses that which makes no sense to him. This man cares very little what doubts he may have. His faith has swallowed them. Once he makes the decision to live a meaningful life the intellectual doubts matter very little. Why?

His experience of the world changes.

The modern man experiences doubt differently then the pre-modern man. In the past doubt made faith a necessity. Doubt drug us down into despair and hopelessness. It made life meaningless. The only option was to have faith. In such an age blind faith was common and understandable, but critical philosophy has done away with the threat of doubt. Doubt becomes a virtue in our modern world. It is the skeptic who is seen as the wise man, and the man who responsibly doubts is one who is successful at finding truth. Although critical philosophy has dulled the teeth of doubt it has not been able to add meaning into human life. It has only guaranteed that such meaning does not have to arise out of necessity. So we are left with a minor distinction. Those who want to live a life by avoiding meaninglessness can successfully do so in our modern world using the tools and resources available to him, but the man who desires to have meaning in his life must face his doubt. He can have the security of knowing that his choice is his own, but it comes at a price. He would have essentially cut himself off from the power of his faith. The recognition that a meaningful life is now his own choice presents the dilemma that our faith may simply be a self-generated illusion.

Now this may just mean that faith turns us all into schizophrenics, and that is the reality we have to face. The Criticism which allows us to overcome doubt also reduces our faith to a self-generated imposition on reality. This is the wasteland of faith. This is the hopelessness of that which gives us hope. We can either allow faith to isolate us and direct us inward until we become a cult or we can let faith conquer doubt and in so doing make faith equivalent to voodoo or the power of the will.

We have no escape. This is the hard reality that we all face. Any refusal to accept this is only indicative that you have already gone down one of the two roads discussed above. This is the darkside of faith. It has to be accepted, and it has to be experienced. Like Ezekiel and the valley of dry bones and Christ at Golgoltha. Some pains cannot be thwarted. Some injuries cannot be avoided. This is the weakness of faith...

But it is not the end. We can experience the wasteland and be wasted. Or we can be transformed. Dare I say resurrected? There is still an option left open to us... We can have faith in faith. Faith in faith accepts the limits of our faith and the conditions it exists in that for all intents and purposes make us little more then clinically deranged maniacs, and it transmutes it. It turns it in on itself and embraces the condition of man and the wasteland that faith exists in to create a paradise in itself. Faith in faith only requires for itself the possibility that faith can produce a meaningful life. That given the two choices living in the wasteland or living as a machine the former is still always the better. Faith in faith is driven not by the positive attributes of what it offers, but by the negative reality of what should happen should it fail.

Thus, faith is affirmed by the reality of a meaningless life, and the faith in faith is affirmed should our faith fail us. The only positive assertion we have is our experience of the world. Does our experience affirm for us that we ought to have meaning in life? I posit that it does. And there is one word I will say that affirms this is the case...

Courage.

Did you know that the Greek word for "being" (esse) is derived from a seed that bursts forth from the ground. In this single event the best of ancient philosophers found the essence of our entire existence. "Being" that word which describes and confounds everything is not some static idea which exists apart from us. It is us. It is me. It is that eraser nub. It is a car jack. It is love. It is laughter. It is violence. It is that bending tree branch. It is a smile. It is lost. It is found.  Within it contains the hidden idea that existence is continually bursting itself outward. Being is a dynamic thrust.

For man this thrust is courage. It is not good enough that we simply and passively burst out into existence. Our sentience exists as well, and this continual development and process requires a participation on our behalf. We have to will it. We have to want it. We have to have the courage to be. Being man, as man, requires courage. I dare say that this courage requires a source a ground, and that ground is faith. Faith and courage become a formidable pair and when combined inside an honest heart they become a synthesis for a New Being. At least that is what Paul Tillich believed, and it is an idea that resonates of Gospel power.

The modern believer must face the wasteland. And I believe that this wasteland is an invitation for a pilgrimage. A pilgrimage that the modern believer must venture on and at all costs regardless of the risk complete either at the slow decay of his faith, or the resurrection of it.

Morality and Religion - Part II

It was discussed in the previous article concerning morality that there is an essential problem for Christians today when it comes to moral integrity and religious devotion. And even though we experience this problem in our modern world, a search through the Biblical text can reveal to us that this is not an exclusive problem.

