Morning Faith With a Cup of Joe
"Has the truth ever tasted so rotten"?
In a world where personal knowledge is limited, faith becomes the necessary glue that holds together our tenuous worldviews. Without it, confusion would abound and a lot of us might begin diving out of windows to the hard pavement below. Tell people that their religious view may need a slight adjustment, or that their political beliefs may be wrong, and a lot of average folk will start killing and maiming in an effort to restore order to the inner world that is their thought life .
This has driven me to the conclusion that there's a need for a column that deals specifically with issues of faith. Something that will lift the spirits like a "Black Beauty" mixed with a shot of pure caffeine--where a man or a woman can linger awhile, contemplate their destiny, and ask questions like: Who would win in a fight, a giant sloth or a grizzly bear? (I'm partial to the grizzly bear, but I accept the possibility that I could be wrong.) Either way, this is the place to be for important issues. Everything that I write is, of course, true. For instance, it would be true to say that this column was written at the Democratic National Convention. The only thing necessary is to substitute the words "Democratic National Convention" for "my living room," then it's true. This is an important journalistic distinction, one used by all of the major journalists. I will carry on with those same deep convictions regarding the truthfulness of my beliefs.
Do I have anything of particular value to add to the conversation, insights so profound as to change the course of nations? Does it matter? Of course not, I've got a forum and I'll use it, by God, to offer my opinion. It may do nothing more than careen about the blog-o-sphere in search of like-minded folk, alienating dissenters, who are, no doubt, heretics. But, it will have served it's purpose, opening up the cranial cavity that is my head and spewing forth diatribes against the enemies of both God and man. And that my friends is, to say the least, super awesome!
This has driven me to the conclusion that there's a need for a column that deals specifically with issues of faith. Something that will lift the spirits like a "Black Beauty" mixed with a shot of pure caffeine--where a man or a woman can linger awhile, contemplate their destiny, and ask questions like: Who would win in a fight, a giant sloth or a grizzly bear? (I'm partial to the grizzly bear, but I accept the possibility that I could be wrong.) Either way, this is the place to be for important issues. Everything that I write is, of course, true. For instance, it would be true to say that this column was written at the Democratic National Convention. The only thing necessary is to substitute the words "Democratic National Convention" for "my living room," then it's true. This is an important journalistic distinction, one used by all of the major journalists. I will carry on with those same deep convictions regarding the truthfulness of my beliefs.
Do I have anything of particular value to add to the conversation, insights so profound as to change the course of nations? Does it matter? Of course not, I've got a forum and I'll use it, by God, to offer my opinion. It may do nothing more than careen about the blog-o-sphere in search of like-minded folk, alienating dissenters, who are, no doubt, heretics. But, it will have served it's purpose, opening up the cranial cavity that is my head and spewing forth diatribes against the enemies of both God and man. And that my friends is, to say the least, super awesome!
Faith in a Material World
Let's start by examining this picture. Lots of people will like this image, many others won't. If you believe that Islam is a religion of hate, you'll probably like it. If you think any such designation is one dimensional, and therefore bigoted, you may already have stopped reading. On the other hand, it could just as easily be anti-Christian, in which case, you might say, "As long as the snark is pointed in the right direction, it's okay."
Maybe I'm the problem, just another bigot looking for an enemy in order to justify my own personal dysfunction. As long as somebody else is a jerk, I'm alright. It can be tough to know these things, especially if you place too much faith in your own faith, and let's be real, that's a pretty easy thing to do.
Never is faith more immediately apparent than in politics. We periodically turn the reins of democracy over to men and woman about whom we know almost nothing. The press is supposed to challenge our would-be leaders with insightful rigor, but frequently seem more interested in throwing rocks at a safe distance, like that dweeb in Junior High who would lob a projectile and then run before you could pound his head in—which is why all real men see the press as a bunch of whining punks who need a good shellacking.
During the final weeks of the last Presidential election, former President Bill Clinton was brought out to help the struggling Obama Campaign. Mitt Romney had dissed 47% of the nation by alleging that they were freeloaders who were feeding at the trough of the government's largess. Senor Clinton was interviewed by an eager press, looking for a way to exploit Romney's behind-closed-doors faux pas. How could anyone say that, just because you paid no income tax, you weren't paying your fair share? And likewise, just because 3% of the nation pays half of all income taxes, why would anyone have a problem suggesting that they should pay more?
