The Meaning of Christian Faith
Part # 2
There are other heroes, among them another Christian, less well known but
nonetheless important in his own right, E. Stanley Jones, a Methodist
missionary
mostly to India, and someone who sought to infuse as much of the wisdom of
India into Christian faith as he could -always with the proviso that this
should never compromise his faith. Hence his friendships with some
of the most prominent Hindus of his generation -including Nehru.
.
None of this means reluctance to offer objective criticisms of other people
and their faiths and, of course, also of one's own faith. Openness to
others
does not mean not seeing their faults. Schweitzer in particular had some
acidic comments to make about the state of African mentality as he knew it
in Gabon. He was well aware that it would take generations before the
people of that country could possibly enter the mainstream of civilization.
Their spirituality was not much different than folklore fantasy and much
of that was based on questionable psychology -which is to be kind about
it.
And Jones understood that issues of the lower classes in India would also
take decades to ameliorate, there was a mountain to climb for the entire
nation.
There also were prejudices to overcome both in Africa and India. But trying
to be objective was the only good way to make a start that had any chance
of success, an objectivity that included acknowledgement of one's own
shortcomings and those of Western civilization. There is no question
about the accomplishments of the West but that is far from all there
is to say about Europe and America.
There are, needless to say, a large numbers of Americans whom I admire,
few as much as Ben Franklin and Teddy Roosevelt, each great polymaths
at home as much among towering intellects as they were among
"average citizens." And there is Mark Twain, sometimes ribald, always
funny, a creative writer like few others, whose life was an adventure.
To whom, in this context should be added the name of a Japanese
Zen Buddhist monk who lived in the 18th century, someone named Hakuin
-also sometimes funny, sometimes utterly self-effacing, but always
true to his Buddhist faith.
Another Japanese who should be noted is Kobo Daishi, founder of the Shingon
sect of Japanese Buddhism. He not only set out to build engineering works
of value to communities of his era, especially a dam to create a lake for a
town,
but he established the first school system in the history of his nation. He
also
was unafraid to make criticism of other faiths part of his philosophy
inasmuch
as there are differences between religions and, clearly, some are
essentially good,
some are more good than otherwise, and a few are mostly failures in the
world
-and it is about time we said so.
That is, exactly why should we privilege the Universalist - Baha'i-
Theosophist
view that all religions (all of them) are essentially equal and above
criticism?
That outlook is preposterous when you analyze the facts of history -which
I do not say with any kind of glee, once having been a Baha'i myself. Its
just
that this doctrine is a travesty of truth despite the good intentions
behind it.
If it hurts someone's feelings to realize that his or her faith is
objectionable
on all kinds of objective grounds, sorry about that, but you need
to face the facts and grow up.
Not incidentally, Hannah Adams, the founder of Comparative Religion in
the United States in the early 19th century, also took a view of religion
similar to that of Kobo Daishi. Hannah Adams differentiated between
Christian groups as well as between Christianity and non-Christian faiths,
but in all cases striving to be open and honest about what her research
uncovered. As you might expect, she regarded Christian faith as superior
to all other religions and within Christianity she was most favorably
disposed to the more "liberal" denominations, but she reported what she
knew all the while seeking to be accurate in her descriptions. What is
important not to forget is that what was so radical was that, even if she
criticized, say, Buddhism or Hinduism, she nonetheless recognized
good qualities that could be found within these traditions.. Few Christians
before her time had any such view. Many today still have not gone that far.
Additional heroes of mine include Henri Saint-Simon, about whom I have
written
at some length, James Madison, Frank Lloyd Wright, historian William T, Mc
Neill, Cicero, Vico, to name some with obvious name recognition. And
Martin Luther
King, Jr. -although with reservations. His inconsistencies are troubling
and he
took 'short cuts' in writing his dissertation, compromising his integrity,
but
his accomplishments were huge.
The most relevant hero not mentioned so far is Martin Luther, the inspired
religious leader of the 1500s who launched the Protestant Reformation.