Even the novice reader of the NT can pick up on the conflict which existed between Christian churches which existed in the Jewish diaspora and the Jerusalem church. Apparently, the Jerusalem church was a more conservative religious community and they were concerned about the possible moral libertinism which existed in the diaspora churches that Paul was responsible for (Acts 15:5). Paul taught that Christians did not have to follow the Law (Gal. 3:25). He taught that they were free from the Mosaic Law and that our faith in response to God's grace was the only sufficient indicator for religious devotion and salvific efficacy (Eph. 2:8). Paul even went further to suggest that all moral law was trumped by God's grace to suggest that Christians were entirely free to live their lives as they saw fit and it could not effect God's grace in the slightest (Col. 2). Paul's only appeal to Christian morality was one of responsibility and accountability (1 Cor. 10:23).

These conservative Christians believed that there was an implicit morality to their Christian belief. They were to follow the Mosaic Law and abide by its moral norms. Paul on the other hand actually represents liberal theology for the NT church. His strong conviction was that we are not saved by works. According to this line of thinking "works" would also have to include morality. In Pauline thinking salvation and Christian belief have nothing to do with moral praxis. It is commonly believed that James writes in response to Paul's liberalism and makes sure to teach that faith without works is dead (James 2:14).

James is believed to be a part of that Jerusalem church which had issues with Paul. One of the great moments in Acts is when we get to see these church fathers sit down and discuss their issues with one another. At the end of the day a bargain was struck. Paul could teach that we are not saved by works as long as he stipulated that Christians were not to drink blood or eat meat from animals sacrificed to idols. Basically, the Jerusalem church wanted to make sure that there was a clear distinction between pagans and Christians. This was, of course, Paul's desire as well. In the end they were able to agree on a fundamental principle. Which is a showcase of Christian unity.

I get the feeling that when we discuss the issue of a Biblical morality we are being transported two thousand years into the past standing in the same shoes as Paul and James. My hope is that there is an agreement between the two sides that can be seen as fundamentally Christian and allow God's grace to dominate the rest. In many ways I can't fight the feeling that when we look to passages in the NT which speak of homosexuality, abstinence, a woman's role, divorce, or finances we immediately go back to a mentality of legalism and works. And I wonder if there is a deeper issue which is being ignored.

Despite this criticism, I do believe that we can be  followers of the Bible and overwhelm humanity with Christian love. But this will have to be developed as we move through this topic. I
t is fair to say that what the Jerusalem council gives us is a negative example of what this means. Christians should not look like pagans, or the "world". We should be separate, distinct, and unique. And it seems that two groups usually dominate the scene in playing this out. The conservative and liberal side. Those who think they separate themselves from the world through strict obedience to the Bible and those who separate themselves from the world through sacrifice and unconditional love for everyone.

What I wish to convey is that both sides have it wrong. Both are morally ambiguous and lack ethical congruity. If a person recklessly give his life away, it has no meaning. It is the same for a person who follows the commands of the Bible without an overarching moral directive independent of the Bible. Love is meaningless without some direction or cause, and a cause is betrayed when we can have no moral integrity in following it. What I intend to show from this series is that not only does the Bible demonstrate an independent morality, but it is in fact our religious and spiritual duty to have an independent morality. An independent morality is the best of all possible circumstances in all scenarios. At the back of our minds we have to always have the nagging question of what would happen if indeed the Bible did give a clear systematic moral framework with absolute independent norms for us to follow? What if the Bible did in fact overcome all criticisms and did in fact give moral norms to serve as an example of our Christian faith? It is my intention to answer that all important question. And I will do it by being true to the Biblical witness and true to the faith that I have in God. Morality and religion do have a relationship with one another, it remains to be seen if this structure is authoritarian or collaborative, or maybe both.

What is important to realize at this point is that it is clear that we have a responsibility as Christians directed toward morality and an obligation to God toward our fellow man. We are supposed to be distinct and unique and we don't have to compromise religion or morality to be true to God and ourselves. The Jerusalem council found a way to do this, and I think we can too.

An Introduction to Neo-Orthodoxy

During the Enlightenment the spirit of rationalism swept through Christianity and created Liberal Protestantism. Liberal Protestantism changed many of the religious principles of Christianity and changed them to represent moral ideals. Scripture was ignored and seen as symbolic or mythical. Being a rationalist movement a symbolic text meant little more then being fake or fiction. The only important thing to salvage of Christianity was a moral ideal.

