I've been inspired (divinely?
) to further articulate my thinking – if only for my own benefit – by a recent exchange with @SteVen . He seems to me to be nobly struggling (1) to preserve some notion of himself as a solid Christian while (2) recognizing – viscerally, intuitively and even consciously – that he simply can't accept key aspects of conventional Christian doctrine.This is indeed a noble struggle. It's exactly what James Fowler described in Stages of Faith.
It's surprising (to me) and unfortunate (to me) that more believers don't ask the questions SteVen is asking and experience the "crisis" he is experiencing. I'm frankly astonished they don't.
I regularly read and listen to some extremely influential Christian leaders and apologists. I'm agog at the stuff that comes out of their mouths. Do they really believe the stuff they say do? Do they really believe this is what the creator of the universe could possibly be like and that this could possibly be his plan for his creation? Do they really view themselves as fully human while spouting these inhuman beliefs?
Even though I started out with Campus Crusade for Christ and the Southern Baptist Church, I truly don't think I'd been a Christian more than a few days before realizing – and eventually accepting – that I could never believe this stuff. At least never believe it in the sense of "Yes, this is Ontologically True. This is the Way Things Really Are." Believe it in some vague, metaphorical sense, perhaps, but even that eventually fell by the wayside.
To somewhat revisit my first blog entry, let's consider the following as a portrait of Ontological Reality, of the Way Things Really Are:
- An omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omni-yadayada God creates a host of heavenly beings having high intelligence and free will.
- Even though these beings are in direct contact with God and are living in his kingdom, a significant number rebel against him. What the heck?
- Even though this seemingly should be a rather large clue to God as to how things would go, he nevertheless creates humans with free will.
- Even though he desires that all humans be saved, he allows Satan to have direct access to the very first couple and to beguile innocent doofus Eve, who in turn persuades innocent doofus Adam to eat the forbidden fruit.
- Even though the first couple has a direct personal relationship with God, they disobey his simple command not to eat the forbidden fruit. What the heck?
- Even though this result was inevitable and the first couple were innocent doofuses (doofusi?), God reacts in a veritable fury, human nature is forever corrupted and all of creation is plunged into chaos. What the heck?
- Human life now proceeds through the centuries – but wait, while desiring that all be saved God nevertheless allows Satan and his minions to roam the earth, beguiling and deceiving humans who already have an inherited propensity toward evil. What the heck?
- All of the above is why human and animal life comprises endless suffering, disappointment, tragedy, disease, cruelty, war and natural disasters – even though God is loving and just and desires that all be saved. What the heck?
- God does, however, sometimes intervene providentially with answered prayers, miracles, fortuitous circumstances and whatnot; alas, this is entirely hit-and-miss and is just as likely to occur to Hindus or atheists as to devout and faithful Christians. What the heck?
- The entire mess is God's plan for the glorification of himself and his Son as he expresses his love by making salvation available to anyone who turns to him notwithstanding the beguiling and deceptive efforts of Satan and his minions and notwithstanding the likelihood that billions will never hear of this offer or have any realistic opportunity to accept it. What the heck?
- Despite all of the above, God's perfect justice will eventually express itself as those who fail to turn to him are condemned to eternal torment. WHAT THE HECK?
To even pretend to believe this, I'd have to live in such a state of cognitive dissonance that I'd surely be in a straitjacket by now. Even as a crude metaphor, I find it intuitively unbelievable and unsatisfying.
Apart from some deep fear that it just might be true and that eternal torment just might be a possibility, why would anyone even pretend to believe this?
Now compare an alternative. This or something like it is the alternative suggested by Near Death experiences, experiences of Cosmic Consciousness and other mystical experiences, reincarnation studies, and many of the oldest religious and philosophical traditions:
- There is indeed a creative intelligence behind our reality.
- There is indeed an overall plan to the creation.
- That plan is as much for the creative intelligence's enjoyment as for the fulfillment of the creation.
- The plan is basically for life to express itself and become all that it can be.
- As the highest form of earthly life, humans are capable of eventually achieving a genuine relationship with and communion with the creative intelligence.
- Everything is unfolding exactly as it must. It all works together to achieve the collective fulfillment of all that life can become and all that humans can become.
- This can be achieved only in an environment in which life and free will are allowed free rein to encounter and deal with the full spectrum of possibilities of good and evil.
- The providential involvement of the creative intelligence is creative, exercised as necessary to help individuals or societies to become all they can become and prevent the process from being short-circuited.
- In the case of individuals and perhaps animals, reincarnation allows for the full spectrum of possibilities to be experienced and the maximum of growth and maturing to be achieved.
One alternative, of course, is naturalistic atheism: There is no God, there is no meaning or purpose, and all religious beliefs are just projections and wishful thinking. This is indeed a possibility – but, as SteVen suggested about himself, my own experiences point in the direction of a supernatural realm, a creative, providential intelligence and the survival of consciousness. Naturalistic atheism almost seems to me to be more in the vein of "wishful thinking," odd as this may seem.
So this was my suggestion to SteVen and would be my suggestion to anyone else who is troubled by the doctrines and dogma of established religion: Decide what you really believe and are capable of believing. If it isn't Christianity, so be it. If it doesn't fit neatly into any established religion, so be it. Don't cling to any label, any set of "required" beliefs, if you sincerely believe something different.
As I suggested to SteVen, one can have a very robust and fulfilling set of religious convictions, even ones in which Jesus plays a central role, while allowing the fundamentally unbelievable doctrines of Christianity (or Hinduism or whatever) to fall by the wayside. It's very liberating and, I believe, very psychologically healthy.
As I've said previously, no one ever – ever – evolves and matures from Fowler's Stage 5 or 6 back to Stage 2 or 3. It just doesn't happen. The evolving and maturing are always – always – in the direction of a more broad and flexible, open-ended faith that acknowledges and accepts mystery, ambiguity and uncertainty.
The late Daniel N. Robinson, who was the instructor in the 60-part Great Courses series on "Great Ideas In Philosophy," was a massive intellectual who understood every nuance of philosophy and psychology. When I first heard his presentation some 20 years ago and picked up on what I thought seemed to be an unlikely bit of spirituality in such a heavyweight academic, I wrote to him about his personal beliefs. He responded "I was raised a Roman Catholic and suppose I'll always be part of that tradition."
This is quite different from someone like Robinson thinking Roman Catholicism is Ontologically True. This is someone who recognizes and accepts the mystery and ambiguity of it all and simply chooses to express his spirituality within a particular tradition. The same was true of my old Philosophy of Religion professor – Dr. William F. Nietmann. He had a field day making fools of us simple-minded Campus Crusaders. The class was astonished to learn that this seemingly hardboiled unbeliever actually attended the local Methodist church and sang in the choir. ("Oh, yes, I'm one of the Golden Voices of Israel," he sheepishly admitted when confronted.) His "unbelief" was not unbelief at all but merely a challenge to our mindless "Christian" prattle.
That would be my advice to someone like SteVen: Decide what you actually believe and are capable of believing. Forget about labels, doctrine and dogma. If you choose to express your spirituality in a church environmen or faith community, honestly acknowledge to yourself what you are doing and be at peace with it. Give up the struggle of trying to pound the square pegs of what you actually believe into the round holes of what you're "supposed" to believe (or "must" believe) as a member of that church or community. And, of course, don't try to persuade others that they are wrong in what they believe or that what you believe is somehow the "real" Christianity if it's fundamentally at odds with what Christianity has been understood to be for the past 2,000 years.
Or perhaps go the O'Darby route and start your very own "Little Church of What O'Darby Believes."