About Luther there is too much to say about the man for a short essay.
He also had limitations although the worst, the anti-Semitism of his
later years, needs qualification inasmuch as he did not start that way.
He was pro-Jewish to begin with but after repeated rejections changed
his outlook. Still, this is a serious issue and should not be minimized.
But in his age that kind of attitude was hardly unique and like other
flawed heroes, he was a man of his times.
This leaves everything else. How do you select what is most consequential?
You can almost say that it all is important. Luther was a gifted writer
with
a sharp mind and encyclopedic knowledge at his command. But here are
several quotations taken from various "quote" sites on the Web that give us
an impression of the man.
“He who loves not wine, women and song remains a fool his whole life long.”
.
"Be a sinner and sin strongly, but more strongly have faith and rejoice in
Christ"
"God writes the Gospel not in the Bible alone, but also on trees, and in
the flowers and clouds and stars."
.
"There is no wisdom save in truth."
.
"Let the wife make the husband glad to come home, and let him
make her sorry to see him leave."
"I have no pleasure in any man who despises music. It is no invention
of ours: it is a gift of God. I place it next to theology. Satan hates
music:
he knows how it drives the evil spirit out of us."
"Are you a believer? If you really are, then speak boldly. Do you speak
boldly?
Then you must suffer. Do you suffer? You shall be comforted. This is the
way of faith. For where there is confession of faith there is the cross."
" I would advise no one to send his child where the Holy Scriptures are
not supreme. Every institution that does not unceasingly pursue the study
of God's word becomes corrupt. Because of this we can see what kind
of people they become in the universities and what they are like now."
.
.
Martin Luther was as earthy as anyone can get, but earthy and Christian
at the same time. He never denied his human nature; he was well aware
of the complexities of life also. Hence his strong sense of realism. We are
all imperfect beings who, at most, can try to be better than our fallen
natures.
But that much is saving grace, it gives us reason to continue to strive
onwards
toward the goal of life in Christ.
Luther spoke his mind. To paraphrase: Islam is the Devil's invention.
Sodomy is a sure path to Hell. Corrupt rulers do not deserve to be in power
and should be removed. You can't buy your way into Heaven. Violence isn't
evil per se, but when it is unjust it is an abomination. Luke warm faith
is no faith
at all, it is pretense.
And he said so much more. But let me focus on his views of Satan. For
Luther
knew that this is to speak of a malignant being who is painfully real and
who
destroys not only from the outside, but from within. To deny Satan's
existence
is to deny reality -for we are all susceptible to evil because we are all
sinners.
It is the human condition. We cannot escape it, we must accept it for
what it is and seek one way we know for sure that provides an escape,
faith in Christ. For Jesus knows, God knows, the Holy Spirit knows,
that we will fall down again and again in this life, but through faith
we will always get up again and once more try to do our best.
In other words, despite the fact that sin is unavoidable it is not
"natural" to us.
It was put into us in the Garden of Eden because of an evil being and it is
an evil being that continually insinuates evil into us even with the
blessing
of grace in our lives from the Holy Spirit. Recognizing the reality of
Satan,
therefore, is to recognize that we do not need to be evil, we do not need
to do evil, and to understand that we can rise above evil.
There are different translations of Luther's hymn, "Ein Feste Burg,"
but the version found in the United Methodist Hymnal Number 110
perhaps says it best:
.
A mighty fortress is our God,
a bulwark never failing;
our helper he amid the flood
of mortal ills prevailing.
For still our ancient foe
doth seek to work us woe;
his craft and power are great,
and armed with cruel hate,
on earth is not his equal.
verse 3
And though this world, with devils filled,
Should threaten to undo us,
We will not fear, for God hath willed
His truth to triumph through us:
The Prince of Darkness grim,
We tremble not for him;
His rage we can endure,
For lo! his doom is sure,
One little word shall fell him.
We live in a state of war against the Devil at all times. It is a child's
fairy tale
to believe anything else. And war requires warriors and a fighting spirit.