Liberal Protestantism lost its hold on most during the Great Awakenings. In an ironic fashion Liberal Protestantism forced many Christians and secular to reconsider their spiritual orientation and the movement which began led people back to a more fundamental orientation, rather then embrace the cold rationalism of the Enlightenment.

But the one thing fundamentalism has always lacked was an intellectual backbone. This was revealed early in the twentieth century during the Scopes Trial. This epic trial pitted religion against the secular, and religion lost. It was a famous case that decided if evolution would be taught in schools and the fundamentalists came out with their fists raised high. In the end they were shown to be inferior to the bulwark of science and logic.

In the cauldron of conservative vs liberal there was another system which arose during the 19th century which began to take off into the twentieth century as well. The fires of this movement carry on in our modern times, but many of the terms have changed and it seems most are afraid to name it for what it is. Today, we call it the Emergent movement, but a century and a half ago it was called Neo-Orthodoxy.

The first traces of Neo-Orthodox theology can be found in the Jewish faith by a man named, Rabbi Samson Hirsch. As the world was being changed by such men as Newton and Darwin a growing need arose to reframe the world's religions. Judaism and Christianity both faced this. Many think that Darwin changed the course of Christianity, but the reality is that upon its inception most Christians were unconcerned about the theory of evolution. It caused controversy, to be sure, but there was another book that was published that same year which caused more controversy among Christians and out sold Darwin's "Origin of Species" and that is the book, "Essays and Reviews". This book was for the most part a creation of liberal theology. It undercut just about all the main themes important to religious devotion. It was written by seven different authors. Each author contributed an essay concerning such topics as prophecy, miracles, Biblical interpretation, and hell. It was a groundbreaking piece of work.

There was an accurate and growing concern among many Christians who believed that liberal protestantism was missing the point and that the fundamentalists were going down the wrong path as well. Some found that they could accept the higher criticism of the Bible which came from the liberal camp, but still retain the essence of their religious devotion. This is where Neo-Orthodoxy begins. Neo-Orthodoxy can be seen as a combination of two elements. The theology of Bultmann plus the philosophy of existentialism. Now many neo-orthodox theologians reject many of Bultmann's teachings. He is considered to be quite a liberal theologian, which neo-orthodoxy opposed, but Bultmann was a watershed for Christian academia. The greatness of Bultmann's work was that he was able to reshape the NT as a narrative that did not contain any supernatural elements, including the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Martin Buber, Paul Tillich, Karl Barth, Edward Schillebeeckx, Karl Rahner, Emil Brunner, and Deitrich Bonhoffer have all been considered as neo-orthodox in one way or another. For Bonhoffer this came late in his life. The key to understanding neo-orthodoxy comes from its acceptance of modern science and higher criticism while finding creative and authentic ways of retaining religious devotion and theological integrity. Many on the conservative side rejected Neo-Orthodoxy, but it did have a rather popular heyday during the middle of the twentieth century. Once it was fully realized that Neo-Orthodoxy embraced the same liberal methods of reading the Bible it was pretty much abandoned by the devout, but there was a time when many neo-orthodox scholars had positions in the Evangelical schools we know today. There was hardly any ecumenical support for neo-orthodoxy, except from some Anglican and Lutheran churches.

The reason Neo-Orthodoxy is important for today is because it is a great candidate for a current ecumenical movement which has recently become just as notorious and controversial as Neo-Orthodoxy was in its heyday and that is the Emergent Church movement. Plus, for all intents and purposes Neo-Orthodoxy resolves the conflicts between science and religion, morality and religion, and philosophy and religion. The primary set backs for Neo-Orthodoxy is that is weakens the strength of fundamentalism. It has an emphasis on inclusion rather then exclusion. And it loosens the moral constraints bound to typical religious devotion.

BUT! Neo-Orthodoxy is not a rejection or compromise of religion. The Neo-Orthodox are able to stay true to the Bible and their faith, while maintaining many of the Christian doctrines, like the Trinity, Christology, Pneumatology, and Soteriology. The justifications and explanations of Neo-Orthodoxy will follow on this blog.