The former president, using his considerable gift for linguistic subterfuge pointed to a study he'd read. Apparently, some economists using an arcane mathematical formula had conclusively proven that just because people didn't pay income taxes, doesn't mean that they didn't pay income taxes. In fact, according to this formula, they paid a lot in taxes, even though they hadn't paid any taxes at all. Mr. Clinton said he couldn't easily explain it, but he assured his audience of objective journalists that it made sense nonetheless. And being objective, they knew that when the former president said he had no fallacious intent, he meant it, although some of the female reporters thought he said something else and immediately vacated the building.
The point being that they dutifully spread the word that Mitt Romney had said heinous things about that 47% of the nations freeloaders....I mean taxpayers. Like all apologists for the faith, it didn't matter if they could actually explain it, it only mattered that someone could, if not Bill Clinton, then he knew somebody, who knew somebody, who could. If that isn't a fine example of faith, I don't know what would be!
But politics is not the fish that I'm looking to fry, at least not now. There will, no doubt, be many allusions to faith of all kinds, beginning with my own. This first column will only raise questions, not answer them. After all, the beginning of knowledge is asking questions. Unless we're willing to question our beliefs, how can we rightly determine if our beliefs are meaningful? Magical intuitions is the most common answer. No one says this directly, but they certainly imply it. How else can people who know absolutely nothing, claim to know so much? Magic would seem the only rational explanation, which leads us to religion.
Maybe I'm the problem, just another bigot looking for an enemy in order to justify my own personal dysfunction. As long as somebody else is a jerk, I'm alright. It can be tough to know these things, especially if you place too much faith in your own faith, and let's be real, that's a pretty easy thing to do.
Never is faith more immediately apparent than in politics. We periodically turn the reins of democracy over to men and woman about whom we know almost nothing. The press is supposed to challenge our would-be leaders with insightful rigor, but frequently seem more interested in throwing rocks at a safe distance, like that dweeb in Junior High who would lob a projectile and then run before you could pound his head in—which is why all real men see the press as a bunch of whining punks who need a good shellacking.
During the final weeks of the last Presidential election, former President Bill Clinton was brought out to help the struggling Obama Campaign. Mitt Romney had dissed 47% of the nation by alleging that they were freeloaders who were feeding at the trough of the government's largess. Senor Clinton was interviewed by an eager press, looking for a way to exploit Romney's behind-closed-doors faux pas. How could anyone say that, just because you paid no income tax, you weren't paying your fair share? And likewise, just because 3% of the nation pays half of all income taxes, why would anyone have a problem suggesting that they should pay more?
The former president, using his considerable gift for linguistic subterfuge pointed to a study he'd read. Apparently, some economists using an arcane mathematical formula had conclusively proven that just because people didn't pay income taxes, doesn't mean that they didn't pay income taxes. In fact, according to this formula, they paid a lot in taxes, even though they hadn't paid any taxes at all. Mr. Clinton said he couldn't easily explain it, but he assured his audience of objective journalists that it made sense nonetheless. And being objective, they knew that when the former president said he had no fallacious intent, he meant it, although some of the female reporters thought he said something else and immediately vacated the building.
The point being that they dutifully spread the word that Mitt Romney had said heinous things about that 47% of the nations freeloaders....I mean taxpayers. Like all apologists for the faith, it didn't matter if they could actually explain it, it only mattered that someone could, if not Bill Clinton, then he knew somebody, who knew somebody, who could. If that isn't a fine example of faith, I don't know what would be!
But politics is not the fish that I'm looking to fry, at least not now. There will, no doubt, be many allusions to faith of all kinds, beginning with my own. This first column will only raise questions, not answer them. After all, the beginning of knowledge is asking questions. Unless we're willing to question our beliefs, how can we rightly determine if our beliefs are meaningful? Magical intuitions is the most common answer. No one says this directly, but they certainly imply it. How else can people who know absolutely nothing, claim to know so much? Magic would seem the only rational explanation, which leads us to religion.
I s All Religion a Fairy Tale?
There is an element of the fairy-tale in most faith, including most Christian belief. It doesn't have to be that way, mind you, but it frequently is. We’re told that if we just believe that Jesus is the Messiah, Son of God, the second Person of the Trinity, and then confess with our mouths, Jesus will come to “Live in our hearts”! The implication being that one need only say a few special words, “Jesus is Lord’, assent to a few ideas, and presto, you’re a Christian. With that, God writes your name down in the "Lamb's Book of Life" and when you bite the big one, you’ll go off to your heavenly home in the sky, where the streets are paved with gold and you'll live in a mansion prepared just for you.