So how can Jesus be a meek and mild savior? Jesus is, as Luther saw him,
a Crusader, a champion of the oppressed, and a hard-nosed attorney for
the defense for those who are unjustly accused. Yes, Jesus taught a
message
of purest love but that was not all he did. It would be nice if Christians
grasped this principle. Reducing Christian faith just to the "love
passages"
in the New Testament is to misunderstand Christ horribly.
The crucial question is: Do you want all of Christ or only half? For if
you
regard Jesus as only a pacifistic saint then you simply do not understand
the Gospels or his real life.
After all, Christ did not have a loving and comforting conversation with
Satan
when he was tempted in the wilderness. The Devil sought to destroy Jesus
and toward that end he used every dirty trick he could think of. Does the
Bible really spell everything out to best effect? I don't think so, but
enough
is explained to get the point across. Still, we can add more, as did
Luther.
An online compilation of quotes from Martin Luther edited by Don Matzat,
"How Martin Luther Dealt With the Devil," includes a quote that is
especially
worth thinking about. It starts out like this:
"Let us learn clearly to recognize the tricks and subtleties of the devil.
No heretic comes in the name of error or Satan, nor does the devil himself
come as devil..."
To this we may add that Satan as often as not comes dressed up in white
as if
he is all good. He comes in disguises of many kinds. We need to learn to
see evil
for what it is no matter how nice it may seem at first. As Luther also
said,
Satan operates through "cunning and lies." These may be products of the
Religious Right as well as the Religious Left, or of the political Left or
Right.
There is no partisan interpretation of the source of evil that can
possibly
be true. And if you don't do some self-criticism along the way you can
be
certain that you have overlooked something important.
-----
What, then, is Christian faith?
It necessarily includes something of the way of life and compassion that
characterizes the woman I have identified as Evangeline. I have never known
anyone like her before. She has given me hope, she set in motion a series
of inner events that allowed me to pick myself up from the floor and start
again.
And she did so despite all of the serious problems that currently beset
her life.
I have problems of my own and they are bad enough, but her's are worse
and yet she has taken time to be a help to me at exactly the time I needed
help the most. If that isn't a living Christian faith, what is?
However, and this part of the story is too long to explain everything
here,
you will need to take my word about it, there also is a serious weakness
in Evangeline's form of faith precisely because it is just about 100%
based
on love and close to zero % based of a fighting spirit. The result has
been that
she has been taken advantage of all too many times in her life.
I remember all too well how Evangeline tried -many times- to awaken
something
of Jesus' spirit in a cynical old woman who habitually saw the worst in
people
and interpreted their lives accordingly, who, in the bargain invented
evils
she ascribed to Evangeline, I think to compensate for her own sick mind
and sick values. That woman, of course had been my mother but who,
several years ago in her late 80s and into her 90s, became a travesty
of a human being, incapable of anything but disgusting self-centeredness.
None of which stopped Evangeline from trying -to no avail. Except that
I was sometimes on the premises and her witness for Christ reached me
and in the process we became friends.
Evangeline's virtues must be emphasized. If there are weaknesses, her
strengths
matter far more. Foremost among them is her unwillingness to be deceived
by appearances. She knows, full well, the story of Job. He was a man who
had everything and then lost it all. But none of his losses were due to
negligence
on his part, or secret evil deeds, or irresponsibility, or anything else
of the sort.
As the story has it, it all was a test engineered by Satan to see if Job's
faith
was real. And so he suffered relentlessly for years.
Of course, similar stories can say much the same thing even if the
scenario
is different in particulars. The point is that visible success does not
necessarily
translate into rewards for righteousness in life. In fact, material success
may happen in the lives of criminals or, simply greedy sons-of-bitches.
Or even more-or-less honest but shallow people.