Morality and Religion - Part 1

What is the relationship between morality and religion? For Christians, we have the Bible which outlines moral norms for Christians to follow. In modern times this has left Christianity on the wayside of cultural influences. Why listen to what Christians say when they have to follow what the Bible says and when the Bible says nothing concerning a topic they still have to figure out for themselves the appropriate path. 

The Bible may tell us to be monogamous, heterosexual, and abstinent, but it doesn't tell us how to pick a mate, or what moral qualities to look for in a partner. The Bible may tell us to submit to our government, but it doesn't tell us what kind of politics to follow. Christians in this vein have to live normal lives just like every other person. We have to make the same decisions as everyone else makes, but it seems in many ways Christians have the unfortunate disposition of multiplying what sources they go to, to make moral decisions.

For most Christians, I think it is harder to have moral integrity then it is for the unsaved, simply because Christians who (try to) follow the moral teachings of the Bible end up making their ethical point of view more complex then it might need to be. I say this only as a philosopher at this juncture, because it is mainly the task of ethics to reduce our moral influences down to a single principle. For Kant it was duty. For Aristotle it was happiness. Now, it is not my prerogative to state which ethical system is correct, but only to outline that the Christian who follows the moral teachings of the Bible seems to be at an ethical disadvantage.

I say this because the Bible, also, does not give us an ethical system to follow. There is no singular moral virtue that is systematically presented as the ethical core of human life. This can certainly be debated, for we do have in the Bible certain spiritual qualities, like love, grace, and humility. Now it may be true that these spiritual qualities can be ethical foundations, but the Bible certainly does not present this in an argumentative, or systematic approach whereby we may judge them to be the ethical foundations of our moral life. 

For all intents and purposes the Christian still has to find a moral system which is philosophically accurate as every other person in existence has to find. The Bible does not seem to give him any advantage for this, and it seems that no matter the outcome the Bible still has specific moral norms which need to be followed no matter the outcome of our personal search for a moral system to follow. It might just so happen that our moral system conflicts with the moral norms listed in the Bible. If this is the case then what is the appropriate course of action?

For a person to have moral integrity they should be allowed to remain consistent with their own moral system, until such a person can be reasonably sure that there is a flaw in such a system. Now, I suspect, that for most Christians the Bible is such a document that once it exposes a conflict of moral integrity that becomes sufficient evidence to suggest a flaw in the moral system rather then a flaw in the moral norms revealed in the Bible. At this point though we have to admit the reality that in this regard Christians are more likely to be amoral then virtuous.

Now this is not intended in any way to represent the entire spectrum of Evangelical Christianity. Just as I say that "most Christians" do this or that, I also fully understand that for most Christians this does not enter into everyday thought or experience, but this to me only represents a bigger problem. I see an essential conflict in the common everyday reality of Christianity and for those who call themselves Christians this is not even recognized. I suspect this is due to religious devotion. Christians like to assume that their faith protects them from such weaknesses, and maybe this is truly the case, but realize that this is not a resolution to the problem, but an assent. If Christians are to claim that their faith resolves this issue, then there is really no resolution at all. For them the answer may be given, but to the outside world Christians are still seen as amoral and without moral integrity.

If this problem is to be solved then some serious questions have to be asked. And to prevent isolationism on the Christian camp a serious attitude must be adopted toward the Bible and toward our ethical systems. Is it right for Biblical moral norms to have the trump card when it comes to ethical dilemmas? What are we even saved for if moral integrity is impossible in the Christian paradigm? If the moral norms presented in the Bible are to be relativized then what does that say for the sanctity of Scripture? 

I believe that there is a way to approach the teachings of the Bible that do not conflict with ethical systems. I believe the Bible is still holy and relevant for today. I believe it is the Christians responsibility to follow and adhere to the teaching of the Bible. None of these beliefs cause any conflict for me when it comes to my moral integrity or religious devotion. I have simply outlined a problem that I think exists in Christianity today, and like most problems it is unnecessary. At this point you can simply ignore the problem and say that it doesn't exist. You can add to the content of revealed Scripture and impose on it some underlying message that is the content of a systematic ethic, or you can take the Bible for what it is and not make any excuses for it. You can take the problem seriously. Now it just might happen that a solution which presents itself may include all of these options. I do not wish to exclude any possibility, but our attitude should be one that embraces the possibility that our preconceived beliefs might actually be wrong and if that is the case then we should honor God and direct ourselves and our minds toward him, no matter what that means.