It makes for a great story, with a quick resolution and a big payoff. And, maybe, the most important part is; whatever you lack in terms of good works, God’s grace will take care of and help to get you over that bump in the road called sin.
So, let's ask some questions. Would this work for someone like Hitler? And, could he really get into heaven if he repented of killing millions of people, turned from mass slaughter and genocide and said "Hey, I was wrong, I'm really, really sorry, Jesus, come into my heart and wash me clean"? Just exactly what does it mean to repent? Can a man who was so crazy to begin with, ever, really be normal? Would he have the capacity to come to the conclusion that he was wrong, like someone having made a mistake on a math problem. If he was crazy, and at some level just about everybody would have to acknowledge that he was, could he really be held responsible?
From a scientific or legal perspective it would mean that, without sufficient evidence, there can be no firm conclusion, no verdict of guilt or innocence, only an unsettling, ambiguous gray. But, where there are insufficient facts, there is always imagination—and imagination plays a fundamental role in all faiths, including the faith of a surprising amount of Law, Science and Philosophy.
This is only one of the many problems facing modern culture, Christianity included. There are so many unanswered questions, that to have assurance about anything much regarding why people do what they do, requires a good deal more knowledge than we currently possess. In order for us to see the "big picture," the "big story" becomes necessary. And, without the small details that make up the big picture, allegory and myth have always been the preferred method of understanding the world. That was true in the far distant past, and is still true today, only now we call it television, movies and books.
Make no mistake, myth is still the primary language of choice even if the medium has changed. For instance, we rewrite history and call it theater, the film "Inherit the Wind" being a prime example. Change a few facts with the intent of ferreting out some hidden or historical subtext, and you can change the world's view of events that entertains while educating, or indoctrinating, depending on one's perspective. When Fredrick March's character dies while being cross examined by Spencer Tracy in the remarkably well written (and acted) finale, poetic license replaces historical fact, but, since it's "Fiction," no one's harmed, right? I prefer to call this "Fistory" part fiction, part history, and with new categories created in which to express our version of events, "Fistory" could be a real winner.
So, why complain, how can we hold filmmakers or politicians accountable for telling the truth when it can be so damned hard to determine what that might really be. The responsibility falls on the the audience (or voter) to reasonably work their way through the propaganda to get at the truth. If they don't act, motivated by their own interests, no one will do it for them. Faith alone, or blind faith, will never do, anymore than mystical intuitions will.
In the biblical "Book of Acts", Herod Agrippa, "The King of the Jews" gives a rousing speech, finishes, and immediately drops dead, and the scripture says "His body was eaten by worms"! In fact, history tells us that Agrippa did get sick, but, it took him about a week to die. Having Agrippa die instantly after opposing God's people makes for compelling theater. It was the meaning of the event that the early Christians were trying to convey, not the exact historical facts. In a culture where reading and writing was rare, exacting histories simply didn't exist. In the same manner, when Frederic March dies after a brutal cross exam by Spencer Tracy's fictional Clarence Darrow, it is the poetry, the deeper meaning behind the truth, that the writer is after.
Most historians recognize that history is seldom ever so clear as to come without interpretation. The need to tell stories becomes a method of sorting out essential truths beyond mere facts, a way of interpreting the data, as it were. It would seem that people have been using "Fistory" for as long as anybody can remember.
However, working our way through the minefield that is human perception is no easy task, so let's start with the question; what is human nature? Do we really have free will? Or, are we biologically predisposed to certain kinds of behavior? Where we have more refined theories, we really don't know a whole lot more than people did two thousand years ago, or ten thousand years ago, for that matter. This poses a moral and legal conundrum for lawmakers. It poses the same difficulty for religion, which is where most of our legal codes are derived from. Judaism was formed around an evolving legal code, "The Law of Moses," which functioned as the constitution for Jewish life. It was the glue that bound the Jews together as a people. Much later, the Hebrew Bible, which contained the Mosaic Law, completed and fulfilled that role. For the overwhelmingly gentile-Christian citizens of the U.S., the New Testament, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights serve essentially the same purpose.