Sometimes criminals are found out; but think of all the wealth that Berne
Madoff
accumulated before his dishonesty became public knowledge. If he had not
been caught he would have continued to be regarded as a model of what
someone should be. Others may not be criminals yet hardly deserve vast
riches
that come to them; there are many hypocrites, or selfish and grasping
people
who acquire fortunes: Owners of coal strip mines, war profiteers,
real estate speculators, and you name it. On what moral basis did they
gain their wealth? None that anyone sane can think of.
Conversely, all kinds of good and decent people have had little or nothing
by way of riches to show for lifetimes of effort. But was Gandhi a
"failure"?
His possessions at the end consisted of the rags he wore as clothing
and a pair of worn out sandals.
.
Was composer Eric Satie a failure? At his death he owned a collection of
books
but almost nothing else. While he cannot be classified among the great
musicians
of all time he was very good and some of his music is now eternal, and
will
always be played in concerts. Or think of another composer, someone who
was truly great, Antonio Vivaldi. When he died he was impoverished
and owned almost nothing.
.
The famed existentialist philosopher, Soren Kierkegaard, ended up
impoverished
also. So did another major figure in literature, Franz Kafka. And maybe
more to
the point for most Americans, Nicola Tesla, who gave the world AC
electrical
current, also ended up with next-to-nothing despite his accomplishments.
And
there was Lee de Forest, the "father of radio," a man with numerous high
tech
patents but who also had many enemies who harassed him with endless
litigation
most of his adult life. At his death de Forest had $1250 in his bank
account,
not a penny more.
Of course, if you are an Atheist who regards the Bible as so much nonsense
you would not even know about the story of Job and would not have
those images in your mind against which to judge people -so that you
might be able to make something other than superficial judgments.
Evangeline understands this with complete clarity.
But she does not know how to defend herself, or how to fight back
effectively
when she is unfairly attacked. Or lied about. Or slandered.
So, yes, her example is indelibly in my mind. She shows through her life
something important about what a Christian should be. But her limitations
do not allow me to stop there, not at all.
There is another weakness also, although this is in terms of degree rather
than an absolute problem. The question derives from Schweitzer; his views
was that it is up to each of us to build our own "Lambaréné." What, with
lasting
meaning, can you bequeath to the world? In Evangeline's case it could have
been her extended family. Unfortunately her children, 'natural' as well as
adopted, turned against her when she showed forgiveness to her erring
husband of 30 years. At least ten of her twelve children, almost all
are now grown adults, have essentially disowned her. Even her church,
where she gave tirelessly of her time for many years, has shunned her.
I am one of very few people who accept her for what she is
and for what kind of person she has always sought to be.
In any case, now she has no "Lambaréné legacy." Clearly you need
to go beyond your immediate family to accomplish that kind of thing.
It need not be a hospital -or any institution for that matter. But
something
that can stand on its own even after you are gone.
Of course, this is easier said than done. At least from my perspective
Christian witness in modern-day America is basically pathetic. Its theology
is threadbare, its "star" preachers are sometimes poorly educated, and
many of its true believers have no idea how to proceed in today's alien
society and, as a result, hand one victory after another to nihilists on
the Left,
finding rationalizations for even the worst of diseases of the soul like
homosexuality. And there is no way to co-operate with these people.
Its either their way or the highway, which means buying into a set of
ideas
that mean less and less to fewer and fewer people.
Not that megachurches and other large scale churches are about to fade
away.
That isn't going to happen, those are thriving institutions that provide a
range of
valuable services to members. But there is a price of admission, belief
in
"theology lite," non-belief in the truths of science, and cultural
insularity.
And for them there is just one social issue, abortion, a war that has been
essentially won, and about everything else they are ready to compromise
on almost any issue.
.
These are general observation, however. What has meant the most to me
has been effects, or non-effects, on my private life. I made sure that
people
knew I had made a new commitment to Christian faith. The result was.....
approximately nothing.
.
Except for Evangeline, and except for your fleeting concern that lasted
maybe
a couple of weeks, no-one cared in any way. It was as if people had said
to me, after expressing newfound re-commitment to Christ, "that's nice,
now leave me alone, I'm not interested."
.
Well, all right. I can take a hint. I know what that kind of reaction
means.
It is not difficult to figure out. It means that the CQ, "Christian
Quotient"
of believers whom I know, is close to zero except for lip service and
possibly involvement in a local church community. And that is as far
as it goes. To the extent that this is true at large in America it is no
wonder that people who say they have no religion are now 20%
of the total population.
Clearly the time has come for a new kind of Christian faith. But it cannot
be 'traditional' in either a conservative or a liberal sense. Those
paradigms
are dead or dying. It cannot make most of the assumptions that believers
habitually make, unquestioned, as if anything else is unthinkable.
The Bible contains many errors of fact; sometimes it is inconsistent
with itself. Each and every error needs to be admitted for what it is
and faced honestly -and then move on to the vast number of truths
in the book's pages, which essentially are unaffected by mistakes
elsewhere in the text. The testimony of science needs to be accepted
for what it is, a repository of many truths, truths of all kinds,
including
and especially evolution. This is not to say Atheistic Darwinism
(even if Darwin himself wasn't an Atheist) inasmuch as in my view
purpose and intelligence and even Spirit are built into nature,
but evolution nonetheless.
Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny; isn't everything else obvious?
A "New Christianity" also needs to make the truths of other faiths its own
truths
-the way that Schweitzer did, or E. Stanley Jones, and many others, none
of whom by today's standards could be considered "modernists." What
modernists, after all, have the kind of deep commitment to Jesus that
Schweitzer had? Answer: None.
This needs to be serious and lasting. Not something that maybe draws your
attention for a month or so and then is completely forgotten. This is to
talk
about a kind of Christian faith where Jesus is central but where the
truths
found in Buddhism actually matter and are part of normal conversation
at least now and then, and the same for Hinduism, Taoism, Confucianism,
even Zoroastrianism. And it should go without saying, Hebrew religion and
the religion of the ancient Mid East on which it is ultimately based.
This
necessarily means the Bible -but read in an altogether new way. The
Bible,
once you understand what it really is, is a book filled with discoveries
to make,
it is anything but a catechism which should be memorized because there
are
no serious questions that can possibly be asked of it.
Which is my great dilemma. The way that Evangelicals read the Bible is
some
kind of joke. Everything is taken at face value, nothing is questioned,
there is
no curiosity about historical truths, the level of mentality involved is
child-like,
and this despite I Corinthians 13:
.
When I was a child,
I spoke like a child,
I thought like a child,
I reasoned like a child;
when I became a man,
I gave up childish ways.
For now we see in a mirror dimly,
but then face to face.
Now I know in part;
then I shall understand fully,
even as I have been fully understood
.
All of this passes over the heads of Evangelicals -who treasure childish
ways
of thinking all of their adult lives. Objectivity, scientific reasoning, a
questioning
mind, none of this is regarded as virtuous in a religious context, indeed,
such things may be seen as impediments to faith.
.
I cannot stand that kind of outlook.
.
These things said, however, I also know quite well that it is difficult in
extremis
to find the kind of compassionate faith embodied in Evangeline's life
unless
you read the Bible the way that Evangelicals read it. Albert Schweitzer
proved
that this kind of mentality is not necessary but where are today's
Schweitzers?
There do not seem to be any.
.
And so, a dilemma with -so far- no resolution. This represents a problem
of greatest consequence for me. Something simply does not add up.
For the time being I have no good way to answer my own question.
There is more to think about, however...
We live in a pluralistic world; the 19th century is over. The 1950s are
behind us.
There are more Hindus in the United States than Episcopalians. There are
more Buddhists than there are Jews. And when discussing the rest of the
world we are talking about nearly a billion Hindus and a minimum
of 250 million Buddhists although the real number is probably much
higher.
But forget about Islam except as something to avoid and discredit. So
what
if it is monotheistic ? It is criminal in character and does not belong
in civilized
society. It should be outlawed as a danger to everyone else.