It makes for a great story, with a quick resolution and a big payoff. And, maybe, the most important part is; whatever you lack in terms of good works, God’s grace will take care of and help to get you over that bump in the road called sin.
So, let's ask some questions. Would this work for someone like Hitler? And, could he really get into heaven if he repented of killing millions of people, turned from mass slaughter and genocide and said "Hey, I was wrong, I'm really, really sorry, Jesus, come into my heart and wash me clean"? Just exactly what does it mean to repent? Can a man who was so crazy to begin with, ever, really be normal? Would he have the capacity to come to the conclusion that he was wrong, like someone having made a mistake on a math problem. If he was crazy, and at some level just about everybody would have to acknowledge that he was, could he really be held responsible?
From a scientific or legal perspective it would mean that, without sufficient evidence, there can be no firm conclusion, no verdict of guilt or innocence, only an unsettling, ambiguous gray. But, where there are insufficient facts, there is always imagination—and imagination plays a fundamental role in all faiths, including the faith of a surprising amount of Law, Science and Philosophy.
This is only one of the many problems facing modern culture, Christianity included. There are so many unanswered questions, that to have assurance about anything much regarding why people do what they do, requires a good deal more knowledge than we currently possess. In order for us to see the "big picture," the "big story" becomes necessary. And, without the small details that make up the big picture, allegory and myth have always been the preferred method of understanding the world. That was true in the far distant past, and is still true today, only now we call it television, movies and books.
Make no mistake, myth is still the primary language of choice even if the medium has changed. For instance, we rewrite history and call it theater, the film "Inherit the Wind" being a prime example. Change a few facts with the intent of ferreting out some hidden or historical subtext, and you can change the world's view of events that entertains while educating, or indoctrinating, depending on one's perspective. When Fredrick March's character dies while being cross examined by Spencer Tracy in the remarkably well written (and acted) finale, poetic license replaces historical fact, but, since it's "Fiction," no one's harmed, right? I prefer to call this "Fistory" part fiction, part history, and with new categories created in which to express our version of events, "Fistory" could be a real winner.
So, why complain, how can we hold filmmakers or politicians accountable for telling the truth when it can be so damned hard to determine what that might really be. The responsibility falls on the the audience (or voter) to reasonably work their way through the propaganda to get at the truth. If they don't act, motivated by their own interests, no one will do it for them. Faith alone, or blind faith, will never do, anymore than mystical intuitions will.
In the biblical "Book of Acts", Herod Agrippa, "The King of the Jews" gives a rousing speech, finishes, and immediately drops dead, and the scripture says "His body was eaten by worms"! In fact, history tells us that Agrippa did get sick, but, it took him about a week to die. Having Agrippa die instantly after opposing God's people makes for compelling theater. It was the meaning of the event that the early Christians were trying to convey, not the exact historical facts. In a culture where reading and writing was rare, exacting histories simply didn't exist. In the same manner, when Frederic March dies after a brutal cross exam by Spencer Tracy's fictional Clarence Darrow, it is the poetry, the deeper meaning behind the truth, that the writer is after.
Most historians recognize that history is seldom ever so clear as to come without interpretation. The need to tell stories becomes a method of sorting out essential truths beyond mere facts, a way of interpreting the data, as it were. It would seem that people have been using "Fistory" for as long as anybody can remember.
However, working our way through the minefield that is human perception is no easy task, so let's start with the question; what is human nature? Do we really have free will? Or, are we biologically predisposed to certain kinds of behavior? Where we have more refined theories, we really don't know a whole lot more than people did two thousand years ago, or ten thousand years ago, for that matter. This poses a moral and legal conundrum for lawmakers. It poses the same difficulty for religion, which is where most of our legal codes are derived from. Judaism was formed around an evolving legal code, "The Law of Moses," which functioned as the constitution for Jewish life. It was the glue that bound the Jews together as a people. Much later, the Hebrew Bible, which contained the Mosaic Law, completed and fulfilled that role. For the overwhelmingly gentile-Christian citizens of the U.S., the New Testament, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights serve essentially the same purpose.
Stepping Off the Ledge
Let me make it clear, this isn't an attack on religion, Jesus or Christianity. It’s an attack on a particular modern strain of Christian thought, which more closely resembles an infomercial than the "truth of the ages." It's hard, however, to put butts in seats if you make religion too complex. If you want to have a career as a big time preacher, with a hefty flock of paying customers, you’d better tell people what they want to hear. And if you’re a sinner eager for a little absolution, repentance, in the modern sense, has been made about as easy as it gets. None of this sackcloth and ashes stuff for me, just a quick confession, and if you really mean it, God will do the rest. You don’t even have to try that hard, 'cause that would be works, and we all know what the Bible says about works. We don’t? Oh well, don’t worry about it, grace, mercy and forgiveness are on the way. God will apparently usurp your will and nature, transform you with His power, and then you’ll be able to read the Bible and understand what it says. You don’t have to know Greek or Hebrew—or for that matter, know anything about history. You just go get yourself a good Bible, preferably the same Bible Jesus read, the “King James Bible,” and then begin to read all those "So and so begat so and so, and eye of the needle passages."
Sure, it sounds like gibberish at first, but once you've found yourself a good church, with a good pastor, you’ll get it—and then all that stuff about talking snakes and original sin will become clear as glass. Just remember, it’s all about faith, not knowledge, because knowledge is bad—at least the kind of knowledge that questions the Bible. So, if you don’t understand, go ask your Pastor, unless he’s a Catholic, or Jehovah Witness—some of those Lutherans are starting to look pretty iffy as well. How about a Pentecostal? Well, it depends on whether you’re a Pentecostal, in which case it’s okay. On the other hand, I’m not a Pentecostal, so maybe it isn't. But I was a Pentecostal, which could mean that I was a heretic destined for hell, or, that I've become a heretic by abandoning my previous position and am now headed straight for the fiery furnace. You can see just how messy this can get.
This is where grace kicks in. The problem with theology is that it isn't really faith based, but is the product of intellect, which would make it works. But works can't get you into heaven, so faith becomes necessary. Faith in what, you say? Faith in the aforementioned truths regarding Jesus (The Trinity, Jesus is God, salvation by faith alone, etc.). However, aren't these ideas? Wouldn't that be the stuff of the mind and, therefore, works and not faith? Not if they are supernaturally revealed, then they become faith. Why? Because you can't take credit for it—and because you can't take credit for it, it's really faith. If this sounds confusing, that’s only because it is.
Here’s how you can know for sure what’s true and what’s not! Faith, pure, simple faith is what it’s all about! I realize I said you’d “Know,” but I really mean believe—or something like that—'cause that would be about knowledge, and knowledge is works, or knowledge is bad, unless it’s “God knowledge" and then it's good! How do you distinguish between "God knowledge" and bad knowledge? Faith, my friend, pure, simple faith. Man, I’m glad we got that worked out, it was starting to get hot in here!
Mark Magula
Sure, it sounds like gibberish at first, but once you've found yourself a good church, with a good pastor, you’ll get it—and then all that stuff about talking snakes and original sin will become clear as glass. Just remember, it’s all about faith, not knowledge, because knowledge is bad—at least the kind of knowledge that questions the Bible. So, if you don’t understand, go ask your Pastor, unless he’s a Catholic, or Jehovah Witness—some of those Lutherans are starting to look pretty iffy as well. How about a Pentecostal? Well, it depends on whether you’re a Pentecostal, in which case it’s okay. On the other hand, I’m not a Pentecostal, so maybe it isn't. But I was a Pentecostal, which could mean that I was a heretic destined for hell, or, that I've become a heretic by abandoning my previous position and am now headed straight for the fiery furnace. You can see just how messy this can get.
This is where grace kicks in. The problem with theology is that it isn't really faith based, but is the product of intellect, which would make it works. But works can't get you into heaven, so faith becomes necessary. Faith in what, you say? Faith in the aforementioned truths regarding Jesus (The Trinity, Jesus is God, salvation by faith alone, etc.). However, aren't these ideas? Wouldn't that be the stuff of the mind and, therefore, works and not faith? Not if they are supernaturally revealed, then they become faith. Why? Because you can't take credit for it—and because you can't take credit for it, it's really faith. If this sounds confusing, that’s only because it is.
Here’s how you can know for sure what’s true and what’s not! Faith, pure, simple faith is what it’s all about! I realize I said you’d “Know,” but I really mean believe—or something like that—'cause that would be about knowledge, and knowledge is works, or knowledge is bad, unless it’s “God knowledge" and then it's good! How do you distinguish between "God knowledge" and bad knowledge? Faith, my friend, pure, simple faith. Man, I’m glad we got that worked out, it was starting to get hot in here!
Mark Magula
|
|
|