Most of all a new kind of Christian faith needs to be dynamic the way that
Martin Luther was dynamic -and always questioning, always finding
something
new, and always returning to the fundamental message of Jesus.
The idea is that if it comes down to it you would sacrifice your life
for the truths he taught and lived.
Finally, let me cite, once more, the example of Don West of the
Appalachian South Folklife Center in Pipestem, West Virginia.
Don, who died in 1992, was someone I knew in person back in the
1970s. What I did not know about him in those years were two things:
(1) In the 1930s, into the early 1940s, he had been a "fellow traveler"
to a number of Communists although he seems to have never joined
the Communist Party. This part of his story remains kind of murky
but he consistently denied ever joining and, in any case, he became
thoroughly disillusioned with Marxism and eventually walked away from
people he knew in the movement. The exact date of his exit from hard left
associations is unknown but no later than before the end of WWII.
He did remain sympathetic to Christian Socialism and was greatly
influenced by the Social Gospel; that much I knew and never had any
problem with since they are sympathies of my own.
(2) He had once studied religion at Vanderbilt Divinity School as
preparation
for the ministry. This was during the Depression, however, and events of
that
era radicalized him and he became a union activist -which earned him
not only the opprobrium of many business leaders of the time, but led
to threats against this life and, on several occasions, physical danger.
What is most interesting in the present context was the time he spent
as a student of religion at Vanderbilt. His interest in and knowledge of
Christian tradition was deep and sincere.
It was Don West, during an unforgettable evening in West Virginia
in 1973, who I listened to with great interest as he talked about Jesus
during one of our sometimes lengthy conversations. I cannot remember
the exact words but what he said went something like this:
"I do not know about the supernatural side of Christian faith. I don 't
think
anyone knows. Maybe the stories in the Gospels are true and maybe they
are myths. But one thing is certain: Jesus gave everything for what
he believed in. He gave his life. And that is good enough for me.
At death there may be nothing at all. It would be good if there was
more but we cannot know. Regardless, I take my stand with Jesus
and if there is nothing more after death at least I will know that
I did the right thing with my life"
That is pretty much how I feel about questions of faith also. One thing
I refuse to do, which is so popular among many people I know, is to live
a lie.
People lie about me all the time, of course. So, yes, I know about lying
by other people that sabotages your life.
Which is to say that others may lie as part of who they are, and not give
a
damn about who is injured in the process. And they may lie to themselves
so that they don't have to admit to themselves what a miserable failure
their lives have been. But I sure in hell will do no such thing.
.
What I also will not do is forgive anyone for baseless lying about me
-and in cases about lying about others. To be sure, the Bible talks about
forgiveness, which is distinctive of Christian faith although you can find
this
theme discussed in the Old Testament also. But in all cases, there is
a prerequisite for forgiveness, sincere, heart-felt repentance. This is
essential. Numerous Bible verses attest to exactly this requirement.
That some Christians seem all-too-eager to forgive others, no need
for them to repent of anything, strikes me as stupid and suicidal.
Who can say? Maybe in some exceptional circumstances I might forgive
someone even of a grievous transgression. However, the circumstances
would really need to be exceptional. In any case, if the damages are
irreparable,
or if something has been permanently lost because of someone else's sick
mind
and diseased values, especially if things are made worse by that person's
lying
to cover his crime. I cannot forgive the unforgivable. And I don't think
anyone else
should forgive the unforgivable, either.
.
So, please do not expect me to be the kind of Christian that many or most
Evangelicals are. There is much about them that is good and even noble
but as I see it, they also base their lives on several major mistakes
of judgement. I do not wish to make those same mistakes.
My faith is imperfect. It leaves even some important questions unanswered.
But it is my faith and I am not in the least reluctant to tell others
about it.
Even if they otherwise believe lies about me.
As Christians go, I guess I'm not much. OK, but at least in my own
imperfect way I try. And that is the best I can do.
Billy R.
Eugene, Oregon
April 19, 2016
--
--
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
